U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Results in Brief:

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs

April 2018

The original purpose of the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was to provide supplementary

services to assist low-achieving students in high-poverty schools, and schools were required to target Title I funds specifically to 

serve such students. In 1978, the schoolwide program (SWP) option was introduced to provide higher-poverty schools with flexibility 

to use Title I funds for whole-school approaches to improving achievement for low-achieving students. Unlike schools using the 

traditional targeted assistance program (TAP) approach, SWP schools are allowed to consolidate Title I funds with those from other 

federal, state, and local sources and are not required to ensure that the funds are spent only for specific students identified as lowachieving. Over time, the poverty rate threshold for eligibility to operate schoolwide programs has been lowered and the prevalence 

of SWP schools has grown, gradually rising from 10 percent of all Title I schools in 1994–95 to 77 percent in 2014–15.

Implicit in the intent for SWPs is that the flexibility will allow them to implement systemic approaches to improve academic 

outcomes for all students in schools with high concentrations of poverty, particularly low-achieving students. At the same time, the 

continuation of the TAP approach also reflects a specific policy intent: to focus the smaller amount of total Title I funding in lowerpoverty schools on supporting students with the greatest needs, rather than diluting the funds across a larger number of students.

This study examines how these two types of programs compare in the services and resources they provide with Title I funds and 

their decision-making processes for allocating these resources. 

STUDY QUESTIONS 

1. Do schoolwide and targeted assistance programs differ in 

how they use Title I funds to improve achievement for 

low-achieving students? 

2. How do districts and schools make decisions about how to 

use Title I funds in schoolwide programs and targeted 

assistance programs?

3. To what extent do schoolwide programs consolidate Title I 

funds with other funds or coordinate the use of Title I funds 

with other funds?

STUDY DESIGN 

The study is based on nationally representative surveys of 

Title I districts and schools as well as interviews and extant 

data analysis in selected case study sites. The surveys were 

completed by administrators in 310 Title I districts and 

principals in 622 SWP schools and 420 TAP schools. Response 

rates were 76 percent for districts and 75 percent for schools. 

The case studies were conducted in a purposive sample of 

35 Title I SWP and TAP schools and their districts. They 

included collection and analysis of school-level budgets and 

Title I plans, as well as site visits during which semi-structured 

interviews were conducted with principals, other school staff

involved in Title I, and district administrators. 

Study limitations include: 1) case study findings cannot be 

generalized to the nation as a whole, and 2) survey 

respondents may not have had ready access to the specific 

data requested on Title I expenditures and were asked to 

provide their best estimates.

Highlights

• Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used 

Title I funds to hire teachers, such teachers accounted for 

a smaller percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools (41 

percent) than in TAP schools (67 percent).

• SWP schools were more than twice as likely as TAP 

schools to use Title I funds for instructional coaches, 

parent liaisons, technology support staff, and English 

learner (EL) specialists. 

• Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly used Title Ifunded staff to provide supplemental instruction in 

reading and/or mathematics, but SWPs were more than 

twice as likely as TAPs to also use these staff for 

instruction in other subjects, data/analytics support, 

parental involvement, and other approaches. 

• In most Title I schools, districts and schools collaborated 

on decisions regarding the use of Title I funds, but 

principals in SWPs were more likely than those in TAPs to 

report making all or most decisions about how to use 

their school’s Title I funds (25 percent vs. 12 percent). 

• Few principals of SWPs said that their school 

consolidated Title I funds with other federal, state, and 

local funds (6 percent), but a larger proportion (50 

percent) indicated that they coordinated the use of Title I 

funds with other funds.

• The biggest perceived challenge for consolidating Title I 

funds with other sources was state accounting rules that 

require separate accounting for federal programs.
USE OF TITLE I FUNDS 

Although a majority of both SWP and TAP schools used Title I 

funds to employ teachers, such teachers accounted for a 

smaller percentage of Title I staff in SWP schools, which were 

more likely to use Title I funds for instructional coaches, 

parent liaisons, and other types of staff.

In SWP schools, teachers accounted for 41 percent of all 

Title I-funded staff, compared with 67 percent in TAP schools.

In contrast, SWP schools were more likely than TAPs to employ

Title I staff as instructional coaches (14 percent vs. 6 percent of 

Title I staff), paraprofessionals (29 percent vs. 20 percent),

parent liaisons (3 percent vs. less than 1 percent), and other 

types of staff such as EL specialists, technology support staff, 

curriculum coordinators, assessment coordinators, data 

analysts, and administrative staff (12 percent vs. 6 percent).

SWP schools typically use Title I funds for a wider variety of 

staff types than TAP schools: while 52 percent of TAP schools

employed only teachers with their Title I dollars, this was true 

of just 14 percent of SWPs. 

Both SWP and TAP schools most commonly used Title Ifunded staff to provide supplemental instruction in reading 

and/or mathematics, but SWPs were more than twice as 

likely as TAPs to use these staff for other types of instruction 

and instructional support.

SWP principals were somewhat more likely than those in TAP 

schools to report using Title I staff to provide instruction in 

reading (74 percent vs. 55 percent) and math (55 percent vs.

33 percent). However, SWPs were much more likely than 

TAPs to report using Title I staff for instruction in other 

subjects (26 percent vs. 5 percent), data and analytics 

support (40 percent vs. 18 percent), parent involvement

(33 percent vs. 15 percent), technology support (20 percent 

vs. 6 percent), and support for English learners (21 percent vs. 

9 percent) and special education (19 percent vs. 8 percent).

Few SWP schools used Title I staff for reading instruction 

alone (7 percent, compared with 21 percent of TAP schools), 

and they were more likely than TAP schools to use staff for 

combinations of three or more types of services. 

While the majority of SWP schools reported traditional uses 

of Title I, namely reading and mathematics instruction, and 

push-in or pull-out interventions, six of the 26 SWP case 

study schools provide examples of more novel uses of Title I 

funds. 

These activities included (1) counseling services to address 

students’ social-emotional and nonacademic skills, (2) school 

climate interventions, (3) use of education technology and 

digital learning tools, (4) summer bridge programs for 

incoming students, (5) specialized use of academic specialists, 

and (6) academic enrichment activities.

MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THE USE OF FUNDS

In most Title I schools, districts and schools collaborated on 

decisions regarding the use of Title I funds, but principals in 

SWP schools were more likely than those in TAPs to report 

making all or most decisions about the use of Title I funds.

Title I school principals most frequently reported that school 

and district staff engaged in joint decision-making on the use 

of Title I funds (42 percent in SWPs and 30 percent in TAPs). 

However, SWP principals were more likely to report that they 

made most or all decisions regarding Title I funds (25 percent 

vs. 12 percent), while TAP principals were more likely to report 

that the district made decisions on all Title I funds (24 percent

vs. 10 percent). TAP schools were also more likely than SWP 

schools to report making no changes in how they used Title I 

funds during the past three years (30 percent vs. 10 percent). 

District administrators reported that SWP schools controlled 

an average of 47 percent of the Title I funds allocated to 

their schools, compared with 8 percent in TAP schools. 

Similarly, district administrators reported that 40 percent of 

SWP schools controlled at least three quarters of their Title I 

funds, compared with just 5 percent of TAP schools. Conversely, 

districts reported that 90 percent of TAP schools controlled less 

than a quarter of the Title I funds allocated to them. These 

findings also played out in the case study schools, where SWP 

schools were more often identified as having high or 

moderately high autonomy, compared with TAP schools.

TITLE I FLEXIBILITY IN SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS

Few SWP principals reported that their school consolidated

Title I funds with other federal, state, and local funds (6 

percent), but a larger proportion (50 percent) indicated that 

they coordinated the use of Title I funds with other funds. 

Eight percent of SWP principals reported that they neither 

consolidated nor coordinated funds from Title I and other 

programs; 36 percent did not know how to characterize their 

schools’ approach. Among the case study schools, those that 

reported coordinating the use of Title I funds and other funds 

often described co-funding staff positions or services in a way 

that may have a similar practical result as consolidating funds.

According to district administrators, the biggest challenge 

for consolidating Title I funds with funds from other sources 

was state accounting rules that require separate accounting 

for federal programs.

Nearly half (47 percent) of district administrators reported 

that state accounting rules requiring separate accounting for 

federal program funds posed a moderate or major challenge 

to consolidating Title I funds with funds from other sources. 

Other reported challenges included a lack of information 

about how to consolidate funds (37 percent), concern about 

potential audit exceptions (37 percent), district accounting 

rules (35 percent), and a need for more training about 

program issues (34 percent) and finance issues (32 percent).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The complete report is available online:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.