WITHIN-DISTRICT ALLOCATIONS

UNDER TITLE I, PART A OF THE

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 

EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, 

AS AMENDED BY THE

EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT

Non-Regulatory Guidance

Draft for Public Comment

March 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

A. REQUIRED AND AUTHORIZED LEA RESERVATIONS .......................................... 2

Required Reservations................................................................................................................................................2

Reservations Example .................................................................................................................................................3

B. ALLOCATING TTTLE I FUNDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.......................................... 4

Step 1: Determining Poverty Counts of Public Schools and Ranking Schools.......................................................5

Step 2: Identifying Eligible Schools............................................................................................................................8

Step 3: Allocating Funds to Eligible Schools...........................................................................................................10

C. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION FLEXIBILITIES PROVIDED BY THE ESEA............. 15

Skipping and Related Exception ..............................................................................................................................15

Grandfather Clause...................................................................................................................................................16

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WITHIN-DISTRICT TITLE I 

ALLOCATIONS AND THE COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION ............................ 1

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WITHIN-DISTRICT 

ALLOCATIONS AND NEWLY OPENED OR SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED CHARTER 

SCHOOLS ...................................................................................................................... 1
 

INTRODUCTION

This non-regulatory guidance discusses provisions that govern within-district allocations under 

Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as 

amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and accompanying regulations in 34 C.F.R. 

200.64, 200.77, and 200.78.1 It first addresses required and authorized reservations of Title I 

funds by a local educational agency (LEA) and then outlines how an LEA, with the Title I funds 

that remain after the reservations, identifies eligible Title I school attendance areas2and allocates

Title I funds to public schools. 

The guidance in this document supersedes all prior non-regulatory guidance issued by the U.S. 

Department of Education (Department) concerning within-district Title I allocations. 

Superseded documents are “Local Educational Agency Identification and Selection of School 

Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I funds to those Areas and Schools” 

(August 2003) and the within-district Title I allocation sections of “ESSA Fiscal Changes and

Equitable Services Guidance” (November 2016) and “The Community Eligibility Provision and 

Selected Requirements Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, as Amended” (March 2015). 

The Department has determined that this document contains “significant guidance” under the 

Office of Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 

Fed. Reg. 3432 (2007). See 

www.whitehouse,gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2007/m07-07.pdf. Significant 

guidance is non-binding and does not create or impose new legal requirements. The Department 

is issuing this guidance to provide LEAs with information to assist them in meeting their 

obligations under the ESEA and implementing regulations. Other than statutory and regulatory 

requirements included in the document, the contents of this guidance do not have the force and 

effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to 

provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

The Department is providing a 30-day opportunity for the public to comment on this draft 

document. If you are interested in commenting on this document, please email your comments 

to OESE.feedback@ed.gov or write to the following address: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202, ATTN: Melissa Siry.

For further information about the Department’s guidance processes, please visit 

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/significant-guidance.html. 

1 The ESEA is available at: 

http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Elementary%20And%20Secondary%20Education%20Act%20Of%201965.pdf. 

34 C.F.R. Part 200 is available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=6d5df3f9a5168e60511c5e581c5033a4&mc=true&node=pt34.1.200&rgn=div5.

2 Section 1113(a)(2)(A) of the ESEA defines a “school attendance area” as, “in relation to a particular school, the 

geographical area in which the children who are normally served by that school reside.”
2

A. REQUIRED AND AUTHORIZED LEA RESERVATIONS

Two main factors determine the amount of Title I funds that an LEA has available to allocate to 

schools.3 The first factor is the size of the LEA’s Title I allocation (including any transfers into 

Title I from Title II, Part A or Title IV, Part A under ESEA section 5103). The second factor, 

which is discussed in this section, is the amount of funds the LEA reserves for required and 

authorized activities. 

Required Reservations

Equitable Services for Eligible Private School Children

An LEA that receives Title I funds must reserve a proportional share of those funds to provide 

equitable services to eligible children who attend a private school. (ESEA section 1117(a); 34 

C.F.R. 200.64(a), 200.77(d)). Section 1117(a)(4)(A)(ii) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.64(a)(2) 

require an LEA to determine the proportional share of Title I funds available for providing and 

administering equitable services based on the LEA’s total Title I allocation prior to any 

expenditures or transfers of funds. This means that an LEA applies the proportion used to 

calculate the proportional share to its entire Title I allocation (including any Title II, Part A or 

Title IV, Part A funds that an LEA transfers to Title I, Part A) prior to the other required and 

authorized reservations discussed below.4 From the proportional share for equitable services, the 

LEA must reserve at least one percent (if the LEA’s total Title I allocation exceeds $500,000) to 

provide engagement activities for parents and families of participating private school children. 

(ESEA sections 1116(a)(3), 1117(a)(1)(B)).

Parent and Family Engagement

Section 1116(a)(3) of the ESEA requires an LEA with a total Title I allocation that exceeds 

$500,000 to reserve at least one percent of its total Title I allocation to carry out parent and 

family engagement activities under section 1116 of the ESEA. This amount includes the 

proportion required to provide equitable services to parents and families of participating private 

school children. Of the amount remaining after determining equitable services for parents and 

families of private school children, the LEA must distribute at least 90 percent to its Title I 

schools, giving priority to high-need schools. (ESEA section 1116(a)(3)(C)). An LEA with a 

Title I allocation of $500,000 or less may, but is not required to, reserve Title I funds for parent 

and family engagement, although its Title I schools must carry out parent and family engagement 

activities under section 1116 regardless of any reservation.

Homeless Children and Youth; Children in Local Institutions for Neglected Children

Section 1113(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.77(a)(1)-(2) require an LEA to reserve 

Title I funds to provide services comparable to those provided to children in Title I schools to 

homeless children and youth in Title I and non-Title I schools, which may be determined based 

on a needs assessment (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(C)),5and to children in local institutions for

3 Unless a distinction between schools and school attendance areas is pertinent, references in this document to 

“schools” also means “school attendance areas.”

4 See the Department’s Title I equitable services guidance for more information on how the ESEA requires an LEA 

to determine the proportional share for equitable services (available at: 

www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html).

5 See the Department’s Homeless Education guidance for more information about the required Title I reservation to 

serve homeless children and youth (available at: www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html).
3

neglected children. Similar to how it calculates the proportional share for equitable services, an

LEA must determine the amount of these reservations based on its total Title I allocation prior to

any allowable expenditures or transfers of funds. (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. 

200.77(a)(4)).

Authorized Reservations

In addition to the required Title I reservations, an LEA, at its discretion, may reserve funds for:

➢ Children in local institutions for delinquent children and neglected or delinquent children 

in community-day programs (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(A)(iii); 34 C.F.R. 200.77(a)(3));

➢ Financial incentives and rewards to teachers who serve students in Title I schools 

identified for comprehensive support and improvement or implementing targeted support 

and improvement plans under section 1111(d) of the ESEA for the purpose of attracting 

and retaining qualified and effective teachers (ESEA section 1113(c)(4); 34 C.F.R.

200.77(b));

➢ Administration of Title I programs for public school children, including paying for 

variations in personnel costs, such as seniority pay differentials or fringe benefit 

differentials, as LEA-wide administrative costs, rather than as part of the funds allocated 

to schools (34 C.F.R. 200.77(e)); and 

➢ Other authorized activities, such as early childhood education, school improvement, and 

coordinated services. (ESEA section 1113(c)(5); 34 C.F.R. 200.77(f)). 

Reservations Example

The following example illustrates how, for an LEA with a total Title I allocation of $5,000,000, 

making the required and authorized reservations discussed above results in the amount available 

to allocate to public schools. Section 1113(c)(3)(B) of the ESEA requires an LEA to base the 

reservations described in steps 1-3 on its total Title I allocation.

Step 1: The LEA determines the amount of Title I funds that it must reserve for equitable 

services to eligible private school students. In this example, 10 percent of children from lowincome families who reside in the LEA’s Title I public school attendance areas attend private 

schools (proportional share). Therefore, the LEA must allocate 10 percent of its total allocation 

for equitable services. This amount includes the amount required for parent and family 

engagement for families of participating private school students (row 1 of Table 1).

Step 2: The LEA determines the amount it must (as applicable) reserve for parent and family 

engagement under ESEA section 1116(a)(3)(A) and, based on the proportional share for public 

school students (i.e., 90 percent in this example), reserves funds from that amount for public 

school parent and family engagement (row 4 of Table 1). 

Step 3: The LEA determines the amount of Title I funds to reserve for homeless children and 

youth and for children in local institutions for neglected children. These amounts must be based 

on the LEA’s total Title I allocation. (ESEA section 1113(c)(3)(B))(rows 2 and 3 of Table 1). 

Step 4: From its remaining funds, the LEA makes other authorized reservations (e.g., 

administration) for public school Title I children (row 5 of Table 1). 
4

Step 5: As described in the next section, the LEA must allocate its remaining funds ($3,000,000, 

as shown in row 6 of Table 1) to eligible public schools in accordance with ESEA section 1113

and 34 C.F.R. 200.78.

Table 1: Determination by an LEA with a Title I Allocation of $5,000,000 of the Amount 

Available to Allocate to Public Schools After Making Required and Authorized Title I 

Reservations

Row Activity Amount Basis 

Amount of 

Allocation 

Remaining After 

Reservation

1

Equitable services

and administration 

of equitable 

services

$500,000 (includes 

$5,000 to reflect the 

proportional share of 

parent and family 

engagement reservation)

Equitable share calculation 

based on the LEA’s total Title I 

allocation ($5,000,000 * 10 

percent)

$4,500,000

2

Homeless children 

and youth $525,000 Needs assessment and the LEA’s total Title I allocation $3,975,000

3

Children in local 

institutions for 

neglected children

$325,000 Needs assessment and the 

LEA’s total Title I allocation $3,650,000

4

Public school 

parent and family 

engagement 

reservation

$45,000 (based on one 

percent of $5,000,000

less $5,000 for families 

of private school 

children in Row 1)

Statutory requirement that an 

LEA with an allocation that 

exceeds $500,000 reserve one 

percent or more and the LEA’s 

total Title I allocation (less 

amount for families of private 

school children)

$3,605,000

5

Authorized

reservations $605,000 Statute and regulations $3,000,000

6

Amount remaining 

to allocate to public 

schools

$3,000,000

Allocations to schools with the 

funds remaining after the 

required and authorized 

reservations

$0

B. ALLOCATING TTTLE I FUNDS TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The following section summarizes the requirements that apply to an LEA with an enrollment of 

1,000 students or more in section 1113 of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.78 for identifying Title Ieligible schools and allocating Title I funds to those schools. An LEA with an enrollment of 

fewer than 1,000 students does not have to follow the requirements of section 1113 of the ESEA 

and 34 C.F.R. 200.78 to determine which of its schools receive Title I funds. (ESEA section 

1113(a)(6)). Such an LEA may use other criteria, such as academic performance or the grade 

span of its schools to determine which of its schools receive Title I funds, or it may choose to 

allocate Title I funds to all of its schools.
5

Step 1: Determining Poverty Counts of Public Schools and Ranking Schools

Section 1113(a)(3) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.78(a)(1) require an LEA to rank all of its 

school attendance areas according to their percentage of public school students from low-income 

families. (ESEA section 1113(b)(1)(B) also permits an LEA to rank its schools according to 

their percentage of public school students from low-income families enrolled in the schools.) 

Under section 1113(a)(5)(A) of the ESEA, an LEA must use the same measure of poverty to:

➢ Identify eligible school attendance areas and schools; 

➢ Rank areas and schools; and

➢ Determine the allocation for each area and school.

Determining School Poverty Counts and Ranking: In General

To determine the number of public school students from low-income families, section 

1113(a)(5)(A) of the ESEA provides an LEA the option to use the number of public school 

children:

➢ Eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch (FRPL) under the Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act (including children counted through the Community Eligibility 

Provision6);

➢ In families receiving assistance under the State program funded under Title IV, Part A of 

the Social Security Act (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families);

➢ Eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; 

➢ Ages 5-17 in poverty as counted in the most recent LEA-level census poverty data 

approved by the Department; or

Note: Because census data are generally not available at the school level, if an LEA 

uses this measure, it would most likely be part of a composite with one or more of the 

above measures

➢ Counted by the LEA using a composite of any of the above measures.

Year of data in general

An LEA uses the most recently available data, which will be from the previous school year in 

most cases. For example, with respect to Title I school allocations for the 2019-2020 school 

year, an LEA that uses FRPL data will generally use data collected during the 2018-2019 school 

year. 

Year of data exception for newly opened and significantly expanded charter schools

Section 4306 of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. part 76, subpart H provide an exception for a charter 

school that newly opens or significantly expands its enrollment by November 1 of the current 

school year and provides written notice to its LEA pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 76.788(a) at least 120 

days in advance of the opening or expansion. Specifically, the LEA must determine such a 

school’s Title I allocation based on current year data and provide the school its allocation within 

6 For additional information with respect to within-district Title I allocations and FRPL data for LEAs that 

participate in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), see Appendix A. The information in Appendix A comes 

from the Department’s 2015 Title I CEP guidance (available at: www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/15-0011.doc).
6

five months of the school’s opening or expansion. (ESEA section 4306(a); 34 C.F.R. 76.792(a)). 

Thus, for the 2019-2020 school year, an LEA would determine a newly opened or significantly 

expanded charter school’s final Title I allocation based on poverty data collected in the 2019-

2020 school year. In addition, for each charter school opening or significantly expanding its 

enrollment:

➢ After November 1 but before February 1 of an academic year, an LEA must ensure that 

the charter school receives at least a pro rata portion of its Title I allocation on or before 

the date the LEA allocates funds to other public schools for the succeeding year. (ESEA 

section 4306(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. 76.792(b), 76.793(b)(1)).

➢ On or after February 1, an LEA may choose to provide the charter school with a pro rata 

portion of its Title I allocation. (34 C.F.R. 76.792(c)).

 

(For more information, see Appendix B.) 

Ranking Example Based on School Poverty Percentage

The following example shows the poverty rankings of schools by an LEA that uses FRPL as its

poverty measure. In this example, the LEA ranks its schools in order of poverty without regard 

to the grade span that they serve.

Table 2. Ranking Schools by Their Poverty Percentage

Public 

School Grades Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL Poverty Percentage

A K-5 600 456 76.0%

G K-5 425 200 47.1%

C K-5 400 185 46.3%

D K-5 450 190 42.2%

O 6-8 750 300 40.0%

B K-5 500 195 39.0%

F K-5 400 150 37.5%

I K-5 560 200 35.7%

E K-5 450 160 35.6%

H K-5 600 206 34.3%

N 6-8 800 260 32.5%

P 6-8 840 250 29.8%

Q 9-12 2,600 700 26.9%

M K-5 450 100 22.2%

L K-5 425 75 17.6%

J K-5 420 70 16.7%

K K-5 395 65 16.5%

LEA Totals 11,065 3,762 34.0%

Determining School Poverty Counts and Ranking: Option for Secondary Schools

To determine the number of public school students from low-income families in a secondary 

school, section 1113(a)(5)(B) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.78(a)(2) provide an LEA the 

option to use one of the measures described above or a feeder pattern by applying the average 

percentage of public school students from low-income families enrolled in the elementary 
7

schools that feed into the secondary school to the number of students enrolled in the secondary 

school.7 Before an LEA may use feeder patterns to determine the poverty percentage of 

secondary schools, the LEA must conduct outreach to its secondary schools to inform them of 

the option and a majority of its secondary schools must approve the use of feeder patterns. 

(ESEA section 1113(a)(5)(C)).

Using the LEA from the previous table, which uses FRPL as its poverty measure, the following 

example shows how the LEA, which for the purpose of this example is in a State that defines a 

secondary school as one that provides education in grades 9-12, determines the poverty count of 

its only secondary school (the high school) using a feeder pattern based on poverty data of its K5 and 6-8 schools. (If a State also considers other grades, such as grades 6-8 as part of secondary 

education, then the ESEA authorizes an LEA to use a feeder pattern for a school that serves those 

grades because it is also a secondary school under State law.) 

Step 1: Add the FRPL counts and enrollment counts of the LEA’s K-5 and 6-8 schools:

FRPL sum = 3,062; Enrollment sum = 8,465

Step 2: Divide the FRPL sum by the enrollment sum to determine the poverty percentage and 

then multiply the quotient by the high school’s enrollment to determine the number of poverty 

students in the high school:

3,062÷8,465 = 36.2%

36.2 percent * 2,600 = 941 poverty students

As a result of using the feeder pattern, the high school is ranked higher in the LEA’s school 

poverty rankings in Table 3 compared to its ranking in the previous example shown in Table 2. 

7 An “elementary school” means a “nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public elementary 

charter school, that provides elementary education, as determined under State law.” (ESEA section 8101(19)). A 

“secondary school” means a “nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public secondary charter 

school, that provides secondary education, as determined under State law, except that the term does not include any 

education beyond grade 12.” (ESEA section 8101(45)). Depending on State law, a secondary school might include 

middle schools as well as high schools.
8

Table 3. Feeder Pattern for a High School

Public School Grades Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL Poverty Percentage

A K-5 600 456 76.0%

G K-5 425 200 47.1%

C K-5 400 185 46.3%

D K-5 450 190 42.2%

O 6-8 750 300 40.0%

B K-5 500 195 39.0%

F K-5 400 150 37.5%

Q 9-12 2,600 941 36.2%

I K-5 560 200 35.7%

E K-5 450 160 35.6%

H K-5 600 206 34.3%

N 6-8 800 260 32.5%

P 6-8 840 250 29.8%

M K-5 450 100 22.2%

L K-5 425 75 17.6%

J K-5 420 70 16.7%

K K-5 395 65 16.5%

LEA Totals 11,065 4,003 36.2%

Step 2: Identifying Eligible Schools

Determining School Eligibility on an LEA-Wide Basis

Under sections 1113(a)(2)(B) and 1113(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA, a school is eligible for Title I 

funds if its poverty percentage is as high as the LEA’s poverty percentage or, at the LEA’s 

discretion, at least 35 percent. For example, if an LEA’s poverty percentage is 30 percent, any 

school in the LEA that has a poverty percentage of at least 30 percent is eligible. In contrast, for 

an LEA with a poverty percentage of 35 percent or greater, the schools that are eligible for Title I 

are those with a poverty percentage that equals or exceeds the LEA’s poverty percentage unless 

the LEA chooses to make eligible all schools with a poverty percentage of 35 percent or more. 

As discussed below under allocations, meeting the eligibility criteria does not guarantee that a 

school will receive Title I funds from its LEA. Receipt of funds depends on the amount of an 

LEA’s allocation and school poverty rankings, the per-pupil amount the LEA allocates to each 

school (e.g., an LEA may allocate more per pupil to schools with higher poverty percentages), 

and, in some cases, the grades that a school serves (e.g., an LEA may allocate more per pupil to 

elementary schools than high schools). 

Based on the data in Table 2, Schools A, G, C, D, O, B, F, I, E, and H are eligible because their 

poverty percentage is as high as the LEA’s poverty percentage of 34.0 percent. Based on the 

data in Table 3, Schools A, G, C, D, O, B, F, Q, I, and E are eligible because their poverty 

percentage is at least 35 percent, even though Schools I and E are below the LEA’s poverty 

percentage of 36.2 percent. Table 3 also shows how the use of the feeder pattern data results in 

School Q’s gaining eligibility. In contrast, in Table 2, School Q is ineligible for Title I funds 

because its poverty percentage is below the LEA’s poverty percentage of 34 percent. 

Conversely, School H is no longer eligible in Table 3 because its poverty percentage is below 35 

percent and the LEA’s poverty percentage. (In Table 3, the LEA’s poverty percentage is higher 

than in Table 2 due to the use of the feeder pattern for its secondary school.)
9

Determining School Eligibility Among Schools with a Poverty Percentage of 75 Percent or Less 

After an LEA has ranked all of its schools by percentage of poverty, section 1113(a)(3)(A) of the 

ESEA requires the LEA to first allocate, in rank order of poverty, Title I funds to its schools

above 75 percent poverty, including any middle schools or high schools. Thus, before an LEA 

can decide how to determine eligibility for any school with a poverty percentage that does not 

exceed 75 percent, it must allocate Title I funds to all its schools above 75 percent poverty. In 

Table 3, for example, the LEA must first allocate funds to School A. 

Option for Certain High Schools

Under section 1113(a)(3)(B) of the ESEA, after serving all schools above 75 percent poverty, if 

funds remain, an LEA may choose to serve high schools with a poverty percentage between 50 

percent and 75 percent in rank order of poverty. The implementation of this option occurs before 

serving any other grade span. 

Grade-Span Option

Under section 1113(a)(4) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.78(a)(3), after an LEA has served all

of its schools with a poverty rate above 75 percent, if funds remain, the LEA may serve lowerranked eligible schools. To determine eligibility among these schools, in addition to the districtwide ranking method illustrated above, an LEA may determine eligibility within grade spans and 

choose which grade span(s) to serve. In doing so, the LEA may use its district-wide percentage 

of poverty or the percentage of poverty data of the relevant grade span(s). (34 C.F.R. 

200.78(a)(3)). If a grade-span poverty percentage is above 35 percent, the LEA may also 

identify as eligible any school with a poverty percentage of at least 35 percent. (ESEA section 

1113(b)(1)(A)).

This example shows how the LEA from Tables 2 and 3 determines eligibility on a grade-span 

basis for its schools with a poverty percentage of 75 percent or below that are in a grade span 

with more than one school (i.e., for its elementary grade span and its middle school grade span). 

If there is only one school in a grade span, that school is eligible for Title I funds, provided that 

any school above 75 percent poverty has received a Title I allocation. Therefore, in this 

example, School Q is eligible for Title I funds because it is the only school in the high school 

grade span. 
10

Table 4. Ranking Elementary Schools with a Poverty Percentage of 75 Percent or Less by 

Their Poverty Percentage

Public School Grades Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL Poverty Percentage

G K-5 425 200 47.1%

C K-5 400 185 46.3%

D K-5 450 190 42.2%

B K-5 500 195 39.0%

F K-5 400 150 37.5%

I K-5 560 200 35.7%

E K-5 450 160 35.6%

H K-5 600 206 34.3%

M K-5 450 100 22.2%

L K-5 425 75 17.6%

J K-5 420 70 16.7%

K K-5 395 65 16.5%

Elementary School Totals 5,475 1,796 32.8%

Based on the data in Table 4, Schools G, C, D, B, F, I, E, and H are eligible because their 

poverty percentage is at least as high as the grade span’s poverty percentage of 32.8 percent. 

The other schools are ineligible because their poverty percentage is lower than the grade-span 

poverty percentage (32.8 percent). 

Table 5. Ranking Middle Schools with a Poverty Percentage of 75 Percent or Less by Their 

Poverty Percentage

Public School Grades Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL Poverty Percentage

O 6-8 750 300 40.0%

N 6-8 800 260 32.5%

P 6-8 840 250 29.8%

Middle School Totals 2,390 810 33.9%

Based on the data in Table 5, School O is eligible because its poverty percentage exceeds the 

grade span’s poverty percentage (33.9 percent). In contrast, schools N and P are ineligible 

because the poverty percentage of each school is lower than the grade-span poverty percentage 

(33.9 percent).

Step 3: Allocating Funds to Eligible Schools

Section 1113(c)(1) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 200.78(a)(1) require an LEA to allocate Title I 

funds to schools identified as eligible and selected to participate, in rank order, based on the total 

number of public school children from low-income families in each school. An LEA has 

discretion to establish a per-pupil amount for each school and that amount need not be the same 

per-pupil amount, consistent with the following requirements:

➢ “125 percent rule”: If an LEA serves any school below 35 percent poverty, section 

1113(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA requires the LEA to allocate an amount for each low-income 

child in each participating Title I school that is at least 125 percent of the LEA’s 

allocation per low-income child, except that the per-pupil amount for the served school 

with the lowest poverty rate may be less due to the amount of funds remaining.
11

o An LEA’s allocation per low-income child is the LEA’s total Title I allocation 

before any reservations under section 1113(c)(3)-(5) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. 

200.77 divided by the number of public school and private school low-income 

children in the LEA as determined using the poverty measure(s) selected by the 

LEA under ESEA section 1113(a)(5) and 34 C.F.R. 200.64(a)(3).

o The LEA then multiplies this per-pupil amount by 1.25 to determine the minimum 

amount per low-income child.

➢ Under 34 C.F.R. 200.78(c), an LEA is not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount 

to each participating school. If an LEA allocates different per-pupil amounts to 

participating schools, the LEA must allocate a higher per-pupil amount to schools with 

higher poverty rates than it allocates to schools with lower poverty rates.8

Allocation Examples: LEA-Wide Basis and Grade-Span Basis

The following examples are based on the LEA illustrated in the tables above that has $3,000,000 

to allocate to eligible public schools. In Table 6, the LEA determines school allocations on an 

LEA-wide basis and, in Table 7, determines allocations on a grade-span basis among its schools 

with a poverty percentage of 75 percent or less.

8 An LEA that opts to serve high schools between 50 and 75 percent poverty and other schools 75 percent poverty

and below using grade-span groupings may determine different per-pupil amounts for different grade spans so long 

as those amounts do not exceed the amount allocated to any school above 75 percent poverty. Per-pupil amounts 

within grade spans may also vary so long as the LEA allocates higher per-pupil amounts to schools with higher 

poverty rates than it allocates to schools with lower poverty rates.
12

Table 6. Determining Allocations on an LEA-Wide Basis

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7

Public 

School

Grades 

Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL 

Poverty 

Percentage

Per-pupil

Allocation 

Determined by 

LEA

School Title I 

Allocation

(Column 4 x 

Column 6)

A K-5 600 456 76.0% $1,500.00 $684,000

G K-5 425 200 47.1% $1,101.83 $220,366

C K-5 400 185 46.3% $1,100.00 $203,500

D K-5 450 190 42.2% $1,100.00 $209,000

O 6-8 750 300 40.0% $1,100.00 $330,000

B K-5 500 195 39.0% $1,100.00 $214,500

F K-5 400 150 37.5% $1,100.00 $165,000

Q 9-12 2,600 941 36.2% $1,034.68 $973,634

I K-5 560 200 35.7% $0 (eligible, not 

served)

$0

E K-5 450 160 35.6% $0 (eligible, not 

served)

$0

H K-5 600 206 34.3% Ineligible $0

N 6-8 800 260 32.5% Ineligible $0

P 6-8 840 250 29.8% Ineligible $0

M K-5 450 100 22.2% Ineligible $0

L K-5 425 75 17.6% Ineligible $0

J K-5 420 70 16.7% Ineligible $0

K K-5 395 65 16.5% Ineligible $0

LEA

Totals 

11,065 4,003 36.2% $3,000,000

 

In Table 6, the LEA chooses to allocate Title I funds to every eligible school except Schools I 

and E, which are the two eligible schools with the lowest poverty percentages. The LEA ensures 

that a higher poverty school receives a per-pupil allocation that is at least as high as the per-pupil

allocations of lower poverty schools. Finally, the LEA does not allocate Title I funds to any 

school with a poverty percentage below 35 percent. Therefore, per section 1113(b)(2) of the 

ESEA, the LEA has flexibility to establish a per-pupil allocation without regard to the 125 

percent rule. 
13

Table 7. Determining Allocations Within Grade Spans

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7

Public 

School

Grades 

Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL 

Poverty 

Percentage

Per-pupil

Allocation 

Determined by 

LEA

School Title I 

Allocation

(Column 4 x 

Column 6)

Schools Above 75 Percent Poverty: LEA must serve regardless of grade span before serving any school 

at 75 percent poverty or below

A K-5 600 456 76.0% $1,500.00 $684,000

Elementary Grade Span: LEA chooses to serve four schools in rank order of poverty

G K-5 425 200 47.1% $1,305.36 $261,072

C K-5 400 185 46.3% $1,300.00 $240,500

D K-5 450 190 42.2% $1,300.00 $247,000

B K-5 500 195 39.0% $1,300.00 $253,500

F K-5 400 150 37.5% $0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

I K-5 560 200 35.7% $0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

E K-5 450 160 35.6% $0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

H K-5 600 206 34.3% $0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

M K-5 450 100 22.2% Ineligible $0

L K-5 425 75 17.6% Ineligible $0

J K-5 420 70 16.7% Ineligible $0

K K-5 395 65 16.5% Ineligible $0

Elementary 

School 

Totals (75 

percent 

and below)

5,475 1,796 32.8% $1,002,068

Middle School Grade Span: LEA chooses to not serve any schools

O 6-8 750 300 40.0% $0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

N 6-8 800 260 32.5% Ineligible $0

P 6-8 840 250 29.8% Ineligible $0

Middle 

School 

Totals (75 

percent 

and below)

2,390 810 33.9% $0

High School Grade Span: LEA chooses to serve its single high school

Q 9-12 2,600 941 36.2% $1,396.31 $1,313,928

LEA Totals $3,000,000

In Table 7, the LEA ensures that it allocates Title I funds to its one school with a poverty 

percentage above 75 percent. After doing so, the LEA has funds remaining and therefore the 

discretion to allocate the remaining funds by grade span, which includes the flexibility not to 

serve a grade span. The LEA chooses to serve its elementary and high school grade spans. In 

the elementary grade span, the LEA allocates Title I funds in rank order of poverty to four 
14

schools. In the high school grade span, the LEA allocates Title I funds to its one high school. 

The LEA declines to allocate any Title I funds to its middle schools.

Consistent with 34 C.F.R. 200.78(c), the LEA ensures that its school above 75 percent poverty 

receives a per-pupil allocation that is at least as high as the per-pupil allocations of all its other 

schools. In addition, the LEA uses its flexibility to allocate a higher per-pupil amount to its high 

school, with a 37.1 percent poverty rate, than it allocates to the elementary schools with a 

poverty percentage of 75 percent and below. This is allowable because, when an LEA allocates 

Title I funds by grade span, rules such as 34 C.F.R. 200.78(c) apply within each grade span, not 

across grade spans. (34 C.F.R. 200.78(a)(3)).

Allocation Example: 125 Percent Rule

The example in Table 8 presents a different LEA than the previous examples. This LEA:

➢ Has a total Title I allocation of $2,500,000, of which $1,500,000 is available to allocate to 

public schools;

➢ Has 1,243 total public and private children from low-incomes families who reside within 

its boundaries, which results in an LEA per-pupil allocation amount of $2011.26 

($2,500,000 ÷ 1,243); and

➢ Allocates Title I funds to at least one school with a poverty percentage below 35 percent, 

which triggers the 125 percent rule.

Table 8. Applying the 125 Percent Rule

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7

Public 

School

Grades 

Served Enrollment Eligible for FRPL 

Poverty 

Percentage

Per-pupil

Allocation 

Determined by 

LEA

School Title I 

Allocation

(Column 4 x 

Column 6)

A K-5 600 212 35.3% $2,514.08 $532,985

B K-5 425 100 23.5% $2,514.08 $251,408

C K-5 400 93 23.3% $2,514.08 $233,809

D K-5 450 95 21.1% $2,514.08 $238,838

E K-5 560 112 20.0% $2,169.29 $242,960

F K-5 500 96 19.2%

$0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

G K-5 400 75 18.8% $0 (eligible, not 

served) $0

H K-5 450 80 17.8% Ineligible $0

I K-5 600 103 17.2% Ineligible $0

J K-5 450 50 11.1% Ineligible $0

K K-5 425 38 8.9% Ineligible $0

L K-5 420 35 8.3% Ineligible $0

M K-5 395 30 7.6% Ineligible $0

LEA

Totals 6,075 1,119 18.4% $1,500,000

 

The 125 percent rule requires the LEA to allocate at least $2,514.08 per pupil to each served 

school ($2,011.26 x 1.25). As shown in Table 8, this concentrates the allocations in the LEA’s 
15

highest poverty schools (Schools A, B, C, and D). School E, which has the highest poverty 

percentage after those schools, receives the LEA’s remaining funds. 

C. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION FLEXIBILITIES PROVIDED BY THE ESEA

Skipping and Related Exception

Section 1113(b)(1)(D) of the ESEA presents an exception to the requirements described in 

Section B with respect to allocating Title I funds to schools in rank order of poverty. It permits 

an LEA to elect not to serve—i.e., “skip”—an eligible school that has a higher percentage of 

students from low-income families if:

1. The school meets the comparability requirements in ESEA section 1118(c); 

2. The school receives supplemental funds from State or local sources that it spends 

according to the requirements in ESEA sections 1114 or 1115—i.e., on programs that 

meet the intent and purposes of Title I (see 34 C.F.R. 200.79(c)); and 

3. The supplemental funds the school spends from other sources equal or exceed the amount 

it would receive under Title I. 

Under 34 C.F.R 200.79(b), a program meets the intent and purposes of Title I if the program 

either—

1. Is implemented in a school in which the percentage of children from low-income families 

is at least 40 percent;

2. Is designed to promote schoolwide reform and upgrade the entire educational operation 

of the school to support students in their achievement toward meeting the challenging 

State academic standards that all students are expected to meet; 

3. Is designed to meet the educational needs of all students in the school, particularly the 

needs of students who are failing, or are most at risk of failing, to meet the challenging 

State academic standards; and

4. Uses the State’s assessment system to review the effectiveness of the program;

OR

1. Serves only students who are failing, or are most at risk of failing, to meet the 

challenging State academic standards; 

2. Provides supplementary services designed to meet the special educational needs of 

participating students to support their achievement toward meeting the State’s student 

academic achievement standards; and

3. Uses the State’s assessment system to review the effectiveness of the program.

If an LEA skips a school under ESEA section 1113(b)(1)(D), the LEA is still required to use 

Title I funds to provide equitable services to eligible students who reside in the attendance area 

of the skipped school. (ESEA section 1113(b)(2)). In implementing this provision, the LEA 

must include children from low-income families who reside in the attendance area of the skipped 

school and attend private schools in calculating the proportional share under ESEA section 

1117(a)(4)(A), and, from the proportional share, determine the amount of Title I funds that are 

available for services for eligible private school children residing in the public school attendance 

area of the skipped school. Section 1117(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA requires the LEA to consult with 
16

private school officials about whether eligible private school children residing in the additional 

served attendance area will receive services. The LEA is not required, however, to include 

private school children from low-income families who reside in the additional served attendance 

area in calculating the proportional share. 

There is a related exception that applies if the amount of supplemental State or local funds a 

school receives is less than what it would receive under Title I. Section 1113(c)(2)(B) of the 

ESEA permits an LEA to reduce the amount of Title I funds allocated to a Title I school by the 

amount of supplemental funds from State or local sources that it spends on programs that meet 

the intent and purpose of Title I.

Grandfather Clause

For one additional year only, section 1113(b)(1)(C) of the ESEA authorizes an LEA to allocate 

Title I funds to a school that is no longer eligible but was eligible and served in the preceding 

year. This provision applies to a newly ineligible school and not to an eligible school that has 

fallen in the poverty ranking compared to the previous year’s ranking and does not receive a 

Title I allocation from its LEA because the LEA allocates its Title I funds to other eligible 

schools with higher poverty percentages.
A-1

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WITHIN-DISTRICT TITLE I 

ALLOCATIONS AND THE COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION 

NOTE: These questions and responses are reprinted, with generally minor updates, for instance, 

for dates, website links, and citations, from relevant sections of the Department’s The 

Community Eligibility Provision and Selected Requirements under Title I, Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (March 2015), available at: 

www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/15-0011.doc. The question number from the original 

guidance is provided in parentheses for the reader’s awareness.

What is the Community Eligibility Provision? (Question 1)

Section 104(a) of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Act) (P.L. 111-296, available at: 

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ296/pdf/PLAW-111publ296.pdf) amended 

section 11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)) to 

provide an alternative that eliminates the need for household applications for free and reducedprice meals in high-poverty LEAs and schools. This alternative, which is now part of the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program, is referred to as the 

Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).

To be eligible, LEAs and/or schools must meet a minimum level of “identified students” for free 

meals in the year prior to implementing CEP; agree to serve free breakfasts and lunches to all 

students; and agree to cover with non-Federal funds any costs of providing free meals to students 

above the amounts provided by Federal assistance (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)(ii)). 

Reimbursement for each LEA or school is based on claiming percentages derived from the 

percentage of identified students, i.e., students certified for free meals through means other than 

individual household applications. The claiming percentages established in the first year for an 

LEA or school may be used for four school years and may be increased if the percentage of 

identified students rises for the LEA or school. (See P.L. 111-296 or 

www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/community-eligibility-provision-resource-center for more information.)

If an LEA wishes to use CEP data to allocate Title I funds to schools, when would CEP 

data first be used to determine a school’s eligibility and allocation? (Question 17)

Generally, with the exception of new or expanding charter schools, an LEA uses data from the 

prior year to determine its within-district allocations. As a result, with respect to a school that is 

a CEP school for the first time, the NSLP data available to its LEA would probably be from the 

previous year. Therefore, with respect to within-district Title I allocations, an LEA would likely 

first use CEP data for a school that is a second-year CEP school. 

How does an LEA allocate Title I funds to schools when it has CEP and non-CEP schools? 

(Question 18)

The number of students directly certified is a subset of the total number of students eligible for 

free and reduced-price meals. Thus, if an LEA has non-CEP schools with a poverty count based 

on the number of students approved for free and reduced-price meals and CEP schools with a 

poverty count based on, for example, students directly certified using SNAP data, the LEA must 

use a common poverty metric to rank order its schools and allocate Title I funds on an equitable 

basis (see ESEA section 1113(a)(5)(A)). (Once this common poverty metric is determined, an 
A-2

LEA that chooses to determine whether it meets Title I’s comparability requirement through the 

high- and low-poverty schools method would also use the same metric for this purpose.)

An LEA has options for deriving a common poverty metric. One approach is for the LEA to 

multiply the number of students identified by direct certification in a CEP school by the 1.6 

multiplier established under section 104(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)(vii)). To 

account for the difference in poverty rates when using free and reduced-price meals data for nonCEP schools and direct certification data for CEP schools, the multiplier of 1.6 is intended to 

approximate the free and reduced-price meals count for a CEP school. 

A second approach is for the LEA to use the number of students directly certified through SNAP 

(or another direct certification measure available annually) in both CEP and non-CEP schools. 

(As all schools, not just CEP schools, must directly certify students through SNAP, an LEA 

should have direct certification data for each of its schools (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(4)). 

A third approach consists of applying the 1.6 multiplier to the number of students in CEP and 

non-CEP schools who are directly certified through SNAP (or another direct certification 

measure available annually).9 This approach would not change the order in which schools are 

ranked based on direct certification data alone, but, due to the inclusion of the multiplier, would 

result in a higher poverty percentage for each school compared to using direct certification data 

alone for the purpose of within-district Title I allocations. An LEA may wish to use this 

approach for several reasons. For example, more of an LEA’s schools may be eligible for Title I 

using this approach than with direct certification alone and, as a result, an LEA may be able to 

more closely approximate the number of schools that would have been eligible if the LEA had 

used a combination of direct certification data and household applications. 

Below, we provide examples of each of these approaches. Example A shows how the first 

approach would work, using the 1.6 multiplier for CEP schools, for a hypothetical LEA with 

$1,000,000 to distribute to its Title I schools, which consist of three CEP schools and three nonCEP schools. Example B illustrates the second approach, using direct certification data from 

SNAP for all schools in an LEA with two CEP schools and four non-CEP schools. As detailed 

in the table footnotes, two schools, Harding and Coolidge, are not eligible in Example B. Using 

the Example B schools and the same direct certification data for each school, Example C 

demonstrates the third approach by applying the 1.6 multiplier to the direct certification data for 

all schools. In this example, as detailed in the table footnotes, Harding is now eligible for Title I. 

Note also that, as illustrated in Examples A and C, the use of the 1.6 multiplier cannot result in a 

school’s poverty count exceeding its enrollment. 

9 The use of the 1.6 multiplier in non-CEP schools in this approach applies only to Title I within-district allocations 

as a means to achieving a common poverty threshold across all schools, and not to any aspect of the NSLP, 

including meal reimbursement.
A-3

Example A

Within-District Title I Allocations in an LEA with a 

Combination of CEP Schools and Non-CEP Schools

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9 Column 10

School

CEP 

School 

(Y/N)

Enrollment

CEP Schools: 

Identified 

Students Data1

Non-CEP Schools:

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students Identified by Free 

and Reduced-Price Meals 

Data

1.6 

Multiplier2

NSLP Count 

Used to 

Allocate Title I 

Funds3

Percentage of 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Students for Title 

I Allocations4

Per-Pupil 

Amount 

Used by 

LEA5

Title I 

Allocation6

Lincoln Y 425 400 N/A 1.6 425 100% $500 $212,500

Washington Y 500 297 N/A 1.6 475 95% 500 237,500

Adams Y 600 350 N/A 1.6 560 93% 500 280,000

Jefferson N 450 N/A 400 N/A 400 89% 450 180,000

Madison N 400 N/A 200 N/A 200 50% 450 90,000

Monroe N 500 N/A 100 N/A 100 20% N/A 0

Total N/A 2,875 N/A N/A N/A 2,160 75% N/A $1,000,000

1 The number of students may be determined once every four years for CEP schools. Moreover, the poverty data used will likely differ from other schools. For the CEP schools, the poverty data will be, 

for example, direct certification (Identified Students) data (e.g., SNAP or TANF) collected at least every four years times the multiplier. For other schools, the poverty data will be from household 

applications and direct certification data.

2 The 1.6 multiplier applies only to a CEP school.

3 For a CEP school, the Column 7 figure is equal to the lesser of (a) Column 4 x Column 6 or (b) Column 3. In other words, this number may not exceed the school’s total enrollment. For the non-CEP 

schools, the Column 7 figure is equal to Column 5.

4 Column 7 / Column 3.

5 An LEA determines the per-pupil amount it will allocate to each school; no lower-ranked school may receive more per pupil than a higher-ranked school.

6 Column 9 x Column 7 (Note: Monroe is ineligible for Title I funds because its poverty percentage is below both the LEA’s average (Column 8 total row) and 35 percent.)
A-4

Example B

Using Direct Certification Data Only

Within-District Title I Allocations in an LEA with a

Combination of CEP Schools and Non-CEP Schools

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7

School CEP School 

(Y/N) Enrollment

All Schools: 

Direct 

Certification Data 

Through SNAP1

Percentage of 

Economically 

Disadvantaged Students 

for Title I Allocations2

Per-Pupil 

Amount 

Used by 

LEA

Title I 

Allocation3

McKinley Y 750 500 67% $540 $270,000

Roosevelt N 640 400 63% 540 216,000

Taft Y 900 560 62% 540 302,400

Wilson N 675 400 59% 529 211,600

Harding N 500 150 30% N/A 0

Coolidge N 750 100 13% N/A 0

Total N/A 4,215 2,110 50% N/A $1,000,000

1 The figures in Column 4 exclude, for the purposes of Title I ranking and serving of schools, household application data for the non-CEP schools and direct certification from programs other than SNAP 

for all schools. (CEP schools are prohibited from collecting household applications.)

2 Column 4 / Column 3.

3 Column 4 x Column 6. (Note: Harding and Coolidge are ineligible for Title I funds because their poverty percentages are below both the LEA’s poverty percentage (Column 5 total row) and 35 

percent.)
A-5

Example C

Using Direct Certification Data and the 1.6 Multiplier in All Schools

Within-District Title I Allocations in an LEA with a

Combination of CEP Schools and Non-CEP Schools

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9

School CEP School 

(Y/N) Enrollment

All Schools: Direct 

Certification Data 

Through SNAP1

1.6 

Multiplier

Poverty Count 

Used to Allocate 

Title I Funds2

Percentage of 

Economically 

Disadvantaged Students 

for Title I Allocations3

Per-Pupil 

Amount 

Used by 

LEA

Title I 

Allocation5

McKinley Y 750 500 1.6 750 100% $333.004 $250,000

Roosevelt N 640 400 1.6 640 100% 313.00 200,000

Taft Y 900 560 1.6 896 99% 313.00 280,000

Wilson N 675 400 1.6 640 95% 310.00 198,400

Harding N 500 150 1.6 240 48% 298.33 71,600

Coolidge N 750 100 1.6 160 21% N/A 0

Total N/A 4,215 2,110 N/A 3,326 79% N/A $1,000,000

1 The figures in Column 4 exclude, for the purposes of Title I ranking and serving of schools, household application data for the non-CEP schools and direct certification from programs other than SNAP 

for all schools. (CEP schools are prohibited from collecting household applications.)

2The Column 6 figure is equal to the lesser of (a) Column 4 x Column 5 or (b) Column 3. In other words, this number may not exceed the school’s total enrollment.

3 Column 6 / Column 3.

4 If the application of the 1.6 multiplier results in more than one school at 100 percent poverty, an LEA may allocate a higher per-pupil amount to the school with the larger percentage of directly 

certified students.

5 Column 6 x Column 8. (Note: Unlike in Example B, Harding is now eligible for Title I funds because its poverty percentage is at least 35 percent; Coolidge remains ineligible for Title I funds because 

its poverty percentage is below both the LEA’s average (Column 7 total row) and 35 percent.)
A-6

If an LEA has all CEP schools, does it need to apply the 1.6 multiplier for Title I ranking 

and allocation purposes? (Question 19)

No. If an LEA has all CEP schools, under ESEA section 1113(a)(3) through (5), the LEA may 

rank its schools by the percentage of directly certified students in each school, even though the 

multiplier is used to determine the USDA reimbursement amount.

If the application of the 1.6 multiplier results in more than one school at 100 percent 

poverty, must an LEA allocate the same per-pupil amount to each of these schools?

(Question 20)

Not necessarily. At its discretion, an LEA may take into consideration the direct certification 

poverty percentage of each of these schools. 

Generally, an LEA determines each Title I school’s allocation by multiplying the number of lowincome students in the school by a per-student amount established by the LEA. Under 34 C.F.R. 

200.78(c), an LEA is not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount to each participating 

school, as long as it allocates higher per-pupil amounts for schools with higher concentrations of 

poverty than to schools with lower concentrations of poverty. In the case of an LEA that has 

more than one CEP school at 100 percent poverty by virtue of the 1.6 multiplier but the schools 

have different direct certification percentages, the LEA may allocate a greater per-pupil amount 

for the 100 percent school with the higher percentage of directly certified students because the 

direct certification data indicate that the school has a higher concentration of poverty than the 

other 100 percent schools. In other words, the direct certification data may be used to 

differentiate among multiple CEP schools with a 100 percent poverty rate. In order to 

differentiate among these schools based on the most current data, an LEA may wish to use 

annual direct certification data and update the rankings as appropriate even if the data are not 

updated during the four-year period for CEP reimbursement purposes. 

To ensure that it complies with 34 C.F.R. 200.78(c), an LEA must make sure that the 100 percent 

CEP schools receive at least as much per pupil as CEP and non-CEP schools with poverty rates 

below 100 percent. For instance, a non-CEP school with a 95 percent poverty rate may not 

receive more per-pupil funding than a CEP school with a 100 percent poverty rate by virtue of 

the 1.6 multiplier. If two CEP schools have the same direct certification rate, they must be 

provided the same per-pupil allocation. 

The following table provides an example of an LEA with CEP and non-CEP schools in which 

the LEA is able to establish a different per-pupil allocation for two CEP schools with a 100 

percent poverty rate by virtue of the 1.6 multiplier:

➢ School 1 and School 2 are CEP schools with percentages of low-income students of 100 

percent by virtue of the 1.6 multiplier. As a result, they are ranked at the top of the 

LEA’s poverty rankings. 

➢ The LEA allocates a higher per-pupil amount to School 1 than School 2 on the basis of 

School 1’s greater direct certification poverty percentage based on SNAP data (Column 

5). 
A-7

➢ The LEA ensures that School 2 receives at least as much per pupil as School 3 and 

School 4 because School 2’s poverty percentage in Column 7, after application of the 1.6 

multiplier, is larger than that of School 3 or School 4.

Example

Providing a Different Title I Per-Pupil Allocation to Two CEP Schools that Have a 100 Percent 

USDA Reimbursement Rate 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Column 8 Column 9

School

CEP 

School 

(Y/N)

Enrollment

Number of 

Students 

Directly 

Certified

Percentage 

of 

Identified 

Students in 

CEP 

School

Number of 

Low-Income 

Students for 

Title I School 

Allocation 

Calculation1

Percentage of 

Low-Income 

Students for 

Ranking Title 

I Schools

Per-Pupil 

Amount Used 

by LEA

Title I 

Allocation

1 Y 500 400 80% 500 100% $750 $375,000 

2 Y 1500 1050 70% 1500 100% $650 $975,000 

3 N 500 10 N/A 4502 90% $625 $281,250 

4 Y 500 250 50% 400 80% $625 $250,000 

1 For a CEP school, this figure is equal to the lesser of: (a) Column 3 or (b) Column 4 multiplied by 1.6.

2 Poverty data are based on household applications and direct certification data.

If an LEA chooses to group CEP schools to determine the reimbursement rate from USDA, 

does each school in a group then have the same poverty percentage for Title I ranking and 

allocation purposes? (Question 21)

No. Schools may be grouped to determine CEP eligibility and the USDA reimbursement rate. 

Under section 1113 of the ESEA, however, an LEA with an enrollment of at least 1,000 students 

must rank schools individually for ranking and allocation purposes. Thus, if an LEA groups 

schools in order for them to be eligible for CEP or to maximize CEP reimbursement, the LEA 

must still use the CEP data, either alone or multiplied by the 1.6 multiplier, for each individual 

school for Title I ranking and allocation purposes. For example:

School 1 has 425 enrolled students, of whom 400 are directly certified. By virtue of the 1.6 

multiplier, the school’s poverty rate is 100 percent (400 directly certified students x the 1.6 

multiplier = 640 (greater than the school’s enrollment of 425 students)).

School 2 has 600 students, of whom 350 are directly certified. By virtue of the 1.6 multiplier, 

the school’s poverty rate is 93 percent (350 directly certified students x the 1.6 multiplier = 560 

divided by the enrollment of 600 = 93 percent).

For USDA reimbursement, the LEA may combine the data for School 1 and School 2, resulting 

in a free reimbursement rate of 100 percent for the schools as a group. (The reimbursement rate 

is 100 percent because: 750 directly certified students divided by the enrollment of 1,025 = 73.1 

percent x 1.6 = 100 percent meals reimbursed at the free rate.)
A-8

For Title I ranking and allocation purposes, however, the LEA must use the individual school 

percentages (School 1 = 100 percent; School 2 = 93 percent).

If an LEA has traditionally established a cutoff above which Title I-eligible schools are 

served, does the LEA have any options if the use of CEP data increases the number of 

schools above the cutoff? (Question 22)

Yes, an LEA has several options. One option, and perhaps the most straightforward option, is 

for an LEA to raise its cutoff point. (ESEA section 1113(a)(3) through (4). For example, if an 

LEA’s policy was to serve all schools above 60 percent poverty, the LEA could choose to serve 

schools above a higher poverty percentage (e.g., 67 percent). 

For the sole purpose of within-district Title I allocations, a second option would be for an LEA to 

use, as authorized by section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA, another allowable poverty measure or 

combination of measures to rank its schools that might result in fewer schools above its cutoff. 10 

 

May an LEA with one or more CEP schools conduct its own survey to collect the equivalent 

of NSLP data from the CEP schools for Title I within-district allocations? (Question 23)

Yes; however, the Department urges an LEA to consider this decision. One of the purposes of 

CEP is to reduce administrative burden. Conducting a survey just for Title I would add burden 

that may not be necessary because, in the case of an LEA that has one or more CEP schools, the 

LEA by definition already has poverty data for one of the permitted sources under section 

1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (NSLP data). 

Should an LEA decide to carry out such a survey, the LEA may use the results for Title I withindistrict allocations as long as it is confident that the survey data are accurate and used 

consistently with the ranking and serving criteria in section 1113 of the ESEA, including the 

income cutoff for one or more of the programs listed in section 1113(a)(5). If an LEA carries out 

this type of survey, the LEA must ensure that it does not in any way indicate that the survey is 

required by the Department or USDA.11 Additionally, if an LEA uses such a survey, for 

purposes of allocating funds to provide equitable services to eligible private school students it 

should consult with private school officials to determine whether to use the same or similar 

survey to determine the number of private school children from low-income families who reside 

in a participating public school attendance area. 

Under what circumstances may an LEA use Title I, Part A funds to conduct a local survey 

to identify students from low-income families? (Question 23a)

An LEA must consider two primary factors before it uses Title I funds to pay for a local survey. 

First, in accordance with section 1118(b)(1) of the ESEA, if individual student data are required 

for State or local purposes, such as State funding formulas, and a survey is the only means of 

obtaining such data, an LEA must make State or local funds available for this activity. If these 

10 The composite option in section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA to establish a poverty percentage for a school applies 

only to the within-district Title I allocation process. For other Federal or non-Federal purposes, an LEA that uses a 

composite for within-district Title I allocations may be asked to report poverty figures for its schools that are 

determined differently (i.e., as defined by the specific data collection) than the method used in the composite. 

11 USDA regulations do not allow school meal program funds to support an alternate application process.
A-9

funds are made available to conduct a survey to carry out a State or local requirement, there 

would be no need to use Title I funds for this purpose. 

Second, 2 C.F.R. 200.403(a) and 200.405 require, among other things, that the use of Title I 

funds be “necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award” of Title I and be 

allocable to Title I. Whether a local survey is necessary to properly operate a Title I program 

depends on the factual circumstances within an LEA. SNAP data are available for every school, 

regardless of whether the school participates in CEP. Those data, however, may not always fully 

or accurately represent the concentration of poverty for all schools in an LEA. For example, if a 

school traditionally has had a disproportionately high number of students who are identified for 

NSLP participation through an annual household application instead of direct certification when 

compared to other school attendance areas in the LEA, a local survey in place of the annual 

household survey may be necessary to produce the most accurate poverty count for the school 

and prevent the school from losing Title I funds without any actual changes to the concentration 

of poverty in that school attendance area. In such circumstances, the LEA may be able to 

demonstrate that the use of Title I funds to conduct a local survey is necessary to the operation of 

its Title I program. Per 2 C.F.R. 200.403(a) and 200.404, the LEA must also demonstrate that 

the costs of conducting a local survey are reasonable.

To the extent an LEA demonstrates it is necessary and reasonable to conduct a local survey for 

Title I purposes and uses only Title I funds for the survey, the LEA may not use data from the 

survey for non-Title I purposes, unless such non-Title I use is incidental (e.g., identifying 

students for exemption from Advance Placement testing fees). If an LEA has substantial or 

multiple local needs for poverty data from a local survey in addition to its Title I needs, the LEA 

must allocate its survey costs between Title I funds and non-Federal sources so that the costs 

assigned to Title I are allocable (2 C.F.R. 200.405).

USDA guidance [available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP54-

2016os.pdf] indicates that the identified students’ count and reimbursement rate for CEP 

purposes should be determined based on data that reflects the student population as of

April 1 of the previous school year, unless an LEA chooses to use the identified students’ 

count from an earlier year within the permitted four-year period. How should an LEA 

with CEP and non-CEP schools that collects NSLP household applications for non-CEP 

schools at a different point during the year consider this difference in timing? (Question 24)

An LEA in this situation has three options. 

First, the LEA might use CEP data from April 1 for the CEP schools and NSLP data for the nonCEP schools from another time as long as both periods occur in the same school year. A nonCEP school’s data generally include a combination of directly certified students and students 

who are eligible through the household application. 

Second, if compatible with the implementation of NSLP and the timing of submitting a Title I 

plan to its SEA for the following school year, an LEA might use its count of household 

applications and access direct certification data for a non-CEP school on approximately April 1. 

Third, for Title I purposes only, an LEA might access direct certification data for CEP schools on 

approximately the same date during the school year as it accesses these data for, and collects 

household applications from, non-CEP schools (while also still accessing the direct certification 
A-10

data as of April 1 for USDA CEP purposes). Thus, under this third option, the LEA would still 

use April 1 as the date for calculating a CEP school’s USDA reimbursement rate but would use 

the date when the data were accessed for Title I to establish the school’s poverty percentage and 

number of low-income students for Title I purposes. For example, if on October 31, 2018 (the 

date the school’s LEA collects NSLP data for non-CEP schools), 60 percent of a CEP school’s 

students are directly certified and then on April 1, 2019, 62.5 percent of a CEP school’s students 

are directly certified, the school’s poverty percentage for Title I within-district allocations would 

be 96 percent (60.0 percent x the 1.6 multiplier) whereas its USDA NSLP reimbursement at the 

free rate would be 100 percent (62.5 percent x the 1.6 multiplier).

In following any of the above options, if an LEA uses the identified students’ count from an 

earlier year within the permitted four-year period for NSLP reimbursement for CEP schools, the 

LEA would not be required to change the poverty percentages of the CEP schools during this 

time period for Title I purposes unless the LEA were to use a different poverty measure to 

allocate Title I funds. (ESEA section 1113(a)(5)(A). During this time the poverty percentages 

of the non-CEP schools for Title I purposes will likely change due to the availability of updated 

household application and identified students’ data. 
B-1

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT WITHIN-DISTRICT 

ALLOCATIONS AND NEWLY OPENED OR SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED 

CHARTER SCHOOLS

NOTE: These question and responses are reprinted, with minor updates for dates and citations,

from relevant sections of the Department’s How Does a State or Local Educational Agency 

Allocate Funds to Charter Schools That are Opening for the First Time or Significantly 

Expanding Their Enrollment (December 2000), available at:

www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/cschools/cguidedec2000.pdf. The question number from the 

original guidance is provided in parentheses for the reader’s awareness.

Does an LEA have flexibility in obtaining poverty data for charter schools that are opening 

for the first time or significantly expanding their enrollment? (Question 55)

Yes. The following are examples of how an LEA may exercise flexibility in obtaining poverty 

data for new or expanding charter schools. (ESEA section 4306 and 34 C.F.R part 76, subpart 

H): 

(a) If enrollment and poverty data for a new or expanding charter school are not available at 

the same time that such data are collected for other public schools within the LEA (e.g., 

the charter school has not yet opened or expanded), an LEA may use the same data 

collected at a different time of the year to determine the charter school's eligibility for, 

and allocation of, Title I funds. For example, an LEA that uses enrollment and free-lunch 

data collected in October 2018 to determine allocations for the 2019-2020 school year 

may use charter school data collected at a later date to determine the public charter 

school's Title I eligibility and allocation. 

(b) If an LEA uses poverty data that are not available for a charter school, such as free and 

reduced-price lunch data, the LEA has several options: 

(1) The LEA may use poverty data for children attending a new or expanding charter 

school that are from a different source than the data it uses for other public schools 

within the LEA, so long as the income level for both sources is generally the same.

For example, charter school officials may be able to produce an equivalent count of 

children eligible for free and reduced-price lunches using sources of poverty data 

other than free and reduced-price lunch data, such as a survey of parents, State 

programs under Title IV of the Social Security Act, or tuition scholarship programs; 

(2) If complete actual data are not available, the LEA may extrapolate the number of 

low-income children in a new or expanding charter school from actual data on a 

representative sample of children in the charter school. The sample size should be 

large enough to draw a reasonable conclusion that the poverty estimate is accurate; or

(3) The LEA may obtain the number of poor children in a new or expanding charter 

school by correlating sources of data–that is, by determining the proportional 

relationship between two sources of data on poor children in regular public schools 

and applying that ratio to a known source of data on poor children in a charter school. 
B-2

What if enrollment and poverty data for a charter school that is opening for the first time 

or significantly expanding its enrollment are not available in time to be factored into the 

LEA's allocation process? (Question 56)

Newly opening or significantly expanding charter schools typically are not in a position to 

identify their poverty children until on or near the date when the school actually opens or 

expands. To accommodate this situation and ensure that charter schools receive the 

proportionate amount of Title I funds for which they are eligible within the time periods 

specified in 34 C.F.R. 76.792, an LEA has several options: 

(a) The LEA may reserve an amount off the top of its Title I allocation that it believes will be 

sufficient to fund eligible charter schools that are opening for the first time or 

significantly expanding their enrollment. Once a charter school has opened or expanded, 

and the actual data are available, the LEA would determine whether the charter school is 

eligible and ranks sufficiently high to receive Title I funds. The LEA would allocate the 

appropriate amount of the reserved Title I funds to the qualifying charter school in 

accordance with the LEA's Title I allocation procedures; 

(b) The LEA may distribute an appropriate amount available from Title I carryover funds to 

a charter school that is opening for the first time or significantly expanding its 

enrollment; or

(c) The LEA may apply to the SEA for Title I funds available for reallocation under section 

1126(c) of the ESEA to serve a charter school that is opening for the first time or 

significantly expanding its enrollment.