.
Estimated
FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA)
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
July 2, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44097
c11173008
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
.
Summary
Act (ESEA)
March 31, 2016
(R44097)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was
last comprehensively
amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 114th Congress, both the
House and the Senate have actively worked on reauthorizing the ESEA. The House Education
and the Workforce Committee reported the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which would provide
for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. The bill was subsequently introduced on the
House floor but consideration of it was not completed. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (HELP) Committee reported the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177),
which would also provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. S. 1177 has not been
considered on the Senate floor.
Under both H.R. 5 and S. 1177, the ESEA Title I-A program providing grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs) for disadvantaged students would be retained. Under current law, appropriations
for the Title I-A program were $14.4 billion for FY2015, accounting for over 60% of the overall
$23.1 billion appropriated for all ESEA programs. As Title I-A is the largest ESEA program and
both the House and the Senate are actively engaged in reauthorizing the ESEA, this report
provides estimated FY2015 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to
determine Title I-A grants to aid in consideration of reauthorizing the Title I-A program.
Overall, California is estimated to receive the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($1.7 billion)
and, as a result, the largest percentage share (11.81%) of Title I-A grants. Wyoming is estimated
to receive the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($33.1 million) and, as a result, the smallest
percentage share (0.23%) of Title I-A grants.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
.
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 1
Estimated Title I-A Grants ............................................................................................................... 2
Tables
Table 1. Estimated FY2015 Title I-A State Grants and Percentage Share of Funds ........................ 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 7
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 7
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
.
Introduction
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was last comprehensively amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110). During the 114th Congress, both the
House and the Senate have actively worked on reauthorizing the ESEA. The House Education
and the Workforce Committee reported the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), which would provide
for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. The bill was subsequently introduced on the
House floor but consideration of it was not completed. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions (HELP) Committee reported the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA; S. 1177),
which would also provide for a comprehensive reauthorization of the ESEA. S. 1177 has not been
considered on the Senate floor.1
Under both H.R. 5 and S. 1177, the ESEA Title I-A program providing grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs) for disadvantaged students would be retained.2 Under current law,
appropriations for the Title I-A program were $14.4 billion for FY2015, accounting for over 60%
of the overall $23.1 billion appropriated for all ESEA programs. As Title I-A is the largest ESEA
program and both the House and the Senate are actively engaged in reauthorizing the ESEA, this
report provides estimated FY2015 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to
determine Title I-A grants to aid in consideration of reauthorizing the Title I-A program.3
Methodology
Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via states using four different allocation formulas
specified in statute: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance
Incentive Grants (EFIG).4 Annual appropriations bills specify portions of each year’s Title I-A
appropriation to be allocated to LEAs and states under each of these formulas. In FY2015, an
estimated 45% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grants formula, 9%
through the Concentration Grants formula, and 23% through each of the Targeted Grants and
EFIG formulas.
Under three of the formulas–Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants–funds are initially
calculated at the LEA level. State grants are the total of allocations for all LEAs in the state,
adjusted for state minimum grant provisions.5 Under EFIG, grants are first calculated for each
state overall and then are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within the state using a different
1
For more information about H.R. 5 and S. 1177, see CRS Report R43916, ESEA Reauthorization Proposals in the
114th Congress: Selected Key Issues, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.
2
For general information about the Title I-A program, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
3
This report updates a CRS Congressional Distribution memorandum on Title I-A state grant amounts dated May 26,
2015. Newly available (July 2015) data were used in the updated grant estimates.
4
For more information about the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education
Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
5
All four Title I-A formulas include minimum grant provisions that prevent state grants from falling below a certain
threshold. Minimum grant provisions vary by Title I-A formula. For more information on the minimum grant
provisions in Title I-A, see CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of
the Allocation Formulas, by Rebecca R. Skinner.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
.
formula. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined
and used jointly.
Estimated FY2015 grants were calculated by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) using the
most current data available.6 The percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A
formulas was calculated by CRS for each state by dividing the total grant received by the total
amount allocated under each respective formula. Final FY2015 Title I-A state grant amounts will
be determined by ED by October 1, 2015.
Estimated Title I-A Grants
Table 1 provides each state’s estimated grant amount and percentage share of funds allocated
reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) on December 10, 2015. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $14.4 billion for FY2015. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families.
Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others.
This report provides final FY2015 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2015 Title I-A grant amount ($1.7 billion or 11.81% of total Title I-A grants). Wyoming received the smallest FY2015 Title I-A grant amount ($33.1 million or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants).
FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Introduction
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the primary source of federal aid to K-12 education. Title I-A is the largest program in the ESEA, funded at $14.4 billion for FY2015. Title I-A is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG).
The ESEA was comprehensively reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) on December 10, 2015.1 The ESSA made few changes to the Title I-A formulas. Changes to the Title I-A formulas under the ESSA will take effect beginning in FY2017.2
This report provides final FY2015 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. For a general overview of the Title I-A formulas see CRS Report R44164, ESEA Title I-A Formulas: In Brief, by [author name scrubbed]. For a more detailed discussion of the Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by [author name scrubbed].
Methodology
Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs) using four different allocation formulas specified in statute: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). Annual appropriations bills specify portions of each year's Title I-A appropriation to be allocated to LEAs and states under each of these formulas. In FY2015, about 45% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grants formula, 9% through the Concentration Grants formula, and 23% through each of the Targeted Grants and EFIG formulas. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly.
For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a "formula child count," consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, by an "expenditure factor" based on state average per pupil expenditures for public K-12 education. In some formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the formula child count and expenditure factor. These maximum grants are then reduced to equal the level of available appropriations for each formula, taking into account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant provisions. In general, LEAs must have a minimum number of formula children and/or a minimum formula child rate to be eligible to receive a grant under a specific Title I-A formula. Some LEAs may qualify for a grant under only one formula, while other LEAs may be eligible to receive grants under multiple formulas.
Under three of the formulas—Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants—funds are initially calculated at the LEA level. State grants are the total of allocations for all LEAs in the state, adjusted for state minimum grant provisions. Under EFIG, grants are first calculated for each state overall and then are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within the state using a different formula.
Final FY2015 grants included in this report were calculated by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas was calculated by CRS for each state by dividing the total grant received by the total amount allocated under each respective formula.
FY2015 Title I-A Grants
Table 1 provides each state's grant amount and percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2015.3under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2015. Total Title I-A grants, calculated by summing
the state level grant for each of the four formulas, are also shown in
Table 1.
Overall, California receivedTable 1.
Overall, California is estimated to receive the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($1.7 billion)
and, as a result, the largest percentage share (11.81%) of Title I-A grants. Wyoming
is estimated
to receivereceived the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($33.1 million) and, as a result, the smallest
percentage share (0.23%) of Title I-A grants.
In general,
estimated grant amounts for states vary
betweenamong formulas due to the different
allocation amounts for the formulas. For example, the Basic
GrantsGrant formula receives a greater
share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration
GrantsGrant formula, so states
generally receive higher estimated grant amounts under the Basic
GrantsGrant formula than under the
Concentration
Grants formula. In addition, the percentage share of funds received overall and
under each of the four formulas differs by stateGrant formula.
Among states, Title I-A grant amounts and the percentage shares of funds vary due to the different characteristics of each state.
For example, Texas has a much larger population of children included in the formula calculations
than North Carolina and, therefore, receives a higher estimated grant amount and larger share of
Title I-A funds.
If a state’
Within a state, the percentage share of funds allocated may vary by formula, as certain formulas are more favorable to certain types of states (e.g., EFIG is generally more favorable to states with comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs). If a state's share of a given Title I-A formula exceeds its share of overall Title I-A funds, this is
generally an indication that this particular formula is more favorable to the state than formulas for
which the state
’'s share of funds is below its overall share of Title I-A funds. For example, New
York and Nevada
are estimated to receivereceived a substantially higher percentage share of Targeted
Grants than of their overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Targeted
GrantsGrant formula is more
favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be. At the same time, both states
are
estimated to receivereceived a smaller percentage share of Basic Grants than of their overall Title I-A
funds, indicating that the Basic
Grants formula is less favorable to them than other Title I-A
formulas may be.7
6
The estimated grant amounts included in this report are based on the data used by ED to determine FY2015 Title I-A
grant amounts for the initial allocation of funds on July 1, 2015. It is possible that the underlying data used to determine
these grant amounts (e.g., average per pupil expenditure (APPE) data) may change prior to the final calculation of Title
I-A grant amounts by ED that will be used to determine grant amounts for the October 1, 2015, allocation of funds.
7
Both Nevada and New York receive their largest estimated grants under the Basic Grants formula, but this is due to
the larger appropriation provided for Basic Grants. An examination of the percentage share each state receives under
each of the four formulas provides an indication of which formulas are most beneficial to a particular state. In general,
a state would receive a larger overall Title I-A grant if a greater percentage of the Title I-A appropriation was provided
to the formula(s) under which the state benefits the most.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
2
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
.
Grant formula is less favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be.4
In states that receive a minimum grant under all four formulas (
the District of Columbia, North
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont), the shares under the Targeted
GrantsGrant and EFIG formulas
are greater than under
the Basic or Concentration
GrantsGrant formulas, due to higher state minimums under these
formulas. All states receiving a minimum grant under any of the four Title I-A formulas are
denoted in Table 1.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Table 1. Estimated denoted with an asterisk (*) in Table 1.
Table 1. Final FY2015 Title I-A State Grants and Percentage Share of Funds
Dollars in thousands
Concentration Grants
Basic Grants
State
Total, U.S.
Estimated
Grant
$6,390,863
Percentage
Percentage
Share of
Share of
Total
Total
Estimated
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
100.00% $1,348,678
Targeted Grants
EFIG
Total Title I-A Grants
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Share of
Total
Allocation
Percentage
Share of
Total
Estimated
Grant
Allocation
100.00%
$3,261,110
100.00%
$3,261,110
100.00%
$14,261,760
100.00%
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Share of
Total
Allocation
Alabama
$98,996
1.55%
$22,270
1.65%
$48,645
1.49%
$51,765
1.59%
$221,675
1.55%
Alaskaa
$16,123
0.25%
$2,378
0.18%
$9,424
0.29%
$9,410
0.29%
$37,335
0.26%
Arizona
$145,033
2.27%
$31,446
2.33%
$77,003
2.36%
$69,340
2.13%
$322,822
2.26%
Arkansas
$69,417
1.09%
$15,776
1.17%
$32,545
1.00%
$36,713
1.13%
$154,451
1.08%
California
$755,016
11.81%
$162,811
12.07%
$405,687
12.44%
$361,463
11.08%
$1,684,977
11.81%
Colorado
$69,641
1.09%
$12,377
0.92%
$32,715
1.00%
$35,353
1.08%
$150,086
1.05%
Connecticut
$56,605
0.89%
$8,734
0.65%
$21,498
0.66%
$29,159
0.89%
$115,996
0.81%
Delawareb
$17,879
0.28%
$4,291
0.32%
$11,107
0.34%
$11,072
0.34%
$44,349
0.31%
District of Columbiaa
$17,744
0.28%
$3,994
0.30%
$10,557
0.32%
$10,525
0.32%
$42,820
0.30%
Florida
$321,382
5.03%
$75,272
5.58%
$201,580
6.18%
$177,092
5.43%
$775,326
5.44%
Georgia
$217,886
3.41%
$50,042
3.71%
$116,842
3.58%
$114,479
3.51%
$499,248
3.50%
Hawaiic
$19,468
0.30%
$4,583
0.34%
$11,414
0.35%
$11,579
0.36%
$47,045
0.33%
Idahoc
$27,270
0.43%
$5,860
0.43%
$11,414
0.35%
$12,760
0.39%
$57,304
0.40%
Illinois
$305,084
4.77%
$60,434
4.48%
$155,157
4.76%
$143,115
4.39%
$663,791
4.65%
Indiana
$120,256
1.88%
$24,896
1.85%
$51,379
1.58%
$61,905
1.90%
$258,436
1.81%
Iowa
$44,784
0.70%
$7,733
0.57%
$15,857
0.49%
$22,885
0.70%
$91,259
0.64%
Kansas
$49,554
0.78%
$9,385
0.70%
$20,498
0.63%
$24,689
0.76%
$104,127
0.73%
Kentucky
$94,551
1.48%
$21,506
1.59%
$45,841
1.41%
$49,978
1.53%
$211,876
1.49%
c11173008
.
Concentration Grants
Basic Grants
State
Louisiana
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Percentage
Share of
Share of
Total
Total
Estimated
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Targeted Grants
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Share of
Total
Allocation
EFIG
Total Title I-A Grants
Percentage
Share of
Total
Estimated
Grant
Allocation
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Share of
Total
Allocation
$125,066
1.96%
$29,737
2.20%
$65,250
2.00%
$64,758
1.99%
$284,811
2.00%
Maineb
$22,793
0.36%
$4,466
0.33%
$11,414
0.35%
$11,414
0.35%
$50,087
0.35%
Maryland
$86,084
1.35%
$16,802
1.25%
$46,200
1.42%
$46,759
1.43%
$195,845
1.37%
Massachusetts
$111,652
1.75%
$18,953
1.41%
$46,015
1.41%
$55,115
1.69%
$231,735
1.62%
Michigan
$225,482
3.53%
$46,817
3.47%
$113,388
3.48%
$113,055
3.47%
$498,742
3.50%
Minnesota
$73,962
1.16%
$10,299
0.76%
$28,311
0.87%
$36,076
1.11%
$148,649
1.04%
Mississippi
$83,666
1.31%
$19,716
1.46%
$44,455
1.36%
$42,817
1.31%
$190,654
1.34%
Missouri
$112,743
1.76%
$23,714
1.76%
$49,425
1.52%
$54,936
1.68%
$240,817
1.69%
Montanab
$18,503
0.29%
$4,142
0.31%
$11,414
0.35%
$11,414
0.35%
$45,473
0.32%
Nebraska
$32,355
0.51%
$6,197
0.46%
$13,474
0.41%
$16,845
0.52%
$68,871
0.48%
Nevada
$47,954
0.75%
$11,105
0.82%
$32,640
1.00%
$24,991
0.77%
$116,689
0.82%
New Hampshirea
$17,187
0.27%
$2,994
0.22%
$9,571
0.29%
$9,975
0.31%
$39,727
0.28%
New Jersey
$159,161
2.49%
$25,958
1.92%
$64,605
1.98%
$80,536
2.47%
$330,260
2.32%
New Mexico
$50,206
0.79%
$11,632
0.86%
$26,888
0.82%
$27,480
0.84%
$116,205
0.81%
New York
$477,354
7.47%
$102,018
7.56%
$286,390
8.78%
$238,384
7.31%
$1,104,146
7.74%
North Carolina
$182,646
2.86%
$42,421
3.15%
$94,031
2.88%
$97,889
3.00%
$416,987
2.92%
Dakotad
$14,385
0.23%
$2,037
0.15%
$8,519
0.26%
$8,546
0.26%
$33,486
0.23%
$256,854
4.02%
$52,379
3.88%
$117,370
3.60%
$131,811
4.04%
$558,414
3.92%
Oklahoma
$71,467
1.12%
$15,343
1.14%
$32,202
0.99%
$37,241
1.14%
$156,253
1.10%
Oregon
$64,950
1.02%
$14,397
1.07%
$27,789
0.85%
$33,572
1.03%
$140,708
0.99%
$253,155
3.96%
$48,003
3.56%
$117,500
3.60%
$125,361
3.84%
$544,019
3.81%
North
Ohio
Pennsylvania
c11173008
.
Concentration Grants
Basic Grants
State
Puerto Rico
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Percentage
Share of
Share of
Total
Total
Estimated
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Targeted Grants
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Share of
Total
Allocation
EFIG
Total Title I-A Grants
Percentage
Share of
Total
Estimated
Grant
Allocation
Estimated
Grant
Percentage
Share of
Total
Allocation
$184,398
2.89%
$46,822
3.47%
$95,001
2.91%
$92,247
2.83%
$418,467
2.93%
Rhode Islandc
$22,221
0.35%
$4,240
0.31%
$11,414
0.35%
$11,460
0.35%
$49,334
0.35%
South Carolina
$99,873
1.56%
$23,338
1.73%
$49,155
1.51%
$53,451
1.64%
$225,816
1.58%
South Dakotad
$17,744
0.28%
$3,327
0.25%
$11,199
0.34%
$11,200
0.34%
$43,470
0.30%
Tennessee
$124,511
1.95%
$28,378
2.10%
$64,411
1.98%
$66,334
2.03%
$283,633
1.99%
Texas
$576,925
9.03%
$128,428
9.52%
$313,786
9.62%
$301,296
9.24%
$1,320,435
9.26%
Utah
$40,396
0.63%
$7,003
0.52%
$18,716
0.57%
$21,070
0.65%
$87,185
0.61%
Vermontd
$14,036
0.22%
$2,450
0.18%
$8,307
0.25%
$8,403
0.26%
$33,196
0.23%
Virginia
$117,010
1.83%
$21,982
1.63%
$50,679
1.55%
$53,963
1.65%
$243,634
1.71%
Washington
$108,628
1.70%
$21,315
1.58%
$45,365
1.39%
$54,989
1.69%
$230,297
1.61%
West Virginia
$40,617
0.64%
$9,176
0.68%
$16,796
0.52%
$22,620
0.69%
$89,209
0.63%
Wisconsin
$96,036
1.50%
$17,210
1.28%
$41,858
1.28%
$53,417
1.64%
$208,522
1.46%
Wyominga
$14,154
0.22%
$2,092
0.16%
$8,410
0.26%
$8,403
0.26%
$33,060
0.23%
Source: Table prepared by CRS, July 2, 2015, based on unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget Service. Estimated FY2015 Title I-A
grant amounts were calculated by ED. Estimated percentage shares of FY2015 allocation amounts were calculated by CRS.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
a.
State receives a minimum grant under the Basic Grants, Targeted Grants, and EFIG formulas.
b.
State receives a minimum grant under the Targeted Grants and EFIG formulas.
c.
State receives a minimum grant under the Targeted Grants formula.
d.
State receives a minimum grant under all four formulas.
Notice: These are estimated grants only. These estimates are provided solely to assist in comparisons of the relative impact of alternative formulas
and funding levels in the legislative process. They are not intended to predict specific amounts states will receive. In addition to other limitations,
data needed to calculate final grants may not yet be available.
c11173008
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
.
Author Contact Information
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
rskinner@crs.loc.gov, 7-6600
Acknowledgments
Leah Rosenstiel and Elizabeth Crowe, Research Assistants at CRS, also contributed to this report.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
7
Dollars in thousands
Basic Grants
|
Concentration Grants
|
Targeted Grants
|
EFIG
|
Total Title I-A Grants
|
|
State
|
Grant Amount
|
Percentage Share of Total Allocation
|
Grant Amount
|
Percentage Share of Total Allocation
|
Grant Amount
|
Percentage Share of Total Allocation
|
Grant Amount
|
Percentage Share of Total Allocation
|
Grant Amount
|
Percentage Share of Total Allocation
|
|
Total, U.S.
|
$6,390,863
|
100%
|
$1,348,678
|
100%
|
$3,261,110
|
100%
|
$3,261,110
|
100%
|
$14,261,760
|
100%
|
|
Alabama
|
$99,019
|
1.55%
|
$22,275
|
1.65%
|
$48,654
|
1.49%
|
$51,769
|
1.59%
|
$221,717
|
1.55%
|
|
Alaska
|
$16,123*
|
0.25%
|
$2,378
|
0.18%
|
$9,424*
|
0.29%
|
$9,410*
|
0.29%
|
$37,335
|
0.26%
|
|
Arizona
|
$145,066
|
2.27%
|
$31,453
|
2.33%
|
$77,018
|
2.36%
|
$69,361
|
2.13%
|
$322,898
|
2.26%
|
|
Arkansas
|
$69,408
|
1.09%
|
$15,774
|
1.17%
|
$32,541
|
1.00%
|
$36,724
|
1.13%
|
$154,447
|
1.08%
|
|
California
|
$754,864
|
11.81%
|
$162,782
|
12.07%
|
$405,606
|
12.44%
|
$361,434
|
11.08%
|
$1,684,686
|
11.81%
|
|
Colorado
|
$69,630
|
1.09%
|
$12,375
|
0.92%
|
$32,709
|
1.00%
|
$35,363
|
1.08%
|
$150,078
|
1.05%
|
|
Connecticut
|
$56,616
|
0.89%
|
$8,736
|
0.65%
|
$21,502
|
0.66%
|
$29,167
|
0.89%
|
$116,022
|
0.81%
|
|
Delaware
|
$17,882
|
0.28%
|
$4,292
|
0.32%
|
$11,107*
|
0.34%
|
$11,072*
|
0.34%
|
$44,353
|
0.31%
|
|
District of Columbia
|
$17,744*
|
0.28%
|
$3,994
|
0.30%
|
$10,557*
|
0.32%
|
$10,525*
|
0.32%
|
$42,820
|
0.30%
|
|
Florida
|
$321,477
|
5.03%
|
$75,295
|
5.58%
|
$201,637
|
6.18%
|
$177,144
|
5.43%
|
$775,554
|
5.44%
|
|
Georgia
|
$217,854
|
3.41%
|
$50,035
|
3.71%
|
$116,825
|
3.58%
|
$114,489
|
3.51%
|
$499,203
|
3.50%
|
|
Hawaii
|
$19,490
|
0.30%
|
$4,588
|
0.34%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$11,624
|
0.36%
|
$47,116
|
0.33%
|
|
Idaho
|
$27,277
|
0.43%
|
$5,862
|
0.43%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$12,763
|
0.39%
|
$57,316
|
0.40%
|
|
Illinois
|
$305,173
|
4.78%
|
$60,453
|
4.48%
|
$155,200
|
4.76%
|
$143,157
|
4.39%
|
$663,984
|
4.66%
|
|
Indiana
|
$120,236
|
1.88%
|
$24,892
|
1.85%
|
$51,372
|
1.58%
|
$61,877
|
1.90%
|
$258,377
|
1.81%
|
|
Iowa
|
$44,774
|
0.70%
|
$7,731
|
0.57%
|
$15,854
|
0.49%
|
$22,879
|
0.70%
|
$91,238
|
0.64%
|
|
Kansas
|
$49,545
|
0.78%
|
$9,384
|
0.70%
|
$20,494
|
0.63%
|
$24,683
|
0.76%
|
$104,106
|
0.73%
|
|
Kentucky
|
$94,540
|
1.48%
|
$21,504
|
1.59%
|
$45,836
|
1.41%
|
$49,965
|
1.53%
|
$211,846
|
1.49%
|
|
Louisiana
|
$124,799
|
1.95%
|
$29,677
|
2.20%
|
$65,125
|
2.00%
|
$64,564
|
1.98%
|
$284,165
|
1.99%
|
|
Maine
|
$22,798
|
0.36%
|
$4,467
|
0.33%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$50,093
|
0.35%
|
|
Maryland
|
$86,104
|
1.35%
|
$16,806
|
1.25%
|
$46,210
|
1.42%
|
$46,772
|
1.43%
|
$195,893
|
1.37%
|
|
Massachusetts
|
$111,685
|
1.75%
|
$18,959
|
1.41%
|
$46,028
|
1.41%
|
$55,131
|
1.69%
|
$231,804
|
1.63%
|
|
Michigan
|
$225,457
|
3.53%
|
$46,813
|
3.47%
|
$113,378
|
3.48%
|
$113,027
|
3.47%
|
$498,675
|
3.50%
|
|
Minnesota
|
$73,946
|
1.16%
|
$10,297
|
0.76%
|
$28,304
|
0.87%
|
$36,067
|
1.11%
|
$148,615
|
1.04%
|
|
Mississippi
|
$83,683
|
1.31%
|
$19,720
|
1.46%
|
$44,462
|
1.36%
|
$42,829
|
1.31%
|
$190,695
|
1.34%
|
|
Missouri
|
$112,722
|
1.76%
|
$23,710
|
1.76%
|
$49,417
|
1.52%
|
$54,911
|
1.68%
|
$240,760
|
1.69%
|
|
Montana
|
$18,499
|
0.29%
|
$4,142
|
0.31%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$45,469
|
0.32%
|
|
Nebraska
|
$32,348
|
0.51%
|
$6,196
|
0.46%
|
$13,472
|
0.41%
|
$16,837
|
0.52%
|
$68,852
|
0.48%
|
|
Nevada
|
$47,967
|
0.75%
|
$11,108
|
0.82%
|
$32,648
|
1.00%
|
$24,998
|
0.77%
|
$116,721
|
0.82%
|
|
New Hampshire
|
$17,187*
|
0.27%
|
$2,994
|
0.22%
|
$9,571*
|
0.29%
|
$9,975*
|
0.31%
|
$39,727
|
0.28%
|
|
New Jersey
|
$159,208
|
2.49%
|
$25,966
|
1.93%
|
$64,624
|
1.98%
|
$80,559
|
2.47%
|
$330,357
|
2.32%
|
|
New Mexico
|
$50,218
|
0.79%
|
$11,635
|
0.86%
|
$26,894
|
0.82%
|
$27,482
|
0.84%
|
$116,229
|
0.81%
|
|
New York
|
$477,496
|
7.47%
|
$102,036
|
7.57%
|
$286,454
|
8.78%
|
$238,454
|
7.31%
|
$1,104,439
|
7.74%
|
|
North Carolina
|
$182,689
|
2.86%
|
$42,431
|
3.15%
|
$94,050
|
2.88%
|
$97,918
|
3.00%
|
$417,089
|
2.92%
|
|
North Dakota
|
$14,385*
|
0.23%
|
$2,037*
|
0.15%
|
$8,519*
|
0.26%
|
$8,546*
|
0.26%
|
$33,486
|
0.23%
|
|
Ohio
|
$256,815
|
4.02%
|
$52,373
|
3.88%
|
$117,355
|
3.60%
|
$131,778
|
4.04%
|
$558,321
|
3.91%
|
|
Oklahoma
|
$71,486
|
1.12%
|
$15,347
|
1.14%
|
$32,210
|
0.99%
|
$37,252
|
1.14%
|
$156,295
|
1.10%
|
|
Oregon
|
$64,801
|
1.01%
|
$14,365
|
1.07%
|
$27,737
|
0.85%
|
$33,421
|
1.02%
|
$140,325
|
0.98%
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
$253,202
|
3.96%
|
$48,010
|
3.56%
|
$117,513
|
3.60%
|
$125,398
|
3.85%
|
$544,123
|
3.82%
|
|
Puerto Rico
|
$184,398
|
2.89%
|
$46,822
|
3.47%
|
$95,001
|
2.91%
|
$92,274
|
2.83%
|
$418,495
|
2.93%
|
|
Rhode Island
|
$22,228
|
0.35%
|
$4,240
|
0.31%
|
$11,414*
|
0.35%
|
$11,463
|
0.35%
|
$49,345
|
0.35%
|
|
South Carolina
|
$99,851
|
1.56%
|
$23,333
|
1.73%
|
$49,144
|
1.51%
|
$53,437
|
1.64%
|
$225,766
|
1.58%
|
|
South Dakota
|
$17,744*
|
0.28%
|
$3,327*
|
0.25%
|
$11,199*
|
0.34%
|
$11,200*
|
0.34%
|
$43,470
|
0.30%
|
|
Tennessee
|
$124,544
|
1.95%
|
$28,386
|
2.10%
|
$64,427
|
1.98%
|
$66,353
|
2.03%
|
$283,710
|
1.99%
|
|
Texas
|
$577,049
|
9.03%
|
$128,452
|
9.52%
|
$313,846
|
9.62%
|
$301,385
|
9.24%
|
$1,320,732
|
9.26%
|
|
Utah
|
$40,408
|
0.63%
|
$7,005
|
0.52%
|
$18,722
|
0.57%
|
$21,077
|
0.65%
|
$87,212
|
0.61%
|
|
Vermont
|
$14,036*
|
0.22%
|
$2,450*
|
0.18%
|
$8,307*
|
0.25%
|
$8,403*
|
0.26%
|
$33,196
|
0.23%
|
|
Virginia
|
$116,984
|
1.83%
|
$21,977
|
1.63%
|
$50,668
|
1.55%
|
$53,950
|
1.65%
|
$243,580
|
1.71%
|
|
Washington
|
$108,606
|
1.70%
|
$21,311
|
1.58%
|
$45,356
|
1.39%
|
$54,975
|
1.69%
|
$230,248
|
1.61%
|
|
West Virginia
|
$40,630
|
0.64%
|
$9,180
|
0.68%
|
$16,801
|
0.52%
|
$22,629
|
0.69%
|
$89,240
|
0.63%
|
|
Wisconsin
|
$96,016
|
1.50%
|
$17,207
|
1.28%
|
$41,850
|
1.28%
|
$53,404
|
1.64%
|
$208,477
|
1.46%
|
|
Wyoming
|
$14,154*
|
0.22%
|
$2,092
|
0.16%
|
$8,410*
|
0.26%
|
$8,403*
|
0.26%
|
$33,060
|
0.23%
|
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget Service. FY2015 Title I-A grant amounts were calculated by ED. Percentage shares of FY2015 allocation amounts were calculated by CRS.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages calculated based on unrounded numbers. An asterisk (*) denotes minimum grants.
Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Education Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Acknowledgments
[author name scrubbed], Research Assistant at CRS, and Elizabeth Crowe, former Research Assistant at CRS, also contributed to this report.
Footnotes
| 1.
|
For more information on the ESSA, see CRS Report R44297, Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Highlights of the Every Student Succeeds Act, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
|
| 2.
|
While the ESSA included provisions for changes to the Title I-A formula grant allocation process to take effect on July 1, 2016, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-113) changed the effective date of these provisions to July 1, 2017.
|
| 3.
|
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and the Outlying Areas receive 1% of overall Title I-A appropriations less a reservation of funds for the U.S. Census Bureau. The allocation of the 1% set-aside among the BIE and the Outlying Areas is determined at the discretion of the Secretary of Education. In FY2015, the BIE received $95.8 million, American Samoa received $10.3 million, Guam received $15.4 million, the Northern Mariana Islands received $6.6 million, and the Virgin Islands received $10.9 million.
|
| 4.
|
Both Nevada and New York receive their largest estimated grants under the Basic Grants formula, but this is due to the larger appropriation provided for Basic Grants. An examination of the percentage share each state receives under each of the four formulas provides an indication of which formulas are most beneficial to a particular state. In general, a state would receive a larger overall Title I-A grant if a greater percentage of the Title I-A appropriation was provided to the formula(s) under which the state benefits the most.
|