Maintenance of Effort,
Comparability, and
Supplement/Supplant
PAFPC March 2014
www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/
fiscalguid.doc
This guidance covers these areas:
 Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
 Comparability
 Supplement not Supplant
 Carryover
 Grantbacks

Legal Authority:
NCLB: Section 9521

LEA may receive funds only if SEA finds the
combined fiscal effort per student or the
aggregate expenditures of the LEA from state
and local funds from preceding year is not
less than 90% for second preceding year.

Need to compare final financial data
◦ PDE Uses Annual Financial Report (AFR)


Compare “immediately” PFY to “second” PFY
EX: To receive FY2005 funds (available July
2005), compare FY2004 (2004-05) to FY2003
(2003-04)


“Expenditures from state and local funds for
free public education”
Administration; instruction; attendance and
health services; pupil transportation services;
operation and maintenance of plant; fixed
charges; and net expenditures to cover
deficits for food services and student body
activities


Funds from federal government
Community services; capital outlay; debt
service; or supplemental expenditures made
as a result of a Presidentially declared
disaster


ESEA: If LEA fails MOE, SEA must reduce
amount of allocation in the exact
proportion by which LEA fails to
maintain effort below 90%.
Reduce all applicable NCLB programs,
not just Title I
Aggregate
expenditures
Amount per student
SY 04
1,000,000
6,100
SY05 –
must spend 90%
900,000
5,490
05 –
Actual amount
850,000
5,200
Shortfall
-50,000
-290
Percent shortfall/ reduction
-5.6%
-5.3%**

SEA uses 90% of the prior year amount rather
than the actual expenditure amount

USDE Secretary may waive if:
◦ Exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such
as natural disaster
OR
◦ Precipitous decline in financial resources of the LEA
Legal Authority:
Title I Statute: §1120A(c)



An LEA may receive Title I Part A funds only if
it uses state and local funds to provide
services in Title I schools that, taken as a
whole, are at least comparable to the services
provided in non-Title I schools.
If all are Title I schools, all must be
“substantially comparable.”
Currently demonstrated by staff/pupil ratios.
Compare:
 Average of all non-Title I schools
to
 Each Title I school
 Average of all non-title I schools=10:1
 Title I schools:
-Lincoln: 10:1 Washington: 9:1 Madison: 11:1
Jefferson 12:1
Compare:
 Average of one or more of the lowest
poverty Title I schools to each higher
poverty Title I school
 Lincoln 30% poverty, Washington 50%,
Madison 55%, Jefferson 60% Chose only
Lincoln as the comparison school
 Lincoln 30%, Washington 32%, Madison
55%, Jefferson 60%, chose both Lincoln and
Washington as the comparison schools
• grade-span by grade-span
or
• school by school (district-wide
basis)



USDE School Level Expenditure report – 44
percent of Title I schools spend fewer
state/local dollars on teachers and other
personnel compared with non-Title I schools.
Poor kids are getting fewer education dollars
than their wealthier peers.
Over 4,000 districts examined as a result of
ARRA



USDE. Results indicate Comparability is
“broken.”
Complete report found at
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/titlei/school-level-expenditures/school-levelexpenditures.pdf
The biggest (but not only) culprit: teacher
salary differentials


Currently, PA examines comparability only
using staff to student ratios, regardless of
salary costs.
Duncan “in far too many places, Title I is
filling budget gaps rather than being used to
close achievement gaps.”





Guidance: Must be annual determination
(old) Review for current year and make
adjustments for current year.
(new) Budget for upcoming year and make
adjustments in current year, if needed.
Assurances are due November 15.
eGrants changes were made in 12/13.



Federal Funds
Private Funds
Need not include unpredictable changes in
student enrollment or personnel assignments
that occur after the start of a school year











Administrators (principals and assistant principals)
Art Teachers
Classroom Teachers
Guidance Counselors
Librarians
Music Teachers
Physical Education Teachers
Project Directors (Non-federally funded)
Psychologists
Social Workers
Speech Therapists






Bus Monitors
Consultants
Crossing Guards
Maintenance Staff
Security Staff
Federally paid Staff





Bilingual Teachers
Special Education
Title I “Like” Staff
Teachers Aides (instructional)
Although the LEA has the discretion to
count or not count these types of staff, it
must be done consistently across the grade
spans being compared.

An LEA must first attempt to demonstrate
comparability by showing that its combined
state and local per-pupil expenditures
(including actual personnel and actual nonpersonnel expenditures) in each Title I
school, using prior year financial data, are
at least 90% of the average combined state
and local per-pupil expenditures for its
non-Title I schools.






Pre-K expenditures.
Central office costs (including cost center
2818).
Charter School Tuition.
Alternative Education Programs (if
enrollment is District Wide only).
Summer School expenditures (if enrollment
is District Wide only).
Federal expenditures.
English language instructional costs.
 Special education (including gifted and OT/PT).
 Transportation.
 Food Services.
 Capital expenditures (LEA capitalization
threshold).
Be prepared to justify any other exclusion and
keep all documentation on file.
Personnel costs defined as objects 100 and 200.





www.education.state.pa.us and click on the
eGrants link at the left of the page.
Then click on the Division of Federal
Programs link at the left of the screen.
Enter your Login ID and password, then
click on the “Consolidated Application” link.
At the main Consolidated Application page
you’ll see the link for Comparability towards
the bottom of the screen.



“Supplement not Supplant” is the basis for the
use of all federal funds administered via the
Division of Federal Programs.
“In general, an LEA and its schools may use Title
I, Part A funds only to supplement, and in no
case supplant, the funds that would, in the
absence of the Title I, Part A funds, be available
from non-Federal sources for the education of
students participating in Title I programs.”
There are two kinds of supplanting violations,
programmatic and fiscal.


Targeted Assisted – program level
supplanting. “Reasonable and necessary.”
Very situationally dependent.
“Required by Law, Prior year, and non-Title I
students receiving same services with nonFederal funds” tests.
- Exclusion: ESEA waiver activities.
“An LEA that is using Title I, Part A funds to
implement elements of its SEA’s flexibility request
that are required by State law or regulations would
not violate the “required by law” presumption of
supplanting.”

Schoolwide – fiscal level supplanting only,
but must meet “intents and purposes.”
School must receive all the state and local
funds it would otherwise need to operate in
the absence of Federal funds. Meeting
comparability is a strong initial indicator of
not supplanting in SW.
◦ Includes routine operating expenses such as
building maintenance and repairs, landscaping and
custodial services

The Title I statue takes a different approach in
schoolwides in an effort to drive
comprehensive reforms and approaches in
high-poverty schools
Instead of making sure Title I delivers “extra” programs
and services…
We look at the amount of state and local money a
schoolwide school receives to make sure its all the money
it would get if it did not also receive federal funds

The goal is to make sure Title I schools, in the
aggregate, get extra money – they then have
flexibility in how they spend their money
Depending on its needs, a schoolwide programs school could
spend Title I to:
•
Implement a stronger curriculum
•
Implement an early warning system
•
Extend the school day or school year
•
Reorganize class schedules to increase teacher planning
time
•
Revamp the school’s discipline process
•
Hire additional teachers
•
Reorganized classes to promote personalized learning
•
Implement career academies
•
Implement school safety programs
•
Attendance, school climate, and anti-bullying efforts.


Title I funds are supposed to supplement state and
local efforts
Three presumptions of supplanting:
◦ Mandated by state/local law
◦ Paid for with state/local funds in prior year
◦ Same services paid for with the Title I for Title I students
and state/local funds for non-Title I students
Historically, compliance has been reviewed
programmatically, by defining the programs and
services school districts will deliver with the state and
local funds
Under the approach, Title I funds are typically limited
to separate add-on services
Example 1:
• A school district conducts a technology audit,
which shows Title I schools have computer labs,
but non-Title 1 schools do not
• The district reduces state/local allocations to
Title I schools in order to redirect state/local
money to non-Title I schools so they can by
computer labs
Result
• The school district violates the supplemental funds
test because Title I schools are deprived of state
and local funds because they receive Title 1
Example 2:
• A school district meets the supplemental funds
test
• State and local resources have declined, forcing
school leaders to make tough decisions about
what to keep and what to cut
• Most schools decide not to cut teaching positions
• Title I schools use Title I funds to retain teacher
FTEs, while non-Title I schools do so with
state/local funds
Result
◦ This scenario does not violate the supplemental
funds test (but is likely to get scrutinized)
◦ The supplemental funds test looks at the overall
level of resources going into a school, and not
for supplementary services
◦ Here, the Title 1 Schools have extra resources
non-Title I schools do not have

The non-Title1 schools had to cut other costs in order to
retain the teacher FTEs with state and local funds, cuts
Title 1 schools did not have to make. Title 1 Schools
should be getting something extra with the extra dollars
they have flowing into the school

All costs charged to Title 1 in a schoolwide
program must be:
◦ Consistent with the school’s needs
◦ Reasonably designed to improve student
outcomes
◦ Necessary and reasonable
◦ Meets intent and purposes
◦ Educationally related







Title I should be used to close achievement gaps,
not budget gaps.
Total amount of federal funds are supplemental
Does the district have a federally neutral funding
formula for school allocations?
Were building allocations reduced? If so, how
and which ones.
If Comparability was required, how close did they
make it by?
Do expenditures match SW plans and do they
meet an educational need.
Finally, examine previous year actual per-pupil
expenditures
◦
◦
◦
◦
Instruction – yes
Instructional support – probably yes
Administration – possibly yes
Operational – no


The SWP is VERY important!
Targeted versus SWP which is better?