Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 47
Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty: Interim Report I: Evaluation of 1993 County Estimates for Title I Allocations Appendices
OCR for page 47
Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty: Interim Report I: Evaluation of 1993 County Estimates for Title I Allocations This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 47
Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty: Interim Report I: Evaluation of 1993 County Estimates for Title I Allocations APPENDIX A The Title I Allocation Process Title I allocations are based primarily on Census Bureau estimates of the number of children aged 5–17 in families with income below the poverty level. The formula also counts three other categories of children aged 5–17 (about 5 percent of all formula-eligible children): children in foster homes, in families above the poverty level that receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and in local institutions for neglected and delinquent children. The Census Bureau estimates are combined with factors defined in the Title I statute to determine the allocations to each state and school district. Title I funds are provided to school districts through a two-stage process: the Department of Education allocates funds to the county level, and the states then suballocate the funds to school districts within each county. The statute contains four formulas for allocating Title I funds—basic grants, concentration grants, targeted grants, and the Education Finance Incentive Program—but Congress has to date appropriated funds only for the basic and concentration formulas. Basic grants have existed since the program's inception in 1965; concentration grants were added in 1978 to provide additional funds to school districts with high concentrations of school-age children in poverty (Moskowitz et al., 1993). The fiscal 1997 appropriation was $6.195 billion for basic grants (86 percent of the total) and $999 million for concentration grants. The basic grant formula allocates funds to all counties based on each county's number of formula-eligible children and the state's average per-pupil expenditures, a factor intended to compensate for state differences in the cost of education. County allocations are calculated in an iterative process. The number of formula children in each county is multiplied by 40 percent of the state's per-pupil expenditure (which is limited to between 80 and 120 percent of the national
OCR for page 47
Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty: Interim Report I: Evaluation of 1993 County Estimates for Title I Allocations average); the resulting allocations are then proportionally reduced so that the total matches the total appropriation for basic grants. Allocations are then adjusted to meet hold-harmless and state minimum grant provisions (see below). Although there are no minimum eligibility criteria for counties, school districts must have at least 10 formula-eligible children, and the number of eligible children must exceed 2 percent of the district's population aged 5–17, in order to receive a basic grant. The concentration grant formula allocates funds only to counties and school districts with high numbers or percentages of poor school-age children. To be eligible to receive a concentration grant, a county or district must have at least 6,500 formula-eligible children or more than 15 percent of the children in the county or district must be formula eligible. For concentration grants, allocations for eligible counties are calculated based on numbers of formula-eligible children, the state's per-pupil expenditure, and a state minimum provision. The Title I formula includes a hold-harmless provision to cushion the impact of decreases in allocations. Historically, there has been no hold-harmless provision for concentration grants, but in fiscal 1996, a hold-harmless provision applied to both formulas at a rate of 100 percent: that is, a county could not receive less funds than it had received in fiscal 1995. Beginning in fiscal 1997, the hold-harmless provision applies to basic grants at variable rates, with a higher rate for higher poverty counties and school districts: counties and districts with 30 percent or more poor school-age children are guaranteed at least 95 percent of the prior year's grant; the guarantee is 90 percent for counties with 15–30 percent poor school-age children and 85 percent for counties with fewer than 15 percent poor school-age children. For fiscal 1997 and subsequent years, there is no hold-harmless provision for concentration grants. A state minimum grant provision applies to each of the two formulas as well. For basic grants, the state minimum grant is equal to the lesser of (1) 0.25 percent of total funds available for Title I basic grants and (2) the average of 0.25 percent of total funds and 150 percent of the national average per-pupil grant payment multiplied by the number of poor children in the state. There is some added complexity for the state minimum for concentration grants (Moskowitz et al., 1993).