FY2020 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Contents
Figures
Summary
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $16.3 billion for FY2020. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary 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). State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others.
This report provides FY2020 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2020 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.39% of total Title I-A grants). Vermont received the smallest FY2020 Title I-A grant amount ($37.7 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants).
Introduction
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. Title I-A1 is the largest program in the ESEA, funded at $16.3 billion for FY2020. Title I-A is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary 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). Grants to states2 are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas.
This report provides FY2020 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. 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.
Methodology for Determining Title I-A Grants
Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs) using the four Title I-A formulas. Annual appropriations acts specify portions of each year's Title I-A appropriation to be allocated under each of the formulas. In FY2020, about 40% of Title I-A appropriations were allocated through the Basic Grants formula, 8% through the Concentration Grants formula, 26% through the Targeted Grants, and 26% through the EFIG formulas. After reserving funds for the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the outlying areas, $16.1 billion was available for FY2020 Title I-A grants to LEAs.4 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 by an expenditure factor based on state average per pupil expenditures for public elementary and secondary education.5 Formula child counts consist of children who are ages 5-17 (1) living in families in poverty, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program; (2) in institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in foster homes; and (3) in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments, but with incomes above the federal poverty income level for a family of four. In some of the Title I-A formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the formula child count and expenditure factor to determine a maximum grant amount. 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 Grants, Concentration Grants, and Targeted Grants—grants are initially calculated at the LEA level. State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state, adjusted for state minimum grant provisions. Under EFIG, grants are first calculated for each state, including adjustments for state minimum grant provisions. EFIG grants are subsequently suballocated to LEAs within the state.
After calculating LEA grant amounts, ED provides these amounts to each state. States need to make adjustments to these LEA grant amounts to account for LEAs for which ED is unable to estimate Title I-A grant amounts, such as charter schools that operate as independent LEAs or newly formed LEAs. In addition, each state must reserve Title I-A funds for school improvement and may also reserve Title I-A funds for administration and direct student services. Thus, the LEA grant amounts calculated by ED may be higher than what an LEA will actually receive after state adjustments and reservations are made.
In general, grant amounts for states vary across the Title I-A formulas due to the different allocation amounts for the formulas provided through the appropriations process and the characteristics of the formulas themselves. For example, with respect to appropriations for each of the formulas, the Basic Grant formula receives a greater share of overall Title I-A appropriations than the Concentration Grant formula, so states generally receive higher grant amounts and a greater share of their total Title I-A funds under the Basic Grant formula than under the Concentration Grant formula. With respect to formula characteristics,6 the amount of funding received under each formula is related, in part, to an LEA's, and by extension a state's, number or percentage of formula children. For example, Texas has a larger population of children included in the formula calculations than North Carolina and, therefore, received a higher grant amount and larger share of Title I-A funds than did North Carolina in FY2020.
It is also possible for states to have similar numbers of formula children but have different expenditure factors, contributing to a lower Title I-A grant amount for the state with the lower expenditure factor. For example, Washington and Mississippi have similar numbers of formula children, but Washington has a higher expenditure factor. This difference contributes to Washington receiving a Title I-A grant that is almost $35 million higher than the grant amount provided to Mississippi.
Figure 1, below, details the composition of each state's Title I-A grant based on the share of total state funds received under each of the formulas. The figure also provides the amount of funding each state received under each of the formulas.
State grant amounts can also be examined based on each state's share of the amount of funds available overall and under each of the formulas relative to other states. Table 1 provides each state's grant amount and percentage share of funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas for FY2020. The latter was determined for each state by dividing the state's grant amount under that formula by the total amount of funding allocated for a given Title I-A formula. Total Title I-A grants, calculated by summing the state level grant for each of the four formulas, also are shown in Table 1, along with state percentage shares of total Title I-A grants.
Overall, California received the largest total Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion) and, as a result, the largest percentage share (12.39%) of Title I-A grants. Vermont received the smallest total Title I-A grant amount ($37.7 million) and, as a result, the smallest percentage share (0.23%) of Title I-A grants.
Within a state, the percentage share of funds allocated may vary by formula, as certain formulas are more favorable to certain types of states. For example, in addition to the formula features discussed above, 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 received a higher percentage share of Concentration Grants and Targeted Grants than overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Concentration Grant and Targeted Grant formulas are more favorable to Florida than the Basic Grant or EFIG formulas may be. Utah, on the other hand, received a higher percentage share of Basic Grants and EFIG than overall Title I-A funds, indicating that the Basic Grant and EFIG formulas are more favorable to Utah than the Concentration Grant or Targeted Grant formulas may be.
Another factor affecting state grant amounts is the state minimum grant provision included in each of the four Title I-A formulas. The Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas require that states receiving only a minimum grant amount under these formulas receive a higher percentage of available funds than they are required to receive under the Basic Grant or Concentration Grant formulas. This is evident in the shares of each formula provided to the states that received only a minimum grant under all four formulas (Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). Each of these states received a higher share of the total available funds under the Targeted Grant and EFIG formulas than under the Basic Grant or Concentration Grant formulas. As a state may receive only a state minimum grant amount under any or all of the formulas, Table 1 indicates which states received only a minimum grant under each of the Title I-A formulas.
|
Figure 1. FY2020 Title I-A State Grants by Amount and Share of Funds Provided Under Each Formula (dollars in thousands) |
 |
 |
|
Source: Figure prepared by CRS based on unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget Service. FY2020 Title I-A grant amounts were calculated by ED using the most current data available. Percentage shares of state grant FY2020 allocation amounts from each formula were calculated by CRS. Notes: EFIG = Education Finance Incentive Grants. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. Amounts shown in the figure only reflect Title I-A funds provided to states. These amounts are determined after funds have been reserved from the total Title I-A appropriation ($16.3 billion) for the Census Bureau, Bureau of Indian Education, and outlying areas. For the purposes of Title I-A, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are considered states. |
Table 1. FY2020 Title I-A State Grants and Percentage Share of Funds Received Under Each Title I-A Formula
Relative to All States
(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, All States |
$6,383,403 |
100.00% |
$1,347,316 |
100.00% |
$4,197,365 |
100.00% |
$4,197,365 |
100.00% |
$16,125,449 |
100.00% |
|
Alabama |
$104,441 |
1.64% |
$24,360 |
1.81% |
$66,645 |
1.59% |
$71,182 |
1.70% |
$266,628 |
1.65% |
|
Alaska |
$17,744a |
0.28% |
$2,447a |
0.18% |
$13,655a |
0.33% |
$13,576a |
0.32% |
$47,422 |
0.29% |
|
Arizona |
$136,856 |
2.14% |
$29,480 |
2.19% |
$90,376 |
2.15% |
$89,092 |
2.12% |
$345,804 |
2.14% |
|
Arkansas |
$66,267 |
1.04% |
$15,167 |
1.13% |
$38,237 |
0.91% |
$47,200 |
1.12% |
$166,871 |
1.03% |
|
California |
$798,419 |
12.51% |
$169,875 |
12.61% |
$542,574 |
12.93% |
$486,457 |
11.59% |
$1,997,325 |
12.39% |
|
Colorado |
$63,483 |
0.99% |
$11,468 |
0.85% |
$37,231 |
0.89% |
$41,508 |
0.99% |
$153,690 |
0.95% |
|
Connecticut |
$62,121 |
0.97% |
$10,721 |
0.80% |
$30,821 |
0.73% |
$40,867 |
0.97% |
$144,530 |
0.90% |
|
Delaware |
$20,701 |
0.32% |
$4,448 |
0.33% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$54,530 |
0.34% |
|
District of Columbia |
$17,744a |
0.28% |
$4,229 |
0.31% |
$14,442 |
0.34% |
$14,054a |
0.33% |
$50,469 |
0.31% |
|
Florida |
$331,639 |
5.20% |
$80,611 |
5.98% |
$277,300 |
6.61% |
$231,400 |
5.51% |
$920,950 |
5.71% |
|
Georgia |
$217,189 |
3.40% |
$50,386 |
3.74% |
$148,387 |
3.54% |
$141,854 |
3.38% |
$557,817 |
3.46% |
|
Hawaii |
$20,083 |
0.31% |
$4,537 |
0.34% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$14,874 |
0.35% |
$54,184 |
0.34% |
|
Idaho |
$24,602 |
0.39% |
$4,264 |
0.32% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$15,350 |
0.37% |
$58,907 |
0.37% |
|
Illinois |
$276,606 |
4.33% |
$55,144 |
4.09% |
$176,289 |
4.20% |
$160,172 |
3.82% |
$668,211 |
4.14% |
|
Indiana |
$108,878 |
1.71% |
$22,048 |
1.64% |
$59,600 |
1.42% |
$73,173 |
1.74% |
$263,699 |
1.64% |
|
Iowa |
$44,374 |
0.70% |
$7,177 |
0.53% |
$20,274 |
0.48% |
$30,619 |
0.73% |
$102,445 |
0.64% |
|
Kansas |
$46,649 |
0.73% |
$8,597 |
0.64% |
$24,219 |
0.58% |
$29,816 |
0.71% |
$109,281 |
0.68% |
|
Kentucky |
$106,302 |
1.67% |
$24,856 |
1.84% |
$67,092 |
1.60% |
$73,957 |
1.76% |
$272,208 |
1.69% |
|
Louisiana |
$132,101 |
2.07% |
$32,017 |
2.38% |
$91,689 |
2.18% |
$88,896 |
2.12% |
$344,704 |
2.14% |
|
Maine |
$21,781 |
0.34% |
$4,156 |
0.31% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$55,318 |
0.34% |
|
Maryland |
$96,543 |
1.51% |
$19,638 |
1.46% |
$70,387 |
1.68% |
$67,420 |
1.61% |
$253,988 |
1.58% |
|
Massachusetts |
$104,772 |
1.64% |
$18,113 |
1.34% |
$54,586 |
1.30% |
$65,520 |
1.56% |
$242,991 |
1.51% |
|
Michigan |
$197,557 |
3.09% |
$39,774 |
2.95% |
$120,892 |
2.88% |
$134,209 |
3.20% |
$492,431 |
3.05% |
|
Minnesota |
$76,624 |
1.20% |
$10,676 |
0.79% |
$37,825 |
0.90% |
$49,476 |
1.18% |
$174,601 |
1.08% |
|
Mississippi |
$83,191 |
1.30% |
$19,348 |
1.44% |
$55,088 |
1.31% |
$58,121 |
1.38% |
$215,748 |
1.34% |
|
Missouri |
$108,784 |
1.70% |
$22,623 |
1.68% |
$59,610 |
1.42% |
$68,592 |
1.63% |
$259,609 |
1.61% |
|
Montana |
$17,744a |
0.28% |
$3,378a |
0.25% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$50,504 |
0.31% |
|
Nebraska |
$31,637 |
0.50% |
$5,303 |
0.39% |
$16,829 |
0.40% |
$20,674 |
0.49% |
$74,443 |
0.46% |
|
Nevada |
$48,860 |
0.77% |
$11,828 |
0.88% |
$45,182 |
1.08% |
$33,375 |
0.80% |
$139,245 |
0.86% |
|
New Hampshire |
$17,744a |
0.28% |
$2,517a |
0.19% |
$12,782a |
0.30% |
$13,294a |
0.32% |
$46,337 |
0.29% |
|
New Jersey |
$158,160 |
2.48% |
$27,237 |
2.02% |
$81,029 |
1.93% |
$102,005 |
2.43% |
$368,432 |
2.28% |
|
New Mexico |
$49,883 |
0.78% |
$11,961 |
0.89% |
$34,565 |
0.82% |
$34,336 |
0.82% |
$130,745 |
0.81% |
|
New York |
$457,550 |
7.17% |
$98,444 |
7.31% |
$352,457 |
8.40% |
$287,588 |
6.85% |
$1,196,039 |
7.42% |
|
North Carolina |
$184,041 |
2.88% |
$43,793 |
3.25% |
$123,220 |
2.94% |
$125,434 |
2.99% |
$476,487 |
2.95% |
|
North Dakota |
$15,189a |
0.24% |
$2,126a |
0.16% |
$11,504a |
0.27% |
$11,538a |
0.27% |
$40,357 |
0.25% |
|
Ohio |
$241,095 |
3.78% |
$48,635 |
3.61% |
$142,813 |
3.40% |
$161,206 |
3.84% |
$593,749 |
3.68% |
|
Oklahoma |
$81,224 |
1.27% |
$17,564 |
1.30% |
$48,451 |
1.15% |
$52,676 |
1.25% |
$199,914 |
1.24% |
|
Oregon |
$63,366 |
0.99% |
$12,779 |
0.95% |
$32,537 |
0.78% |
$41,645 |
0.99% |
$150,328 |
0.93% |
|
Pennsylvania |
$271,634 |
4.26% |
$52,817 |
3.92% |
$169,076 |
4.03% |
$168,997 |
4.03% |
$662,525 |
4.11% |
|
Puerto Rico |
$149,060a |
2.34% |
$36,486a |
2.71% |
$98,949 |
2.36% |
$106,848 |
2.55% |
$391,343 |
2.43% |
|
Rhode Island |
$21,801 |
0.34% |
$3,974 |
0.29% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$55,157 |
0.34% |
|
South Carolina |
$107,315 |
1.68% |
$25,326 |
1.88% |
$69,503 |
1.66% |
$74,347 |
1.77% |
$276,490 |
1.71% |
|
South Dakota |
$17,744a |
0.28% |
$3,378a |
0.25% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$14,691a |
0.35% |
$50,504 |
0.31% |
|
Tennessee |
$127,705 |
2.00% |
$29,735 |
2.21% |
$85,050 |
2.03% |
$86,051 |
2.05% |
$328,541 |
2.04% |
|
Texas |
$620,639 |
9.72% |
$139,186 |
10.33% |
$440,414 |
10.49% |
$425,369 |
10.13% |
$1,625,608 |
10.08% |
|
Utah |
$34,441 |
0.54% |
$5,057 |
0.38% |
$20,011 |
0.48% |
$22,788 |
0.54% |
$82,296 |
0.51% |
|
Vermont |
$14,027a |
0.22% |
$2,267a |
0.17% |
$10,673a |
0.25% |
$10,733a |
0.26% |
$37,700 |
0.23% |
|
Virginia |
$117,467 |
1.84% |
$22,236 |
1.65% |
$67,157 |
1.60% |
$70,212 |
1.67% |
$277,073 |
1.72% |
|
Washington |
$107,909 |
1.69% |
$18,809 |
1.40% |
$53,305 |
1.27% |
$70,317 |
1.68% |
$250,340 |
1.55% |
|
West Virginia |
$40,864 |
0.64% |
$9,479 |
0.70% |
$22,390 |
0.53% |
$28,507 |
0.68% |
$101,239 |
0.63% |
|
Wisconsin |
$85,725 |
1.34% |
$14,771 |
1.10% |
$47,913 |
1.14% |
$57,129 |
1.36% |
$205,539 |
1.27% |
|
Wyoming |
$15,124a |
0.24% |
$2,069a |
0.15% |
$11,499a |
0.27% |
$11,459a |
0.27% |
$40,151 |
0.25% |
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on unpublished data provided by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget Service. FY2020 Title I-A grant amounts were calculated by ED using the most current data available. Percentage shares of FY2020 allocation amounts were calculated by CRS.
Notes: EFIG = Education Finance Incentive Grants. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. Amounts shown in the table only reflect Title I-A funds provided to states. These amounts are determined after funds have been reserved from the total Title I-A appropriation ($16.3 billion) for the Census Bureau, Bureau of Indian Education, and outlying areas. For the purposes of Title I-A, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are considered states.
a. The state received only a minimum state grant under this Title I-A formula.
Footnotes
| 1. |
Title I-A is officially titled Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies in the ESEA, but it is commonly referred to as Title I-A. |
| 2. |
For the purposes of Title I-A, the term states includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. |
| 3. |
This report is one in a series of annual reports on Title I-A state grants. For more information about FY2019 Title I-A grants to states, see CRS Report R46269, FY2019 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For more information about FY2018 Title I-A grants to states, see CRS Report R45662, FY2018 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For more information about FY2017 Title I-A grants to states, see CRS Report R44873, FY2017 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For more information about FY2016 Title I-A grants to states, see CRS Report R44486, FY2016 State Grants Under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 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). |
| 4. |
From the total Title I-A FY2020 appropriation, $5 million was reserved for the U.S. Census Bureau. From the remaining funds, 1.1% was reserved for the Bureau of Indian Education and the outlying areas. For the purposes of Title I-A, the outlying areas include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. |
| 5. |
For a 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 |
| 6. |
For more information about the characteristics of the Title I-A formulas and how they affect 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. |