.
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
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.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
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
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
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.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
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
under 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 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.
In general, estimated grant amounts for states vary between formulas due to the different
allocation amounts for the formulas. For example, the Basic Grants formula receives a greater
share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration Grants formula, so states
generally receive higher estimated grant amounts under the Basic Grants 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 state 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’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 receive a substantially higher percentage share of Targeted
Grants than of their overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Targeted Grants formula is more
favorable to them than other Title I-A formulas may be. At the same time, both states are
estimated to receive 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.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
.
Estimated FY2015 State Grants Under Title I-A of the ESEA
In states that receive a minimum grant under all four formulas (the District of Columbia, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont), the shares under the Targeted Grants and EFIG formulas
are greater than under Basic or Concentration Grants, 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
Table 1. Estimated FY2015 Title I-A State Grants and Percentage Share of Funds
Dollars in thousands
Basic Grants
Concentration Grants
Targeted Grants
EFIG
Total Title I-A Grants
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
State
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Total, U.S.
$6,390,863
100.00% $1,348,678
100.00%
$3,261,110
100.00%
$3,261,110
100.00%
$14,261,760
100.00%
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
.
Basic Grants
Concentration Grants
Targeted Grants
EFIG
Total Title I-A Grants
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
State
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Louisiana
$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%
North Dakotad
$14,385
0.23%
$2,037
0.15%
$8,519
0.26%
$8,546
0.26%
$33,486
0.23%
Ohio
$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%
Pennsylvania
$253,155
3.96%
$48,003
3.56%
$117,500
3.60%
$125,361
3.84%
$544,019
3.81%
c11173008
.
Basic Grants
Concentration Grants
Targeted Grants
EFIG
Total Title I-A Grants
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Share of
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
Estimated
Total
State
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Grant
Allocation
Puerto Rico
$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 al ocation 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.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008