1. DFP Allocations: Understanding My Award Amount
Presented By:
Kelly Gallatin
Federal Funds Manager

2. Objectives
Give an extended overview of the Title I allocation process and briefly discuss the Title IIA and Title IV allocation processes.
Review the effects ESSA had on Title I and Title IIA allocations.
Explain the significant impact of ESSA on the PA Title I School Improvement set aside to be deducted from an LEA in and beyond.
Show the continuing effect of ESSA on the PA state Title IIA allocation.

3. Status of PA Federal Funds for 2018-19 Based on USDE Tables (as of 4/09/18)
Percent of Change from Levels for Major Programs:
Title I, Grants to LEAs (+1.42%)
Title II, Improving Teacher Quality (-3.29%)
Title III, English Language Acquisition (2.80%)
Title IV, SSAE (+185%)
PA allocation increases from $15,128,493 in to $43,148,678 in

4. “Problem” Terminology
The following terms are often confused:
Census Poor (or Poverty Level)
Percent of Free and Reduced Lunch (vs. Census Poor)
Formula Percent (USDE basis for Title I eligibility and allocation of funds to SDs)

5. Census Poor Census Poor
The number of children age 5-17 from families below the poverty level on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data.

6. How Different is Census Poor from Free & Reduced Lunch?
Students whose family income is up to 130% of the applicable family size income levels are eligible for Free lunch
Students whose family income is up to 185% of the applicable family size income levels are eligible for Reduced lunch

7. Major distinction between Census Poor and Free & Reduced Lunch
Census poor is part of the formula used by USDE in their calculation of Title I allocations by school district.
Free & Reduced Lunch is a local measure—used to make schools eligible for Title I within the school district.
Free & Reduced Lunch is not used as a factor in USDE or PDE allocations.

8. Formula Percent (basis for USDE and PDE Title I Allocations)

9. How USDE calculates Title I Allocations to PA School Districts
School Districts may receive funds from one, three or four funding streams making up the total available Title I allocation:
Basic Grant
Concentration Grant
Targeted Grants
EFIG (Education Finance Incentive Grant)
Eligibility for each of these funding streams is based on percent of formula children

10. Eligibility for the Four Funding Streams included in USDE Title I Allocations
Basic Grants
10 Formula Children; AND
2% Formula Children (Census, TANF, Foster & Neglected)
Concentration Grants
15% Formula Children OR 6500 Formula Children

11. Eligibility for the Four Funding Streams included in USDE Title I Allocations (cont’d)
Targeted Grants
10 Formula Children; AND
5% Formula Children
Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG)

12. Title I Allocation Process at PDE
PDE receives initial Title I Allocations by school district as calculated by USDE
PDE Adjusts for charter schools:
Enrollment of charter school from each sending school district
Calculate Formula Children for charters
Enrollment times percent of formula children of each sending school district
Number of formula children derived from above calculation times per pupil allocation of each sending school district yields school district contribution

13. Title I Allocation Process at PDE
Adjustments to USDE allocations are performed separately within each of the four possible formula funding streams.
Within each funding formula adjustment, a hold harmless provision is applied.
The adjusted allocations from the four formulas are totaled, and any applicable state set asides are deducted.

14. HOLD-HARMLESS GUARANTEE
All 4 formulas provide for a variable hold-harmless guarantee for each LEA of 85%, 90%, and 95% of their previous year’s allocation
The hold-harmless percentage depends on the current year percent of formula children for each LEA (described on following slide)
For Basic, Targeted, and EFIG, an LEA must meet the eligibility criteria in order for hold-harmless protection to apply
For Concentration Grants, once an LEA meets the 15% formula children eligibility criterion to receive it, the hold-harmless provision applies for an additional four years, even if the LEA no longer meets the eligibility criterion (15%) in any of those years

15. HOLD-HARMLESS GUARANTEE
Hold Harmless Level (or Rate) Dependent on Percent of Formula Children in LEA
95% for LEAs with Percent of Formula
Children of 30% or more
90% for LEAs with Percent of Formula
Children at >=15% but <30%
85% for LEAs with Percent of Formula
Children at less than 15%

16. HOLD-HARMLESS GUARANTEE
STATE
DETERMINED
ALLOCATION
TOTAL
FORMULA
COUNT
5-17
POP
PERCENT
LEAs at
85%
Hold-
Harmless
90%
95%
Hold
Rate
Amount
$247,099
282
3,906
7.22% 0%
$210,034
$546,886
643
9,473
6.79%
$464,853
$1,913,276
1,128
3,678
30.67%
$1,817,612
$894,945
454
1,320
34.39%
$850,198
$175,611
156
1,076
14.50%
$149,269
$178,712
153
828
18.48%
$160,841
$8,257,005
8,235
21,130
38.97%
$7,844,155
$2,334,090
2,215
8,895
24.90%
$2,100,681

17. Review Impact of ESSA on 2017-18 Title I Allocations
For only, all LEAs were required to contribute to the 7% Title I set aside for School Improvement (previously 4%)
Set aside taken on total LEA allocation after formula hold harmless process
Optional 3% set aside for Direct Student Services was not deducted
Remains an option for PDE
If taken, all LEAs would be required to contribute

18. Impact of ESSA on 2018-19 Title I Allocations
Beginning with SY and going forward:
7% School Improvement set aside
Special rule in ESSA activates; LEAs not required to contribute, if doing so would reduce their allocation below the previous year state- determined final allocation.
If not enough set aside from contributing LEAs, then state reservation may be limited to an amount <7%.

19. Ongoing Title I Allocation Processes in ESSA
All LEAs must contribute to the regular 1% Title I State Admin set aside.
PDE will perform a final hold harmless adjustment on the total allocation after the State Admin set aside is taken.
If PDE would decide to take optional DSS set aside:
Per updated allocation guidance, all LEAs would be required to contribute, and this amount would be taken as the last step in the process.

20. Ongoing Impact of ESSA & Allocation Guidance on Title IIA Allocations
To States
To LEAs
ESSA reduces the hold harmless amount between FY 2017 and FY 2022, until it is ultimately eliminated.
Hold Harmless provision guaranteed that states receive at least as much money as in FY 2001.
Once hold harmless is eliminated, allocation will be based 20% on population and 80% on poverty numbers.
Hold Harmless provision was permanently eliminated, effective SY.
20% of funds to LEAs based on their number of school age (5-17) population.
80% of funds to LEAs based on their number of school age (5-17) low income.

21. Title IV Allocation Process at PDE
Under ESSA, an LEA’s previous year Title I allocation is the basis for the current year Title IV allocation amount.
PDE determines an LEA’s share of the total previous year state-determined Title I allocation.
Initially, an LEA is allocated that same share of the current year available Local Title IV funds.
If initial allocation not >=$10,000
PDE calculates total amount needed to bring all LEA allocations up to the $10,000 minimum.
PDE ratably reduces allocations of LEAs already above $10,000 until all LEA allocations meet the minimum.

22. QUESTIONS