,. \‘ ‘ X7 8 L__ Q E l g I _ A ‘ i, __J‘“ 1'' “Ci 0,‘.-:3; v‘ ,:r ‘in, 4:», -' . . t ~-‘v “J. >.:' F4 v .«' .. a -‘ Va A N V C E _ . <‘:_u‘-.: "wt 2: In ~ “A R it ' ,« ‘:3... /. _ y A .. V 453$ ‘_—_t.;" /,1’;.‘_..az‘\\\;» ,;, 'A»..._-7.4‘ N... .. , ‘D 3* J ; — __ I , .\. ‘ 1’ .-' ‘ 8 4 3 5 ‘M .‘ ‘,;,W . 7..-‘; - ;x;.~.- .r{; 3;!‘ ,1 -\ . ~ « -, -r: ' .. ‘ . . =- -.~:' ~ -:1: -. '1’; if Es *3 :-7 ~': 7: . » 1*“ .};-r . 7.’. 7 .9 - ».« .-. . Government Pub‘ CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS Una mm‘ AUG 1 7 2994 W = . ashmgtcin Umversnty Libraries 0W8. MO. 63130 CHAPTER 1, EDUCATION CONSOLIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT: A COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION GRANTS UNDER THE FORMULAS OF CURRENT LAW AND OF H.R. 5, THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987, AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR Wayne Riddle Specialist in Education Finance Education and Public Welfare Division May 18, 1987 uuuiiif j§1jr_I¢]fl[;itij:i;1IijflL[‘fluflIflaII¢ "f The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting research, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees, Mem- bers, and their staffs. The Service makes such research available, without parti- san bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compila- tions, digests, and background briefings. Upon request, CRS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service’s senior specialists and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. ABSTRACT The Federal program of grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children--chapter 1, Education Consolidation and Im- provement Act--authorizes the distribution of assistance through both a basic and a concentration grant formula. Under the current formula, only LEAs in counties with more than 5,000 formula eligible (primarily, poverty) children, or where such children constitute lation, may receive concentration of 1987, as reported by the House vise these eligibility thresholds revise the method of distributing more than 20 percent of the school-age popu- grants. H.R. 5, the School Improvement Act Committee on Education and Labor, would re- to 6,500 children or 15 percent, as well as funds among, and within, qualifying counties. This report analyzes the distribution of concentration grants under the current law versus H.R. 5 formulas. CRS-V CONTENTS ESTRACTOI00000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO00000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 THE CURRENT LAW CONCENTRATION GRANT FORMULA............................... 2 THE H.R. 5 CONCENTRATION GRANT FORMULA. PATTERNSOOCOOOOOIOOOOIOIOCOOCOOCOOOOOOO 5 00000000000OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 CHAPTER 1, EDUCATION CONSOLIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT: A COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION GRANTS UNDER THE FORMULAS OF CURRENT LAW AND OF H.R. 5, THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987, AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR This report provides a description of the chapter 1 concentration grant allocation formula, both under current law and as it would be modified under H.R. S, the School Improvement Act of 1987, as reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor. Under both current law and H.R. 5, concentration grants are not a separate program at the local level; rather concentration grants are a separate allocation mechanism for distributing additional funds to local educational agencies (LEAS) in counties where the number or percentage of chapter 1 basic grant formula children exceed specified threshold levels. At the LEA level, concentration grant funds would simply be added to, and used for the same purposes as, chapter 1 basic grants. The current concentration grant program has been authorized since enact- ment of the Education Amendments of 1978 (P.L. 95-561). However, under current law, funds must be separately appropriated for concentration grants, and such appropriations have not been provided since fiscal year (FY) 1981. H.R. 5 would not only modify the concentration grant provisions, but would require that the first $400 million in chapter 1 LEA grant appropriations be reserved for concentration grants, in an attempt to ensure their funding. 1/ If The Reagan Administration's chapter 1 reauthorization proposal, S. 594/H.R. 1949, would require that 5 percent of all chapter 1 LEA grant funds be distributed as concentration grants. CRS-2 This report provides a description of the current law and H.R. 5 concen- tration grant eligibility and allocation provisions, followed by an analysis of the differences in allocation patterns under the two sets of provisions. THE CURRENT LAW CONCENTRATION GRANT FORMULA The currently authorized concentration grant program was enacted in the Education Amendments of 1978 (P.L. 95-561). Under the current chapter 1 stat- ute, counties are eligible for concentration grants if the number of children counted in the basic grant formula in the preceding program year either exceeds 5,000 such children or constitutes 20 percent or more of the total number of children aged 5-17 years. 2/ The formula for allocating concentration grant funds among eligible counties is based on the county share of the national total of children counted for concentration grants multiplied by a cost factor. The concentration grant formula child count is the greater of the number of basic grant formula children in excess of the 5,000 child or 20 percent thresh- olds. The concentration grant cost factor is similar to the one used for basic grant allocations. 1/ 2/ Under this formula, children counted for chapter 1 basic grant allo- cations are 5-17 year-olds; in poverty families, according to the 1980 Census; in families receiving payments under the program of Aid to Families with De- pendent Children (AFDC) above the poverty level for a (non-farm) family of four; plus neglected and delinquent children for whose education an LEA (as opposed to a State agency) has responsibility. 1/ The concentration grant cost factor is the quotient of the county's current year maximum basic grant (or "entitlement") divided by the county's previous year basic grant formula child count (i.e., current year population times current year cost factor, divided by previous year population). In most cases, this will simply be similar, or identical, to the basic grant cost fac- tor, since the maximum basic grant is equal to the basic grant formula child count multiplied by the basic grant cost factor. The concentration grant cost factor will differ significantly from the basic grant cost factor only if there is a significant difference between the current and previous years' basic grant formula child counts. CRS-3 The current law concentration grant formula also has a State minimum pro- vision. The total of concentration grants to counties in each State must be at least 0.25 percent of the national total of concentration grants. The chapter 1 statute does not provide explicit guidance regarding the distribution of ad- ditional funds (i.e., grants above that which the State would receive if there were no State minimum provision) in States where grants are increased by the State minimum; and current regulations leave the distribution of such addi- tional funds to State discretion. As is discussed further below, this source of uncertainty makes it impossible to estimate concentration grants to counties in States where grants are increased to the State minimum level. Finally, county concentration grants are allocated to LEAs within those counties by the State education agency (SEA). All LEAs in each eligible county would receive a share of the county's concentration grant. County grants are allocated to LEAs in proportion to each LEA's number of chapter 1 formula chil- dren. However, if an LEA's chapter 1 formula child percentage is less than 20 percent, then its child count receives less weight in this distribution process. Q] THE H.R. 5 CONCENTRATION GRANT FORMULA During the Committee on Education and Labor's consideration of H.R. 5, three changes to the chapter 1 concentration grant provisions were adopted. 3/ In distributing county concentration grants among LEAs in the county, each chapter 1 basic grant formula child is weighted at 1.0 if the LEA's per- centage of such children (compared to its total population aged 5-17 years) is 20 percent or higher. If the LEA percentage is less than 20 percent, then each formula child is weighted at less than 1.0, with the specific weight being equal to the LEA percentage divided by 20 percent. Thus, if an LEA has a chap- ter 1 formula child percentage of 10 percent, then the weight applied to form- ula children in that LEA when distributing concentration grants would be 10/20, or 0.5. CRS-4 One of these amendments would authorize States to set aside up to 2 percent of total concentration grants to the State. These amounts could be distributed to LEAs that have relatively high numbers or proportions of chapter 1 basic grant formula children, but are located in counties that are not eligible for concen- tration grants. 2/ A The second Committee concentration grant amendment to H.R. 5 would modify the allocation of such funds among counties. ’The county eligibility thresholds would be changed to QLQQQ formula children, or a 15 percent formula child per- centage. Of equal significance, in distributing concentration grant funds among counties, all formula children--not just the number above the eligibility threshold--would be counted if the county meets the 15 percent criterion, but only the number of children above the 6,500 threshold if only that criterion is met. The final concentration grant amendment adopted by the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor affects the distribution of funds among LEAs within eligible counties. Funds would no longer be distributed to every LEA in the county; rather only the LEAs that meet either the 6,500 or 15 percent threshold would be eligible to receive a share of the county's concentration grant. If no LEA in the county meets either of these criteria, Q1 then the concentration grants would be shared by all LEAs in the county with a number or percentage of form- ula children above the county average. if For example, funds from the State set-aside might be distributed to an LEA with a chapter 1 formula children percentage above 15 percent, that is in a county with a percentage below 15 percent--and also has fewer than 6,500 such children--so that the county is not eligible for concentration grants under the standard formula. ’ Qf For example, a county with two LEAs might have 10,000 formula children but not meet the 15 percent standard. If each of the county's LEAs contained one-half of the formula children (5,000 each) but had a formula child percent- age below 15 percent, then no LEA would meet either of the usual eligibility criteria. 1 i CRS-5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALLOCATION PATTERNS The following tables display estimated allocations under the current law and H.R. 5 concentration grant formulas--amounts for selected counties in cer- tain categories, based on their number and percentage of chapter 1 basic grant formula children (table 1), and State totals (table 2). If you wish to obtain concentration grant estimates for counties other than those shown below, please contact the Congressional Research Service. All estimates were calculated using a total concentration grant appropriation level of $400 million, and chapter 1 population and cost factor data for 1986-87, as these would be modi- fied by H.R. 5. It is important to note that under either formula, county-level data can- ngt be shown for States where grants have been increased under the State mini- mum provision. In the attached estimates, the State minimum grant is $1 mil- lion (0.25 percent of $400 million). The chapter 1 statute is silent regarding the distribution of additional amounts that States receive as a result of the minimum grant provision--i.e., amounts above that which counties in the State would receive if there were no minimum grant provision. The chapter 1 regula- tions leave the distribution of such additional amounts largely to the discre- tion of the SEA. Thus, there is an element of uncertainty regarding county concentration grants in minimum grant States, and county allocation estimates are not included for these States. However, the State total concentration grant allocations can be estimated for all States, including those at the minimum grant level. Table 1, below, shows estimated chapter 1 concentration grants, under the current law (5,000/20 percent, counting excess formula children only) versus H.R. 5 (6,500 excess/15 percent all formula children counted) formulas for CRS-6 certain counties. The counties in the table are five selected counties in each of eight categories based on the number and percentage of chapter 1 formula children. TABLE 1. Estimated Chapter 1 Concentration Grants Under Current Law and H.R. 5 Formulas for Selected Counties (Based on Population and Cost Factor Data for 1986-87) Estimated grants at $400 million (in thousands) Counties H.R. 5 Current Difference 2 Difference law (col. 1--col. 2) Category A: greater than 5,000/ over 30 percent a] Orleans, La. s 2,658 $ 3,361 3 -5703 -20.92 Baltimore City, Md. 4,418 5,684 -1,266 -22.3 St. Louis City, Mo. 1,778 2,088 -310 -14.9 ,Bronx, N. Y. 10,201 13,894 -3,693 -26.7 Hidalgo, Tex. 2,384 2,898 -514 -17.7 Category B: greater than 5,000/ 20-30 percent Mobile, Ala. 1,140 1,215 -75 -6.2 Los Angeles, Cal. 20,234 28,349 —8,115 -28.6 Dade, Fla. 4,655 6,161 -1,506 -24.4 Suffolk, Mass. A 2,518 3,010 -492 -16.4 Wayne, Mich. 8,704 11,822 -3,118 -26.4 Category C: greater than 5,000/ 10-20 percent Maricopa, Ariz. 1,952 5 2,918 -966 -33.1 Hartford, Conn. 1,076 1,721 -645 . -37.5 Genesee, Mich. 688 1,156 -468 . -40.5 Summit, Ohio 1 436 769 -333 -43.3 Providence, R. 1. $ 1,484 4 1,499 -15 -1.0 Q] The categories of counties in this table are identified by their num- ber (greater than S,000/1ess than 5,000) and percentage (compared to the total population aged 5-17 years) of chapter 1 basic grant formula children. CRS-7 TABLE 1. Estimated Chapter 1 Concentration Grants Under Current Law and H.R. 5 Formulas for Selected Counties (Based on Population and Cost Factor Data for 1986-1987) (continued) Estimated grants at $400 million (in thousands) Counties H.R. 5 Current Difference 2 Difference law (col. 1--col. 2) Category D: greater than 5,000/ under 10 percent Orange, Cal. $2,105 3,150 -1,045 -33.2 Lake, 111. 0 68 -68 -100.0 Middlesex, Mass. 1,343 2,089 -746 -35.7 Hennepin, Minn. 596 1,019 -423 -41.5 King, Wash. 979 1,564 -585 -37.4 Category E: less than 5,000/ over 40 percent Lowndes, Ala. 135 128 +7 +5.5 Philips, Ark. 277 245 +32 +13.1 Hancock, Ca. 77 67 +10 +14.9 Breathitt, Ky. 106 82 +24 +29.3 East Carroll, La. 110 101 +9 +8.9 Category F: less than 5,000/ 30-40 percent Hardee, Fla. 118 75 +43 +57.3 Decatur, Ga. 112 56 +56 +100.0 Pointe Coupee, La. 117 65 +52 +80.0 New Madrid, Mo. 124 76 +48 1 +63.2 Mingo, W. Va. 198 na 2/ na Q] na Q] Category C: less than 5,000/ 20-30 percent Lincoln, Miss. 115 46 +69 +l50.0 Butler, M0. 143 64 +79 +123.4 Cherokee, Okla. 98 22 +76 +345.5 Accomack, Va. 117 49 +68 +138.8 Wyoming, W. Va. $ 150 na Q] na Q] na 2/ Q] Under the 20 percent/5,000 concentration grant formula, West Virginia is a minimum grant State. Therefore, as explained earlier in this report, we cannot estimate the amount of concentration grants to any county in the State, since this would be determined largely at State discretion. CRS-8 TABLE 1. Estimated Chapter 1 Concentration Grants Under Current Law and H.R. 5 Formulas for Selected Counties (Based on Population and Cost Factor Data for 1986-1987) (continued) Estimated grants at $400 million (in thousands) Counties H.R. 5 Current Difference 2 Difference law (col. 1--col. 2) Category H: less than 5,000/under 20 percent Pueblo, Colo. $364 0 +364 na 9] Howard, Md. 0 0 0 0 Buncombe, N. C. 274 0 +274 na 9/ Butler, Pa. 0 0 0 0 Trempealeau, Wis. $ 74 0 +74 na c/ Q] Under the 20 percent/5,000 concentration grant formula, West Virginia is a minimum grant State. Therefore, as explained earlier in this report, we cannot estimate the amount of concentration grants to any county in the State, since this would be determined largely at State discretion. 9/ The percentage is undefined in cases where the base (col. 2) is zero. Certain general patterns in the allocation of chapter 1 concentration grants at the county level under these two formulas may be briefly described. ggst relatively largg counties--with 5,000 or more chapter 1 formula children (categories A-D)--would receive substantially lggs under the H.R. 5 than under the current law concentration grant formula. At the extreme, counties with more than 5,000, but fewer than 6,500, formula children, and a formula child rate below 15 percent, would receive no concentration grant at all under lH.R. 5, compared to a modest grant under the current law formula (see Lake county, Illinois). For other large counties shown in table 1, the loss is typically in the range of 20-40 percent under the H.R. 5 formula. In general, CRS-9 the only counties with 5,000 or more formula children that would receive mole under the H.R. 5 than under the current law concentration grant formula are counties with a formula child proportion above 15 percent and a number of such children that is above 5,000 but below approximately 16,000-16,800. Z] In contrast, all relatively small counties--those with 5,000 or fewer chapter 1 formula children (categories E-H)--would receive either the same or higher concentration grants under H.R. 5 than under the current law formula. More specifically, smaller counties with a chapter 1 formula child proportion of 15 percent or more would receive higher concentration grants under the H.R. 5 formula, while those with a proportion below 15 percent would receive no concentration grants under either formula. Within formula population size categories, if all other relevant factors were equal, the current law formula would tend to provide more funds to coun- ties with higher formula child percentages, compared to the H.R. 5 formula, because of current law's higher percentage threshold (20 percent versus 15 percent) and consideration of only formula children above the thresholds. How- ever, all other relevant factors are not equal in comparing these formulas-- in practice, the size-related effects described above are much greater than effects related to formula child percentage in determining the differences in allocation patterns between these two formulas. The primary reason for this contrast between relatively large and small counties is that the current law formula tends to allocate more funds to larger areas in two ways. First, the thresholds of 20 percent (rather than H.R. 5'5 15 percent) and 5,000 children (6,500 under H.R. 5) make it easier for 1/ Four examples of such counties are Stanislaus (9,867 formula children, 17.6 percent proportion) and Tulare (14,775 children, 26.5 percent), Cali- fornia, Denver (15,132 children, 20.0 percent), Colorado, or Escambia (11,823 children, 24.0 percent), Florida. CRS-10 relatively large counties to qualify for current law concentration grants on the basis of their number of formula children, and harder for smaller counties to qualify on the basis of their formula child proportion. From another per- spective, when the 5,000 child threshold is expressed in percentage terms, it can represent well under 5 percent of the school-age population in the largest counties. For example, for Los Angeles county (California), 5,000 children represent approximately 0.4 percent of its total population aged 5-17 years, according to the 1980 Census. For Cook County (Illinois), 5,000 children represent approximately 0.5 percent of its total population aged 5-17 years. Therefore, the application of a 5,000 formula eligible child threshold to such counties is equivalent to application of a percentage threshold of less than 1 percent, compared to a 20 percent threshold for counties with fewer than 5,000 formula eligible children. Second, the requirement that current law concentration grants be allocated on the basis of the number of formula children abgyg the threshold in all cases tends to distribute large proportions of the funds to the counties with the largest numbers of formula children, whatever their formula child proportion. This is because it is easier for a large than a small county to have a high percentage of its total chapter 1 basic grant formula children counted in the allocation of concentration grants under the current law formula. As noted above, the 5,000 child threshold represents only a small percentage of the school-age population in the largest counties. Thus, comparing the extreme cases of a very large county versus a smaller county that qualifies only under the 20 percent threshold, the former counts all formula eligible children in excess of a very small percentage of its total school-age population, while the latter can count only those in excess of 20 percent of its school-age popula- tion. From another perspective, a large county may have several multiples of CRS‘ll 5,000 formula eligible children--for 1986-87, Los Angeles had almost 284,000 such children, a multiple of 57 times 5,000--while no county could have more than 5 times the 20 percent threshold, even if all of its children were formula eligibles. In contrast, the H.R. 5 formula counts all formula children, not just those above the threshold, in counties that have a chapter 1 formula child proportion of 15 percent or more, but not in counties where only the 6,500 child threshold is met. This shifts the balance of grant eligibility substan- tially from larger to smaller counties. While most larger counties would lose as much as 40 percent under H.R. 5 compared to the current law concentration grant formula, the estimated grants to many smaller counties would increase by 100 percent or more. While the current law chapter 1 concentration grant formula has been crit- icized by some as allocating the greatest share of funds to the largest urban areas, for reasons described above, the H.R. 5 formula might be criticized as not substantially targeting funds on the areas with the highest numbers or pro- portions of chapter 1 formula children. By counting only formula children above the (5,000/20 percent) thresholds, the current law formula provides pro- portionally greater grants to counties with the highest numbers or percentages of formula children. In contrast, the H.R. 5 formula would provide grants of proportionally equal size to all counties that meet the 15 percent threshold, since all formula children would be counted in distributing grants among such counties. §/ 1 An example might help to illustrate the discussion in the previous para- graph. Assume that there are two counties, each with 4,000 chapter 1 basic Q] Grants would still increase disproportionally as a county's number of formula children increased for counties that meet only the 6,500 child criterion. CRS-12 grant formula children, but county A has a formula child percentage of 30 percent while county B has a percentage of 40 percent. If all other relevant factors were held constant, under current law thekconcentration grant to county B would be twice as large as that for county A, but the two counties would re- ceive identical grants under H.R. 5. Thus, the current law formula would pro- vide a disproportionally (compared to the equal number of formula children in both counties) higher grant to the county with the higher percentage of chil- dren from poor families, while H.R. 5 would provide grants in equal proportion to all counties that meet the minimum percentage of 15 percent. A comparison of estimated concentration grants under H.R. 5 and current. law at the State level is shown in table 2, below. while these State totals are of significance, it is important to note that this is a county-based allo- ccation formula and, within each State, there are likely to be counties that do not reflect the overall State pattern of gains or losses when comparing these two formulas. TABLE 2. Estimated State Total Chapter 1 Concentration Grants Under Current Law and H.R. 5 Formulas (Based on Population and Cost Factor Data for 1986-87) Estimated grants at $400 Million (in thousands) State H.R. 5 Current law Difference 2 Difference (col. 1--col. 2) Alabama $11,464 $6,154 +$5,310 +86.3 Alaska 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 Arizona 4,798 4,598 +200 +4.4 Arkansas 6,050 2,579 +3,471 +134.6 California 45,383 56,876 4 -11,493 -20.2 Colorado 2,680 1,681 +999 ' +59.4 Connecticut 3,167 5,074 -1,907 -37.6 Delaware 1,045 1,000 +45 +4.5 CRS-13 TABLE 2. Estimated State Total Chapter 1 Concentration Grants Under Current Law and H.R. 5 Formulas (Based on Population and Cost Factor Data for 1986-87) Estimated grants at $400 Million (in thousands) Current law Difference Z Difference (col. 1--col. 2) State H.R. 5 District of Columbia 2,497 2,946 -449 -15.2 Florida 19,442 17,332 +2,110 +l2.2 Georgia 12,304 7,194 +5,110 +71.0 Hawaii $ 1,000 1,449 -449 -31.0 Idaho $ 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 Illinois 18,592 24,097 -5,505 -22.9 Indiana 2,189 2,941 -752 -25.6 Iowa 1,109 1,000 +109 +10.9 Kansas 1,281 1,000 +281 +28.1 Kentucky 8,640 4,402 +4,238 +96.3 Louisiana 11,962 8,234 +3,728 +45.3 Maine 1,158 1,000 +158 +15.8 Maryland 5,421 6,975 -1,554 -22.3 Massachusetts 7,970 11,251 -3,281 -29.2 Michigan 13,907 16,228 -2,321 -14.3 Minnesota 3,036 1,661 +l,375 +82.8 Mississippi 10,009 6,080 +3,929 +64.6 Missouri 5,965 4,403 +1,562 +35.5 Montana 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 Nebraska 1,293 1,000 +293 +29.3 Nevada 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 New Hampshire 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 New Jersey 12,827 15,586 -2,759‘ -17.7 New Mexico 4,372 2,117 +2,255 +106.5 New York 46,349 61,020 -14,671 424.0 North Carolina 8,996 3,886 +5,110 +131.5 North Dakota 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 Ohio 9,718 11,779 -2,061 -17.5 Oklahoma 4,103 2,135 +1,968 +92.2 Oregon 1,000 1,025 -25 -2.4 Pennsylvania 13,307 17,354 -4,047 -23.3 Puerto Rico 20,287 28,696 -8,409 -29.3 Rhode Island 1,484 1,499 -15 -1.0 South Carolina 7,008 3,483 +3,525 +l01.2 South Dakota 1,220 1,000 +220 +22.0 Tennessee 10,518 6,267 +4,251 +67.8 Texas $30,166 28,326 +1,840 +6.5 Utah 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 Vermont 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 »CRS-14 TABLE 2. Estimated State Total Chapter 1 Concentration Grants Under Current Law and H.R. 5 Formulas (Based on Population and Cost Factor Data for 1986-87) Estimated grants at $400 Million (in thousands) State H.R. 5 Current law Difference Z Difference (col. 1--col. 2) Virginia 7,073 2,518 +4,555 +180.9 Washington 2,973 3,173 -200 -6.3 West Virginia 3,889 1,000 +2,889 +288.9 Wisconsin 3,352 2,981 +371 +12.S Wyoming 1,000 1,000 0 0.0 Total $400,000 $400,000 $0 0.0% At the State level, the patterns of differences in estimated grants under these two concentration grant formulas is generally consistent with the county patterns described above. Twenty-six States would receive higher grants under the H.R. 5 concentration grant formula, while 17 States would receive less, and nine States would receive the same amount. States with large proportions of their counties qualifying for concentra- tion grants under either formula, but without one or more of the Nation's largest urban counties, would receive substantially higher grants under the H.R. 5 formula. This applies especially to such Southern States as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, or Ten- nessee. Other States that would receive much higher grants (an increase of 40 percent or more) under H.R. 5 than under the current law concentration grant formula are Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia. CRS-15 The States that would receive lower grants under H.R. 5 than under the current law concentration grant formula include most of those with one or more of the largest urban counties--e.g., California, District of Columbia, Illi- nois, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Penn- . sylvania, Puerto Rico or Texas. Other States that would receive less under H.R. 5 have one or more urban counties with a relatively large number, but an average to below average proportion, of chapter 1 formula children, and rela- tively few counties overall with a formula child percentage above 15 percent. These States are Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. Several States would receive the minimum grant under either formula, so would receive the same amount under either H.R. S or current law. These States are Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. However, seven States would receive the minimum under the current law formula but are estimated to receive more under H.R. 5; these are Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, South Dakota, and--especially--west Virginia, where the estimated grant would rise from a minimum of $1 million under current law to $3,889,000 under H.R. 5. Finally, although there would be fewer States at the minimum under H.R. 5 than under current law, 2 States--Hawaii and Oregon--would receive the minimum under H.R. 5 but slightly more than the min- imum under the current law formula. LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON umvansrrv sr. LOUIS - MO.