A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

This report summarizes and analyzes state-reported data on how states have suballocated FY 1992 federal education funds to school districts and other recipients, as mandated under Section 406A of the General Education Provisions Act.

The report covers 29 grant programs, including programs for disadvantaged children (Chapter 1), programs for children with disabilities (IDEA), educational improvement (Chapter 2), drug-free schools and communities program, math and science education (Eisenhower grants), vocational education, adult education, immigrant education, foreign language assistance, education for homeless children and youth, and library services and construction.

For each program, the report examines the number of subgrantees, size of the suballocations, and the types of agencies receiving suballocations. For those programs where LEAs receive more than 90 percent of the funds, the report also examines the distribution of LEA funds in relation to district poverty, urbanicity, and enrollment size. Detailed listings of subgrantees and grant amounts, by program, are also available upon request.

Data Quality

The Department implemented a major redesign with the FY 1990 report. The redesign improved data comparability by standardizing definitions and reduced burden by consolidating some of the categories.

Key Findings

Percent of Funds Suballocated

For some programs, some states do not suballocate significant portions of the funds to LEAs and other subgrantees until very late in the 27-month period that funds are available for obligation. In these cases, subgrantees may have very little time to plan how to use the money effectively.

• For example, at least ten states reported suballocating less than 50 percent of FY 1992 funds during the first 15 months for six programs:
  • IDEA Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (23 states)
  • Chapter 1 Capital Expenses (19 states)
  • Foreign Languages Assistance Program - Grants to LEAs (13 states)
  • Library Services and Construction Act - Interlibrary Cooperation and Resource Sharing (13 states)
  • Library Services and Construction Act - Public Library Services (10 states)
  • Chapter 1 Program Improvement (10 states)

• Delays in making suballocations sometimes result from requirements for grantees to have an approved plan or system in place. For example, for the Infants and Toddlers program, many states were very late in applying for FY 1992 funds because they were uncertain about whether they could meet the requirement to have in place a statewide system of early intervention services or whether they should request a waiver. Delays are also more likely for discretionary grant programs because of the time involved in states' review and approval of subgrantee applications.

Suballocation Size

The suballocations tend to be small. Only 18 percent of the subgrantees received grants larger than $100,000 and 40 percent of the subgrantees received grants of less than $10,000.

• Programs in which the majority of suballocations were less than $10,000 include:
  • Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act - Supplementary State Grants (95 percent)
  • Chapter 1 State Program Improvement Grants (80 percent)
  • Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act - Consumer and Homemaking Education (80 percent)
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower Math and Science Education - Elementary/Secondary Programs (69 percent)
  • Chapter 2 State and Local Programs - Grants to LEAs (60 percent)
  • Chapter 1 Capital Expenses (57 percent)
  • Chapter 1 Education of Children with Disabilities in State Schools (54 percent)
  • Emergency Immigrant Education Program (53 percent)
  • Library Services and Construction Act - Interlibrary Cooperation and Resource Sharing (52 percent)

• For Chapter 1 Grants to LEAs, about 800 LEAs received grants of less than $10,000, totaling $4.7 million, or about one-tenth of 1 percent of total Chapter 1 grants. Large grants ($100,000 or more) went to over 6,900 LEAs; these large grants totaled almost $5.8 billion, or 95 percent of total Chapter 1 grants.

Types of Agencies Receiving Suballocations

Nationally, 89 percent of the funds were suballocated to local educational agencies, while colleges and universities received 4 percent of the funds. However, colleges and universities received at least 20 percent of the suballocated funds for five programs:

• Dwight D. Eisenhower Math and Science Education-Higher Education Programs (93 percent)
• Dwight D. Eisenhower Math and Science Education-Demonstration Programs (47 percent)
• Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act - Tech-Prep Education Program (46 percent)
• Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act - Basic State Grants (27 percent)
• Adult Education Act - Formula Grants to States (24 percent)

LEA Suballocations by Poverty Level

LEAs in the highest poverty quartile (those with poverty rates over 24.8 percent) enroll 25 percent of all school-age children but almost half (49 percent) of all poor school-age children. Most programs target a higher level of funding per school-age child to these high-poverty school districts.

• States reported suballocating over 50 percent of the funds to LEAs in the highest poverty quartile for three programs:
  • Chapter 1 Capital Expenses (71 percent)
  • Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act - Supplementary State Grants (68 percent)
  • Emergency Immigrant Education Program (52 percent)

• Most other programs also favored high-poverty LEAs, although to a lesser degree. However, for IDEA programs and Foreign Language Assistance programs, the distribution of funds among LEA poverty quartiles roughly corresponded to the distribution of all school-age children; high-poverty LEAs did not receive a higher level of funding.

LEA Suballocations by Urbanicity

For most programs, funds appear to be targeted more heavily to urban LEAs, which tend to have high concentrations of poor children. Urban LEAs enroll 26 percent of all public school students but have 41 percent of the nation's poor school-age children.

Funding for rural LEAs is usually proportionate to their share of both total students (28 percent) and poor school-age children (29 percent). Suburban LEAs generally receive a share of funds that is less than their share of total students but greater than their share of poor children.

• The programs that most strongly favored urban LEAs were the following:
  • Chapter 1 Capital Expenses (75 percent)
  • Emergency Immigrant Education Program (59 percent)
  • Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act - Supplementary State Grants (53 percent)
  • Chapter 1 Grants to LEAs - Basic and Concentration Grants (43 percent)
  • Chapter 1 Program Improvement Grants (43 percent)

• Rural LEAs received a particularly large share of funds for the Chapter 1 Migrant Education program (35 percent).

• Distribution of IDEA funds among urban, suburban, and rural LEAs roughly corresponded to each group's share of total children.

LEA Suballocations by Enrollment Size

The patterns of LEA suballocations by LEA enrollment size largely reflect funding patterns by urbanicity.

• Very large LEAs — those with enrollments of 25,000 or more — have 28 percent of the nation's students but received at least 50 percent of the LEA suballocations for the following programs:
  • Chapter 1 Capital Expenses (67 percent)
  • Emergency Immigrant Education Program (58 percent)

• Very small LEAs — those with less than 1,000 enrolled students — received 39 percent of Chapter 1 Migrant Education funds; though these primarily rural LEAs have only 7 percent of the nation's students.

Further Information

The full report is available by writing to the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the Undersecretary, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4168, Washington, DC 20202/8241 or by calling (202) 401-0590.

-###-

Return to Elementary and Secondary Education Page

mail to esed@ed.gov

Last update September 1996 (swz).