Contents

• Introduction
• Methodology
• FY2016 Title I-A Grants

Summary

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was comprehensively 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 iswas funded at $14.9 billion for FY2016. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12elementary and secondary 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 estimatedfinal FY2016 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California is estimated to receivereceived the largest FY2016 Title I-A grant amount ($1.8 billion or 11.98% of total Title I-A grants). Wyoming is estimated to receivereceived the smallest FY2016 Title I-A grant amount ($34.78 million or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants). As final data needed to determine actual Title I-A grants for FY2016 are not yet available, all of the estimates included in this report are subject to change before ED makes final Title I-A grant allocations on October 1, 2016.

24% of total Title I-A grants).

---

FY2016 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-12elementary and secondary education. Title I-A is the largest program in the ESEA, funded at $14.9 billion for FY2016. Title I-A is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12elementary and secondary 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 These changes took effect in FY2017.²

This report provides estimatedfinal FY2016 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants.³ 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 R44461, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

Methodology

Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs) using the four Title I-A formulas. Annual appropriations bills specify portions of each year's Title I-A appropriation to be allocated to LEAs and states under each of thesethe formulas. In FY2016, about 43% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grants formula, 9% through the Concentration Grants formula, and 24% through each ofeach through 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-12elementary and secondary 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.

EstimatedFinal FY2016 grants included in this report were calculated by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) using the most current data available.³ED. 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. As final data needed to determine actual Title I-A grants for FY2016 are not yet available, all of the estimates are subject to change before ED makes final Title I-A grant allocations on October 1, 2016.

FY2016 Title I-A Grants

Table 1 provides each state's estimated grant amount and percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2016.⁴ 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 is estimated to receivereceived the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($1.8 billion) and, as a result, the largest percentage share (11.98%) of Title I-A grants. Wyoming is estimated to receivereceived the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($34.78 million) and, as a result, the smallest percentage share (0.2324%) of Title I-A grants.

In general, grant amounts for states vary among formulas due to the different allocation amounts for the formulas. For example, the Basic Grant formula receives a greater share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration Grant formula, so states generally receive higher estimated grant amounts under the Basic Grant formula than under the Concentration Grant 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, is estimated to receivereceived a higher estimated grant amount and larger share of Title I-A funds.

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, Florida 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 GrantGrants 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 GrantGrants formula is less favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be.⁵

In states that are estimated to receivereceived a minimum grant under all four formulas (Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming), the shares under the Targeted GrantGrants and EFIG formulas are greater than under the Basic Grants or Concentration GrantGrants formulas, due to higher state minimums under these formulas. All states receiving a minimum grant under any of the four Title I-A formulas areIf a state received the minimum grant under a given Title I-A formula, the grant amount is denoted with an asterisk (*) in Table 1.

Author Contact Information

Acknowledgments

[author name scrubbed], research assistant at CRS, also contributed to this report.

Analyst in Education Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

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.	In instances where data needed to calculate FY2016 Title I-A grants were not yet available, ED used data that were used to calculate FY2015 Title I-A grant amounts instead. For example, final state average per pupil expenditure (APPE) data needed to calculate FY2016 grants will not be available until later this yearThis report is one in a series of annual reports on Title I-A state grants. For more information about FY2015 Title I-A grants to states, see CRS Report R44097, FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), by [author name scrubbed].
4.	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 FY2016, ED estimates that the BIE will receive $99.6 million, American Samoa $11.3 million, Guam $16.5the BIE received $102.7 million, American Samoa received $12.1 million, Guam received $17.1 million, the Northern Mariana Islands $6.8received $7.3 million, and the Virgin Islands received $9.8 million.
5.	Both Florida and Nevada receivereceived 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.