1

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT RENEWAL 

CONCERNING STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES’ PROCEDURES FOR 

ADJUSTING DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-DETERMINED TITLE I, PART A 

ALLOCATIONS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (1810-0622)

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any 

legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the 

appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection 

of information.

We are requesting a three-year extension of the current paperwork clearance package 

(OMB number 1810-0622) related to State educational agency (SEA) procedures for 

adjusting Title I, Part A local educational agency (LEA) allocations determined by the U.S. 

Department of Education (ED). The current package expires November 30, 2014. 

Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended

(ESEA), requires ED to allocate Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and 

Education Finance Incentive Grants directly to LEAs. (See sections 1124(a)(2), 1124A(a), 

1125(a), (b), and (c)(2), and 1125A(c) and (d)(1)((B), (2)(B), and (3)(B) of the statute at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.) Title I, Part A allocations are 

based primarily on poverty data provided by the Census Bureau and reflect a national list of 

LEAs that is several years out of date. For example, the list of LEAs used for calculating 

school year (SY) 2014-2015 allocations is based on LEAs that existed in SY 2011-2012. 

Because the list of LEAs used by ED in determining LEA allocations does not match the 

current universe of LEAs in many States, SEAs must adjust ED’s allocations to account for 

district boundary changes and newly-created LEAs that are legitimately eligible for Title I, 

Part A funds but did not receive an allocation under ED calculations. 

In addition, SEAs must adjust ED allocations to—

 Reserve funds for school improvement (authorized in section 1003 of ESEA), State 

administration (section 1004), and the State academic achievement awards program 

(section 1117(c)(2)(A)); and

 Allow, for SEAs approved by ED to do so, the use of alternative data to redistribute EDdetermined Title I, Part A allocations among “small” LEAs with less than 20,000 total 

residents.
2

The provisions in §§200.70 through 200.75 and §200.100 of the Title I regulations (34 CFR, 

Part 200) address the procedures an SEA must follow when adjusting our allocations. (The 

regulations concerning allocations to LEAs are available at: 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.pdf.)

The statutory requirement for ED to allocate Title I, Part A funds directly to LEAs went into 

effect in 1999 with the Improving America’s Schools Act amendments to ESEA. ED first 

issued guidance in June 1999 to provide directions to SEAs on how to adjust ED-determined 

Title I, Part A allocations in order to account for boundary changes and the creation of new 

LEAs, to redistribute Title I, Part A funds for small LEAs using alternative poverty data, and 

to reserve funds for school improvement and State administration activities. ED then issued 

the regulations cited in the prior paragraph in December 2002 after passage of the current 

ESEA authorization and later released updated guidance in May 2003. (The guidance is 

available at: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/seaguidanceforadjustingallocations.doc.)

These regulations and guidance remain in effect and have not been revised. 

At the time ED first developed its 1999 guidance, the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approved clearance package 1810-0622, which estimated the SEA burden hours 

connected with this process. The clearance package was renewed in October 2002, 2005, 

2008, and 2011. This clearance package would extend the currently approved package for 

three more years with no change in the current burden hour estimate. 

Note that there is no collection of data by ED associated with §§200.70 through 200.75 and 

§200.100 of the regulations. This narrative addresses only the burden associated with the 

actual procedures an SEA must follow when adjusting ED-determined LEA allocations. 

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a 

new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received 

from the current collection.

In order to enable an SEA to determine final LEA allocations, the regulations and guidance 

provide directions on how an SEA adjusts ED-determined Title I, Part A allocations to 

account for district boundary changes and the creation of new LEAs to reserve funds for 

school improvement, State administration, and the State academic achievement awards 

program, and to use alternative data for small LEAs. The regulations address issues such 

as:

 Determining numbers of Title I formula children and eligibility of LEAs not on the list 

of LEAs provided by the Census Bureau that ED used to determine school district 

allocations.

 Establishing initial allocations for all eligible LEAs (including those not on the Census 
3

list) within the State and making adjustments.

 Reserving funds for school improvement, State administration, and the State academic 

achievement awards program; and 

 Determining final allocations for all eligible LEAs, including those not on the Census 

list used by ED.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis 

for the decision to adopt this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using 

information technology to reduce burden.

The statute and regulations neither require nor preclude SEAs from using information 

technology to reduce burden. In the past, SEAs have used electronic technology to make 

the adjustments outlined in the regulations. 

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information 

already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 

above.

There is no duplication.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 8b of 

IC Data Part 2), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

There is no data collection involved. The provisions in §§200.70 – 200.75 and §200.100 of 

the regulations do not affect small businesses. They apply only to SEAs and concern 

procedures SEAs must follow to adjust ED-determined LEA allocations. SEAs must make 

these adjustments in order to ensure that all eligible LEAs receive the Title I, Part A funds to

which they are entitled.

6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not 

conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to 

reducing burden.

This clearance package addresses the burden on SEAs to implement the provisions of 

§§200.70 – 200.75 and §200.100 of the regulations and involves no data collection. These 

regulations are needed to provide guidance to SEAs on adjustment procedures to follow in 

order to ensure that eligible LEAs that are not included in ED’s allocation calculations will 

receive the Title I, Part A allocations to which they are entitled. The regulations have not 

changed since 2011, when this clearance package was last renewed.
4

7. Explain any special circumstance that would cause an information collection to be 

conducted in a manner--

 requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

 requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in 

fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

 requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

 requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government 

contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

 in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable 

results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

 requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and 

approved by OMB;

 that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in 

statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that 

are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with 

other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

 requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential 

information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to 

protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

The requirements in the regulations are consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5. 

None of the special circumstances outlined in the supporting statement instructions apply.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the 

FEDERAL REGISTER of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting 

comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public 

comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in 

response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour 

burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the 

availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, 

disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, 

or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those 

who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years even if the collection of 

information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may 

preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
5

A 60-and 30-day Federal Register Notice was published, ED received no public comments 

during the 60-day comment period.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than 

renumeration of contractors or grantees.

Not applicable. No payment is involved because SEAs are not required to provide data or 

information to ED.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the 

assurance in statute, regulations, or agency policy.

Not applicable. The statute and regulations require no assurance of confidentiality, there 

are no assurances of confidentiality.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual 

behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered 

private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the 

questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be 

given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to 

obtain their consent.

The statute and regulations do not involve any questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. 

The estimated burden and cost to the 52 SEAs to follow the steps outlined in §§200.70 –

200.75 and §200.100 of the regulations is 2080 annual hours at a cost of $62,400. This 

assumes that on average 52 SEAs will require 40 hours of work to carry out these 

procedures. The cost per hour would average $30. (See the appendix for a more detailed 

breakout of the hours.) 

The amount of effort varies by SEA. For example, Hawaii and Puerto Rico have only one 

LEA, and 15 other SEAs have had very few, if any, changes to their LEAs since SY 2011-

2012 because their LEAs correspond closely to counties or other fixed jurisdictions. 

Consequently, the SEAs in these States will have very little additional work because they

can use the ED-determined allocations with very few adjustments. In contrast, States such 

as Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and 

Texas will likely have significant changes in their LEAs since SY 2011-2012 primarily

because of the creation of public charter schools, which these States consider LEAs. Their 

adjustments will take more time to complete than those by other SEAs. 
6

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers 

resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden 

shown in Items 12 and 14.)

 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up 

cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and 

maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into 

account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the 

information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors 

including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, 

the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and 

start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such 

as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing 

equipment; and record storage facilities.

 If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost 

burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out 

information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In 

developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents 

(fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and 

use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking 

containing the information collection, as appropriate.

 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions 

thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with 

requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than 

to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary 

and usual business or private practices.

There are no start-up costs beyond those provided in numbers 12 and 14. SEAs have 

made the kinds of adjustments outlined in §§200.70 – 200.75 and §200.100 of the 

regulations since 1999 and have the staff in place to address issues concerning the 

allocation of Title I, Part A and other Federal education funds. 
7

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a 

description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of 

hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and 

any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. 

Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

The time and effort required to provide technical assistance concerning the implementation 

of §§200.70 – 200.75 and §200.100 of the regulations are part of normal staff functions 

within ED. An estimate of the GS 14 staff hours and cost to provide technical assistance to 

SEAs in their implementation of these provisions follows:

No. of hours 300

 X Cost per hour $60

 $18,000

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments to #16f of the IC Data Part 1 

Form.

There are no program changes or adjustments to the current burden hours estimate 

associated with implementing §§200.70 – 200.75 and §200.100 of the regulations.

Therefore, an extension of this clearance package would not add any more burden hours to 

OMB’s current inventory for this activity. 

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation 

and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the 

time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection 

of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Not applicable because there is no collection of information. 

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information 

collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
8

The proposed display of the OMB expiration date for data collection is not applicable 

because ED is not collecting any information. The SEA would collect any data needed to 

implement §§200.70 – 200.75 and §200.100 of the regulations. The SEA is not required to 

submit data collected for this purpose to ED. 

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the Certification of 

Paperwork Reduction Act.

There are no proposed exceptions to the certification statement of OMB Form 83-1.

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

These regulations do not employ statistical methods.
9

APPENDIX

ESTIMATE OF HOURS

SEA estimate

Number of SEAs 52

X Time needed for SEA to implement procedures for 

adjusting ED-determined allocations and make final Title I, 

Part A LEA allocations 

 40 hours

2,080

Total respondent hours 2,080 hours

X Cost rate $30

 $62,400

Average burden hours per respondent

Person hours required nationally for SEAs to implement procedures 

for adjusting ED-determined allocations and make final Title I, Part 

A LEA allocations 2,080 hours

 Number of respondents 52

= Average burden hours per respondent 40 hours

Federal Level

GS 14 Person hours 300 hours

X Cost rate $60

$18,000