ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer
September 19, 2023
Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes aid to local
educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A
Rebecca R. Skinner
grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and
Specialist in Education
other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high
Policy
concentrations of children from low-income families. The Title I-A program is the

largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $18.4 billion for
Isobel Sorenson
FY2023.
Research Assistant

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to LEAs based on
four separate funding formulas: 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.
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 ratably reduced to equal the level of available
appropriations for each formula, taking into account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant and hold harmless
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. Once funds reach
LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly. This report provides a
general overview of the key components of each formula.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 14 ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Title I-A Formulas ...................................................................................................... 1
Stages in the Grant Calculation Process .................................................................................... 2
Formula Child Count and Rate ................................................................................................. 2
Weighted LEA Formula Child Counts for Targeted Grant and EFIG Formulas ....................... 3
Expenditure Factor .................................................................................................................... 3
LEA Hold Harmless and State Minimum Grant Provisions ...................................................... 4
Factors Included Only in the EFIG Formula ............................................................................. 5
LEA Grant Allocations .............................................................................................................. 6
Allocations at the School Level ................................................................................................ 6
Equitable Services for Private School Students ........................................................................ 7

Tables
Table 1. Overview of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formula Characteristics ..................................... 9

Contacts
Author Information ......................................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

link to page 12 ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

Introduction
Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes aid to local
educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide
supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending
elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of children from low-
income families. In recent years, Title I-A has also been used as a vehicle to which a number of
requirements affecting broad aspects of public elementary and secondary education for all
students have been attached as conditions for receiving Title I-A grants. The Title I-A program is
the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and is funded at $18.4 billion for FY2023.
The ESEA was most recently comprehensively reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA; P.L. 114-95).
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to LEAs based on four
separate funding formulas. After calculating grants, ED provides each state educational agency
(SEA) with the calculated grant amounts for LEAs in the state. The state then makes specific
adjustments to the grant amounts, including reserving funds for administration and school
improvement and determining grants for charter schools that are their own LEAs.1 After making
adjustments to the grant amounts calculated by ED, the state then provides funds to the LEAs.
The LEAs, in turn, distribute funds to public schools, often based on the percentage of children in
each school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.2
This report provides a general overview of the key components of each of the four formulas used
to allocate Title I-A funds. Table 1 provides a summary of these components (or factors).
Overview of Title I-A Formulas
Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via states using four different allocation formulas
specified in statute: (1) Basic Grants, (2) Concentration Grants, (3) Targeted Grants, and (4)
Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG).3 Annual appropriations acts specify that portions of
each year’s appropriation be allocated under each of these different formulas.4 In FY2023,

1 Independent charter districts are not included in the dataset used by ED to calculate Title I-A grants. Instead, grants to
these LEAs are determined at the state level.
2 Children living in households where income is up to 130% of the federal poverty level (FPL) are eligible for free
meals. Children living in households where income is over 130% and up to 185% of the FPL are eligible for reduced-
price meals. For more information, see Department of Agriculture, “Child Nutrition Programs—Income Eligibility
Guidelines,” 88 Federal Register 8397-8400, February 9, 2023, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-09/
pdf/2023-02739.pdf. Some LEAs also use the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) to provide free meals to all
students without collecting household applications to demonstrate income eligibility. For more information, see CRS
Report R46371, Serving Free School Meals through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and
Participation.
3 For more information about how grants are determined under each of these formulas, see CRS Report R44461,
Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
4 ESEA, Section 1122 limits the amount of funds that may be provided through the Basic Grant and Concentration
Grant formulas to the FY2001 appropriations levels ($7.398 billion and $1.365 billion, respectively). In practice,
Congress has provided less than the FY2001 level of funding for the Basic Grant formula since FY2002 and less than
the FY2001 level for the Concentration Grant formula since FY2011. For example, in FY2023 the appropriations were
$6.459 billion for the Basic Grant formula and $1.362 billion for the Concentration Grant formula. ESEA, Section 1122
requires that any funds in excess of the FY2001 appropriations levels for the Basic Grant and Concentration Grant
formulas must be divided evenly between the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas. In practice, the appropriations acts
have divided all appropriations not provided for the Basic Grant or Concentration Grant formulas evenly between the
Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 12 ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

35.13% of Title I-A appropriations will be allocated through the Basic Grant formula, 7.41%
through the Concentration Grant formula, and 28.73% through each of the Targeted Grant and
EFIG formulas.
For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a formula child count, consisting
primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children living in families in poverty, by an
expenditure factor, which is based on state average per pupil expenditures (APPE) for public
elementary and secondary education. In some formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the
formula child count and expenditure factor. These maximum grants are then ratably reduced so
that in the aggregate they equal the level of available appropriations for each formula, taking into
account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant and hold harmless 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. Once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined
and used jointly. Table 1 summarizes various characteristics of the four Title I-A formulas.
Stages in the Grant Calculation Process
Under three of the formulas—Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, and Targeted Grants—grants
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 the EFIG formula, grants are first
calculated for each state overall and then funds are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within a
state using a different formula. As a result, an LEA’s EFIG grant is affected by both the amount of
funding allocated to its state, based in part on the state’s formula child count relative to other
states, and the LEA’s own share of that allocation, based in part on its formula child count relative
to other LEAs in the state.
Formula Child Count and Rate
Each of the Title I-A formulas incorporates the same population factor, referred to as a formula
child count. Each formula allocates funds to states or LEAs in proportion to their formula child
counts, with various adjustments applied. The population used to determine Title I-A grants for
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereinafter referred to as states) includes
children who are ages 5-17 and meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) in families in
poverty, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates (SAIPE) program5; (2) in institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in foster
homes; or (3) in families with income above the federal poverty level but who receive local
assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).6 To obtain the percentage
of children in an LEA that are formula children (also referred to as the formula child rate), this
formula child count is divided by the total number of children ages 5-17 living in the LEA’s
geographic boundaries. The latter data are also based on SAIPE estimates. In FY2022, children in
poor families accounted for 96.8% of the total formula child count, aligning with the first
criterion listed above. Each element of the population factor is updated annually.

5 SAIPE produces single-year estimates of income and poverty for all U.S. states and counties as well as estimates of
school-age children in poverty for all 13,000+ school districts.
6 For a description of the TANF program, see CRS In Focus IF10036, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Block Grant.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 12 ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

As Title I-A funds are allocated to states and LEAs based on their formula child counts, the
practical effect of including this factor in all four formulas is to provide higher Title I-A grants to
LEAs that have higher numbers of formula children.7 Under two of the four formulas, Targeted
Grants and EFIG, the formula child rate may be used to determine a weighted formula child
count, which can result in higher weighted formula child counts for LEAs with higher formula
child rates (see discussion below).
To be eligible to receive a grant under each of the formulas, an LEA must meet certain eligibility
requirements. These requirements vary by formula. As detailed in Table 1, the thresholds that an
LEA must meet with respect to its formula child count and formula child rate in order to be
eligible to receive a grant are lowest for the Basic Grant formula and highest for the
Concentration Grant formula. The Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas each have the same
eligibility criteria, which are similar to the Basic Grant formula eligibility requirements but with a
higher formula child rate threshold.
Weighted LEA Formula Child Counts for Targeted Grant and EFIG
Formulas
Both the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas utilize a weighted formula child count to increase aid
to LEAs with the highest numbers or percentages of formula children. In general, children
counted in the formulas are assigned weights on the basis of (1) each LEA’s formula child rate
(commonly referred to as percentage weighting) and (2) each LEA’s number of formula children
(commonly referred to as number weighting). The weights are applied under number weighting
and under percentage weighting in a stepwise manner to all LEAs for which ED calculates Title I-
A grants to produce two weighted formula counts. The higher of the two weighted counts is used
to determine LEA grant amounts. In general, the higher an LEA’s formula child count or formula
child rate is, the higher its grant amount per child counted in the formula will be.
Expenditure Factor
All four Title I-A formulas incorporate an expenditure factor based on a state’s APPE. In general,
LEAs in states with a relatively higher expenditure factor may receive larger Title I-A grants than
LEAs in states with a relatively low expenditure factor after taking into account the LEA’s
formula child count. While this factor weights Title I-A funding toward higher spending states,
the effect is truncated by upper and lower bounds placed on the state’s expenditure factor. There
is an upper bound on the expenditure factor that limits the amount of state spending that can be
counted toward the expenditure factor and a lower bound that establishes a minimum state APPE
amount that must be included in the expenditure factor. States with spending above the upper
bound will have their state APPE capped. States with spending below the lower bound will have
their state APPE increased to the lower bound amount. The practical effect of these bounds is to
prevent high-spending states from being able to benefit fully from their ability to spend more on
education than other states, while providing a boost to low-spending states by increasing their
expenditure factor for purposes of grant calculations. This helps to temper the effect of the
differences in state APPE on Title I-A grant amounts.

7 For a more detailed discussion of the effects of Title I-A formula factors on Title I-A grant amounts, see CRS Report
R45141, Analysis of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I-A Allocation Formulas: Factors, Design
Elements, and Allocation Patterns.
Congressional Research Service

3

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

For LEAs in a given state, the expenditure factor for all four Title I-A formulas is equal to state
APPE for public elementary and secondary education,8 subject to a minimum and a maximum
percentage of the national average, further multiplied by 0.40. State APPE is subject to a
minimum of 80% and a maximum of 120% of the national APPE for Basic, Concentration, and
Targeted Grants. That is, if a state’s APPE is less than 80% of the national APPE, the state’s
APPE is automatically raised to 80% of the national APPE. If a state’s APPE is more than 120%
of the national APPE, the state’s APPE is automatically reduced to 120% of the national APPE.
For EFIG, the minimum and maximum thresholds for state APPE relative to national APPE are
85% and 115%, respectively. After adjustments, should they be needed, a state’s APPE is
multiplied by 0.40 as specified in statute.
LEA Hold Harmless and State Minimum Grant Provisions
All four formulas contain hold harmless provisions to prevent large decreases in LEA grant
amounts from year to year, assuming appropriations are sufficient to provide hold harmless
amounts. If appropriations are sufficient, a Title I-A hold harmless amount is the minimum grant
amount an LEA will receive in a given year based on a specified percentage of the LEA’s prior-
year grant amount. Under all four formulas, LEAs with a relatively high percentage of formula
children receive a higher hold harmless level. More specifically, the hold harmless rate under
each formula is 85% of the prior-year grant if the LEA’s percentage of formula children is less
than 15%; 90% if it is at or above 15% and less than 30%; and 95% if it is at or above 30%. To
benefit from the hold harmless provisions under each formula, an LEA must meet the eligibility
requirements for the specific formula. The exception to this requirement is that LEAs that met the
eligibility requirements to receive a Concentration Grant but fail to meet the requirements in a
subsequent year will continue to receive a grant based on the hold harmless provisions for four
additional years after the year in which the LEA last met eligibility requirements. Hold harmless
provisions are met by reducing the amount of funding provided to LEAs that would receive
grants in excess of their hold harmless amounts to provide other LEAs with their hold harmless
grant amounts.
All four formulas have state minimum grant provisions. State minimum grant provisions increase
the amount of funding provided to small states (i.e., states with low formula child counts) to
enable them to operate more robust Title I-A programs. State minimum grant provisions are
funded by reducing the amount of funding provided to all the other states in order to support the
smaller states. This has the effect of providing small states with higher Title I-A grants per
formula child relative to states that do not benefit from the state minimum grant provisions. State
minimum grant amounts for each formula are calculated in part or in whole based on a specified
percentage of the level of appropriations provided to each formula.9 This percentage is higher

8 State APPE is based on (1) the aggregate current expenditures of all LEAs in the state plus any direct expenditures by
the state for the operation of those LEAs, divided by (2) the aggregate number of children in average daily attendance
to whom those LEAs provided free public education. For the purposes of determining state APPE, current expenditures
include those to provide a free public education, including expenditures for administration, instruction, attendance and
health services, pupil transportation services, operation and maintenance of plant, fixed charges, and net expenditures
to cover deficits for food services and student body activities. Current expenditures do not include those for community
services, capital outlay, debt service, or any expenditures made from funds received under ESEA Title I. In addition, to
have state APPE reflect only state and local education costs, other federal revenue items that are large enough to have a
“substantive effect on current expenditures” are removed. For example, revenue from the National School Lunch
Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is removed from the numerator. (For more information,
see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Study of the Title I, Part A Grant Program
Mathematical Formulas, May 2019, p. 17, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019016.pdf.)
9 For more information about the minimum grant percentages that apply to Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44461,
Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Congressional Research Service

4

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

under the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas than it is under the Basic and Concentration Grant
formulas.
Factors Included Only in the EFIG Formula
The EFIG formula includes two factors used to determine state-level grants that are not included
in any of the other three formulas—the effort factor and the equity factor. The effort factor for
each state is based on APPE for public elementary and secondary education compared to personal
per capita income (PCI) for each state compared to the ratio of those figures for the nation as a
whole.10 In general, the effort factor benefits states that have a relatively high level of spending on
education relative to the PCI in their state. Similar to the expenditure factor, the effort factor is
also bounded, but with more narrow bounds of 0.95 and 1.05. These relatively narrow bounds
diminish the influence of the effort factor in the determination of state grants. The effort factor is
the same for all LEAs in a given state.
The equity factor for each state is determined based on variations in current expenditures per
pupil (CEPP)11 among the LEAs in the state. The formula uses a measure of disparity referred to
as the coefficient of variation (CV) to calculate within-state variation in CEPP.12 The CV is
subtracted from 1.3 to produce a state’s equity factor. The application of the equity factor results
in higher grants to states with less variation in CEPP (i.e., lower CV) among their LEAs and
lower grants to states with greater variation in CEPP (i.e., higher CV) among their LEAs. That is,
the equity factor favors states that have the least amount of disparity in spending among their
LEAs.
In addition to determining state grant amounts under EFIG, the equity factor is also used in the
determination of LEA weighted student counts for the purposes of suballocating grants to LEAs.
Depending on a state’s CV, one of three sets of weights is used in determining an LEA’s weighted
formula child count.13 While the use of the equity factor in determining state grants rewards states
where variation of CEPP among LEAs varies the least, at the LEA level, higher weights are
generally used in determining weighted student counts for LEAs in states where CEPP among
LEAs varies more (i.e., a state has a higher CV). Within a state with more variation in CEPP
among its LEAs, the use of higher sets of weights results in higher grants for LEAs with a
relatively high number of formula children or a relatively high formula child rate relative to what

10 More specifically, the effort factor is a ratio of the three-year average state APPE for public elementary and
secondary education to the three-year average state PCI divided by the ratio of the three-year average national APPE to
the three-year average national PCI.
11 The CEPP includes all current expenditures, including instruction, support services, and food services. It does not
exclude federal programs in the determination of current expenditures. This is in contrast to the state APPE calculation,
which excludes federal programs “that may have a substantive effect on current expenditures.” (For more information,
see U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Study of the Title I, Part A Grant Program
Mathematical Formulas, May 2019, p. 19, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019016.pdf.) To calculate the CEPP for an
LEA, current expenditures are divided by the sum of (1) total enrollment plus (2) the number of formula children
multiplied by 1.4.
12 The CV measures the average amount of difference within a state among each LEA’s CEPP and the state average
CEPP. Only LEAs that enroll more than 200 students are included in the calculation. Statutory provisions set the CV
for jurisdictions with only one LEA (District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) at 0.0. Statutory provisions also
set the CV for Alaska, Kansas, and New Mexico at 0.1.
13 LEAs in states with an equity factor of less than 0.1 (meaning that there is less variation in CEPP among the LEAs
in the state) receive the lowest set of weights. LEAs in states with an equity factor of 0.1 to less than 0.2 receive
weights that are generally higher than those used for the aforementioned set of LEAs. LEAs in states with an equity
factor of 0.2 or higher (meaning that there is greater variation in CEPP among LEAs in the state) receive the highest set
of weights. For example, some of the weights accorded to LEAs in the latter group are twice as high as those accorded
to LEAs in the first group.
Congressional Research Service

5

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

would be provided if only a single set of weights was used. Conversely, the lower the variation in
CEPP among LEAs in a given state, the lower the weights used to determine weighted formula
child counts. Thus, in a state with less variation in CEPP among its LEAs, the use of the weights
produces smaller differences in the weighted formula child counts of LEAs with a relatively high
number of formula children or a relatively high formula child rate as compared with other LEAs
in the state.
LEA Grant Allocations
After calculating grant amounts, ED provides each SEA with these amounts for LEAs in the state.
SEAs must make adjustments to these grant amounts to reserve Title I-A funds at the state level
for school improvement.14 The SEA may also reserve funds for administration and direct student
services.15 In addition, the state must make adjustments to account for LEAs for which ED is
unable to estimate grant amounts, such as charter schools that operate as independent LEAs16 or
newly formed LEAs. Thus, the estimated LEA grant amounts calculated by ED may be higher
than what an LEA would actually receive.
Allocations at the School Level
Unlike other federal elementary and secondary education programs, most Title I-A funds are
subsequently allocated to individual public schools by formula, although LEAs retain substantial
discretion to control the use of a significant share of Title I-A grants at a central district level.17
While there are several rules related to school selection, LEAs must generally rank their public
schools by their percentages of students from low-income families and serve them in rank order.
This must be done without regard to grade span for any eligible school attendance area18 in which
the concentration of children from low-income families exceeds 75%. Below this point, an LEA
can choose to serve schools in rank order at specific grade levels (e.g., only serve elementary
schools in order of their percentages of children from low-income families). LEAs have the
option to serve elementary and middle schools with more than 75% of their children from low-
income families and high schools with more than 50% of their children from low-income families
before choosing to serve schools in rank order by specific grade levels.

14 For school improvement activities, the SEA is required to reserve the greater of (1) 7% of the state’s total Title I-A
allocation or (2) the sum of the amount that it reserved for school improvement in FY2016 and the amount that it
received under the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program in FY2016.
15 SEAs may reserve up to 3% of the state’s total Title I-A allocation for direct student services. Funds reserved for this
purpose are awarded by the SEA to LEAs to support individualized academic services for students to improve student
achievement.
16 For example, during the 2019-2020 school year, there were 4,047 independent charter districts in the United States
(U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, April 2022,
Table 214.30, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_214.30.asp?current=yes). Independent charter
districts are not included in the dataset used by ED to calculate Title I-A grants.
17 For detailed guidance regarding the selection of schools to receive Title I-A grants and the allocation of funds among
them, see U.S. Department of Education, Within-District Allocations Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, February 2022, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/02/Within-district-allocations-FINAL.pdf.
18 A school attendance area means, in relation to a particular school, the geographic area in which the children who are
normally served by that school reside. An eligible school attendance area means a school attendance area in which the
percentage of children from low-income families is at least as high as the percentage of low-income families served by
the LEA as a whole.
Congressional Research Service

6

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

All Title I-A participating schools must generally have a percentage of children from low-income
families that is higher than the LEA’s average, or 35%, whichever of these two figures is lower,19
although LEAs have the option of setting school eligibility thresholds higher than the minimum in
order to concentrate available funds on a smaller number of schools.20 LEAs establish a per-pupil
payment for each child from a low-income family in a Title I-A school. LEAs may establish
higher per-pupil payments at schools with higher percentages of children from low-income
families provided higher per-pupil payments are not made at a school with a lower percentage of
children from low-income families.
Schools that receive Title I-A funds operate one of two types of Title I-A programs. Schoolwide
programs21 are authorized if the percentage of low-income students served by a school is 40% or
higher.22 In schoolwide programs, Title I-A funds may be used to improve the performance of all
students in a school. For example, funds might be used to provide professional development
services to all of a school’s teachers, upgrade instructional technology, or implement new
curricula. The other basic type of Title I-A school service model is the targeted assistance
program (TAP).23 Under TAPs, Title I-A-funded services are generally limited to the lowest-
achieving students in the school. For example, students may receive additional instruction in an
after-school program, or funds may be used to hire a teacher’s aide who provides additional
assistance to low-achieving students in their regular classroom. In general, schools have
substantial latitude in how they use Title I-A funds, provided the funds are used to improve
student academic achievement.
Equitable Services for Private School Students24
Under Title I-A, Section 1117, after timely and meaningful consultation with private school
officials, LEAs are required to provide eligible private school children on an equitable basis with
services and other benefits under Title I-A that address their needs. LEAs also must ensure that
teachers and families of the children participate on an equitable basis in services and activities
related to parent involvement.25 The services, benefits, materials, and equipment provided must
be secular, neutral, and nonideological. Equitable services must be provided in a timely manner
and may be provided through a third-party contractor. The control of public funds and materials
purchased with those funds must remain with a public agency.26

19 This minimum percentage is reduced from 35% to 25% for schools participating in certain desegregation plans.
20 There is an exemption from all of the Title I-A school selection requirements for small LEAs—defined in this case as
those with enrollments of 1,000 or fewer students.
21 Schoolwide programs are authorized in ESEA, Section 1114.
22 A Title I-A school in which less than 40% of the children are from low-income families may request a waiver from
the SEA to operate a schoolwide program.
23 Targeted assistance programs are authorized in ESEA, Section 1115.
24 For a detailed discussion of equitable services, see CRS Report R46907, Equitable Services for Private School
Students and Staff and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
25 Parent involvement requirements are included in ESEA, Section 1116. If an LEA reserves funds from its allocation
for Section 1116, it must provide for the equitable participation of parent involvement activities in private schools. This
can be determined based on the proportion of private school students from low-income families residing in the public
school attendance area relative to all students from low-income families residing in the public school attendance area.
26 For example, if it were determined during consultation between an LEA and a private school with students who were
going to be served with Title I-A funds that the students needed books or computers, the books or computers purchased
with Title I-A funds could be placed in the private school for student use but would remain the property of a public
agency.
Congressional Research Service

7

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

Private school students must reside, as opposed to attend a private school located, in a
participating public school attendance area27 to be eligible for services provided under Title I-A.
That is, the LEA in which the student resides is responsible for providing services to the child
even if the student attends a private school in another LEA.28 Based on the total number of
children from low-income families residing in each school attendance area who attend either
public or private schools, the LEA calculates the total amount of funds available for each area.
The amount reserved for equitable participation is determined by multiplying the per-pupil
allocation for the LEA under Title I-A by the number of private school students from low-income
families who reside in the attendance area. This calculation is to apply to the LEA’s total Title I-A
grant per pupil, before deduction of any funds off the top of the LEA’s grant for purposes such as
administration; parent involvement; services to neglected, delinquent, or homeless children and
youth; or LEA-wide initiatives.29

27 An eligible public school attendance area (generally a school) is identified by an LEA based on data on students from
low-income families used to determine which school attendance areas will receive Title I-A funds. For more
information on how LEAs make this determination, see CRS Report R44461, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, p. 16; and CRS Report R46600, ESEA: Title I-A Poverty Measures and
Grants to Local Education Agencies and Schools, pp. 14-18.
28 If this is the case, the LEA responsible for the child can choose to reimburse the LEA in which the private school is
located for the provision of services rather than providing the services itself. See U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Innovation and Improvement, Office of Non-Public Education, Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act: Providing Equitable Services to Eligible
Private School Children, Teachers, and Families, Updated Non-Regulatory Guidance, Washington, DC, October 7,
2019, p. 32, https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/non-public-education/files/equitable-services-guidance-100419.pdf.
29 After a total amount for services to eligible private school students is calculated, based on the total Title I-A grant per
child from a low-income family in the LEA, any necessary funds to administer equitable services for eligible private
school students may be deducted from the total amount available for such services.
Congressional Research Service

8

Table 1. Overview of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formula Characteristics
Education Finance
Concentration Grant
Incentive Grant (EFIG)
Formula Characteristic
Basic Grant Formula
Formula
Targeted Grant Formula
Formula
Formula child count
Children ages 5-17 meeting at
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
least one of the fol owing
criteria: (1) in poor families; (2)
in institutions for neglected or
delinquent children or in foster
homes; or (3) in families
receiving Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF)
payments above the poverty
income level for a family of four
Formula child rate
The percentage of children ages
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
5-17 residing in a given LEA
who are formula children,
calculated by dividing the
number of formula children in
an LEA by the number of
children ages 5-17 who reside
in the LEA’s geographic
boundaries
Formula child eligibility threshold
10 or more formula children
More than 6,500 formula
10 or more formula children
Same as Targeted Grants
for LEAs
and a formula child rate of
children or a formula child
and a formula child rate of 5%
more than 2%
rate of more than 15% and
or more
must meet the eligibility
requirements for Basic Grants
Weighting of formula child count
None
None
At all stages of the allocation
For allocation of funds within
by number of formula children or
process, formula children are
states only, formula children
formula child rate
assigned weights on the basis
are assigned weights on the
of each LEA’s number of
basis of each LEA’s number of
formula children and formula
formula children and formula
child rate
child rate and the state’s
equity factor
CRS-9

link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13
Education Finance
Concentration Grant
Incentive Grant (EFIG)
Formula Characteristic
Basic Grant Formula
Formula
Targeted Grant Formula
Formula
Expenditure factor
State average expenditures per
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants, except
pupil for public K-12 education,
that the minimum is 85% and
subject to a minimum of 80%
the maximum is 115% of the
and maximum of 120% of the
national average
national average, further
multiplied by 0.40
Minimum state granta
Up to 0.25% of total funding
Up to 0.25% of total funding
Up to 0.35% of total funding
Up to 0.35% of total funding
available for state grants under
available for state grants
available for state grants
available for state grants under
the Basic Grant formula, subject under the Concentration
under the Targeted Grant
the EFIG formula, subject to a
to a series of caps
Grant formula, subject to a
formula, subject to a series of
series of caps
series of caps
caps
LEA hold harmless
85%–95% of the previous-year
Same as Basic Grants except
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
grant, depending on the LEA’s
LEAs are eligible for the hold
formula child rate, applicable
harmless for up to four years
only to LEAs meeting the
after they no longer meet the
formula’s eligibility thresholds
eligibility threshold
Stages in the grant calculation
Grants are calculated at the
Same as Basic Grants
Same as Basic Grants
Grants are first calculated for
process
LEA level, subject to state
states overall, then state
minimum provisions
grants are allocated to LEAs in
a separate process
Additional formula factors
None
None
None
State effort and equity factors
are applied in the calculation
of state total grantsb,c
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on an analysis of the ESEA.
a. Formula child counts are used to determine the caps on the minimum grants under all four formulas. Under Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, and Targeted
Grants, only formula children in LEAs eligible for Title I-A are included in the determination of the state minimum grant amounts. Under EFIG, all formula children,
regardless of whether or not they reside in an LEA eligible for Title I-A, are included in the determination of the state minimum grant amounts.
b. The effort factor is calculated based on average per pupil expenditures for public K-12 education compared to personal per capita income for each state compared
to the nation as a whole.
c. The equity factor is determined based on variations in average per pupil expenditures among the LEAs in each state.

CRS-10

ESEA Title I-A Formulas: A Primer

Author Information

Rebecca R. Skinner
Isobel Sorenson
Specialist in Education Policy
Research Assistant

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47702 · VERSION 1 · NEW
11