- About Us
- Programs & Campaigns
- Policy Priorities
- Research Library
- Take Action
- Support Our Work
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
|Table 1. Projected Cuts Under H.R. 1
K-12 Education: Selected Programs
(In millions of dollars)
Proposed Cut in FY2011 Relative to Current Funding Levels
|Title I Grants & Even Start||Special Education Grants to States||School Improvement||Total|
|District of Columbia||-$2.7||-$0.8||-$1.9||-$5.4|
|Technical Notes - Table 1 - K-12 Education
This table shows the state-by-state distribution of projected cuts in discretionary funding for K-12 formula grants that fall within three major Department of Education spending accounts: Education for the Disadvantaged (recently renamed “Accelerating Achievement and Ensuring Equity”), Special Education, and School Improvement (recently renamed “Education Improvement”).
Within the Education for the Disadvantaged account, the analysis includes the proposed funding cuts for Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ($694 million) for schools in low-income communities as well as the termination of the Even Start program ($66 million), which provides grants to support comprehensive literary projects designed to improve the academic achievement of young children and their parents through programs incorporating early childhood education, adult literacy, parenting education, and interactive literacy activities for low-income families and teen parents with young children.
Within the School Improvement account, the analysis includes the proposed funding cuts for 21st Century Learning Centers ($100 million) as well as the termination of Mathematics and Science Partnerships ($180 million) and Educational Technology State Grants ($100 million). 21st Century Learning Centers provide academic opportunities during non-school hours for students from schools with high poverty and low performance records. Mathematics and Science Partnerships work to improve the performance of students in math and science through grants to encourage institutions of higher education to improve teacher education in those areas. Educational Technology State Grants promote student achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools.
Within the Special Education account, the analysis includes the proposed funding cuts for Part B grants to states ($558 million). These grants assist states in meeting the costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities.
Figures represent H.R. 1’s proposed cut in FY 2011 relative to current funding levels, which will expire March 4, 2011. These current funding levels do not include any funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Given that the 2010-2011 academic year will be about two-thirds over by the time that these proposed cuts are put in effect, the main impact of the cuts will be felt in the academic year starting in the fall of 2011.
Projected state funding cuts assume the national cut would be applied evenly to states in proportion to each state’s estimated share of grant funding in 2011 according to Department of Education data. For example, if a state is expected to receive 2 percent of total funding in 2011 from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers under current law, this analysis assumes the state would absorb 2 percent of the national cut to this block grant. This is the same as saying that all states would experience the same percentage cut to their funding for this program. Figures in the table provide the sum of these program-by-program cuts.
National totals include cuts to U.S. territories and administrative funds, but those cuts are not reflected in the state-by-state figures.
The Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) has released its own analysis of how H.R. 1 would affect Title I and Special Education Grants. Those estimates are somewhat different, although they show essentially similar results. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has not yet had the opportunity to analyze the reasons for the differences between the two sets of estimates.
|Table 2: Projected Cuts Under H.R. 1
Proposed Cut in FY2011 Relative to Current Funding Levels
|Funding ($Millions)||Students Affected|
|District of Columbia||-$24||44,000|
|Technical Notes - Table 2 - Pell Grants
This table shows the state-by-state distribution of the projected cut in discretionary spending for grants to students under the Pell Grant program, administered by the Department of Education. It also shows the number of students in each state who would be affected by the reduction in the discretionary maximum award level (from $4,860 to $4,015) specified in H.R. 1. Funding in this analysis includes total discretionary program costs, or the sum of aid available for Pell Grant recipients and administrative costs. FY 2011 state-by-state program costs under current law are from the Department of Education.
Figures represent H.R. 1’s proposed cut in FY 2011 relative to current funding levels, which will expire March 4, 2011. Funding figures represent the impact of a 24.5 percent cut in total discretionary funding for the Pell Grant program. There is also a mandatory component of the program. H.R. 1 does not significantly affect the mandatory Pell Grant awards for the 2011-12 academic year, so no mandatory effects are shown here. But, as discussed in the box on page X of the main paper, H.R. 1 effectively eliminates the mandatory component of Pell Grants starting in 2014.
Projected state funding cuts assume the national cut would be applied evenly to states in proportion to each state’s share of Pell Grant funding in 2011 under current law. For example, if a state is expected to receive 2 percent of total Pell Grant funding in 2011 under current law, this analysis assumes the state would absorb 2 percent of the national Pell Grant cut. This is the same as saying that all states would experience a 24.5 percent cut in discretionary funding. National totals include cuts to Puerto Rico and U.S. territories, but those cuts are not reflected in the state-by-state figures.
Nationally, 9.4 million undergraduate students are expected to receive Pell Grants in 2011. Because each individual grant is based on the maximum grant, reducing the maximum grant under H.R. 1 will reduce or eliminate Pell Grant awards for every recipient. The number of students affected, therefore, is the total number of students expected to receive Pells in 2011. A small portion of students affected will become ineligible for the program and lose their Pell Grant entirely, while most students affected will receive a significantly reduced award. Projected state numbers of students affected assume that total Pell Grant recipients are distributed among the states per each state’s share of Pell Grant recipients in 2008, according to the Department of Education’s most recent Pell Grant end-of-year report. National totals include students in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories, but those cuts are not reflected in the state-by-state figures.
The Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Center (DPCC) has released its own analysis of how H.R. 1 would affect Pell grants. Those estimates are somewhat different, although they show essentially similar results. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has not yet had the opportunity to analyze the reasons for the differences between the two sets of estimates.
|Table 3. Projected Cuts Under H.R. 1
Grants to States for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Job Training Proposed Cut in FY2011 Relative to Current Funding Levels
|Funding ($Millions)||WIA Adult Services Participants||WIA Dislocated Workers Participants||WIA Youth Services Participants|
|District of Columbia||-$4.0||-3,500||-200||-500|
|Technical Notes - Table 4 - Grants to States for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Job Training
This table shows the state-by-state distribution of the projected cut in discretionary funding for the three formula grants in the Training and Employment Services spending account under the Department of Labor.
The formula grants are for: Adult Employment and Training Activities, Dislocated Workers Employment and Training Activities, and Youth Activities. Funding for these programs constitutes 78 percent of total funding in the Training and Employment Services account.
Figures represent H.R. 1’s proposed cut in FY 2011 relative to current funding levels, which will expire March 4, 2011 (the cut shown does not include the proposed $65 million rescission from the Dislocated Worker Assistance State Grants). The total funding cut for the U.S. includes cuts to U.S. territories, and Native American tribes, but those cuts are not reflected in the state-by-state figures.
The WIA grants are typically distributed for an entire program year (July to June). H.R. 1 does not include any funding for the portion of the 2011-12 program year (October 2011 through June 2012) that is not in the current fiscal year, which ends September 30, 2011. Unless subsequent appropriations are made, there will be no further funding for the three formula grants for the remainder of the program year.
Each state’s projected funding cut is calculated in proportion to its share of funding for each of the above programs in the 2010 program year, based on Department of Labor data. However, since the formulas that allocate funding to states consider employment conditions in each state, the distribution is likely to be slightly different for 2011.
The table also shows the reduction in the number of participants that could be served in each of the three programs under the proposed funding cut, based on the assumption that that states will cope with reduced funding for the programs by reducing the number of participants. The reduction in participation in each state is calculated by applying the percentage reduction in funding for each program to the most recent state participation levels available for each program. (The most recent state participation data available from the Department of Labor are for 2009. More recent national data suggest that participation levels may have increased slightly, suggesting that the reductions in participation shown here may be slightly conservative.)
The table shows the cuts as outlined in H.R. 1; however, H.R. 1 notes that 25 percent of the funding available for Dislocated Workers Employment and Training Activities may be used to fund Youth Activities in 2011. Therefore, the total reduction of participants in the Youth Services program could be lower and the reduction in the Dislocated Worker program could be higher.
The calculations assume that program spending per participant will be maintained and all cuts will come in the form of reductions in participation. Alternatively, states could choose to implement the same funding cut by reducing spending per participant; this would result in fewer (or no) participants losing assistance outright but would greatly increase the number of participants facing some reduction in services.