the percentage of the total allocation it receives, given its percentage of the total eligibles. Each does so because the average expenditures of its States, in general, are relatively high.

The regional data also reflect the national patterns observed in the examination of dollars per eligible child. The heavily urbanized Northeast receives the most dollars per eligible, whereas the rural South receives significantly less.

The largest beneficiaries in terms of allocations per formula-eligible child are large central cities and suburbs in the Northeast (see Table 6 and Appendix G). The advantage enjoyed by northeastern cities is evident, and even smaller northeastern cities receive more than cities in other regions. Northeastern suburban and nonmetropolitan counties also receive significantly more dollars per formula-eligible child than do comparable counties in any other region. The central cities and suburbs in the north-central region are reasonably close to the northeastern cities and suburbs. Even these places, however, receive only 87% and 89%, respectively, of the dollars per eligible received by their northeastern counterparts.

The differences apparent in data on regional allocations per formula-eligible child also reflect the effects of the cost factor. Regions encompassing States with high cost factors receive higher allocations for each formula child than do regions encompassing States with lower expenditures. Almost all Northeastern States receive over $200 per eligible due to their high cost factor, a level matched by very few States in other regions. By contrast, over half the States in the South receive the minimum of $163 per eligible due to their low level of current expenditure per pupil.

Concentrations of Formula-Eligible Children

Title I's distributional effects reflect what might be anticipated, given the provisions of the allocation formula designed for the program. Average size of grants to jurisdictions increases as the number of formula eligibles increases. The largest proportion of the money is directed to jurisdictions wtih the most formula-eligible children. The average amount received by various jurisdictions for each formulaeligible child changes in relation to the expenditures of the State in which the jurisdictions are located.

However, an unanticipated effect of the formula is apparent if the Title I grant per formula child is examined in relation to jurisdictions with different concentrations of those children. As Table 7 demonstrates, the county allocation per formula child decreases as the proportion of such children increases.

TABLE 7

ALLOCATIONS TO COUNTIES BY RATE* OF TITLE I ELIGIBILITY

Because Title I was enacted, in part, as a result of the recognition of the "impact that concentrations of low-income families have on the ability of local educational agencies to support adequate educational programs," it is surprising to find a pattern in which the greater the percentage of formula-eligible children in a county, the less aid is provided per formula-eligible child.

The location of counties with high proportions of formula children explains the pattern. As Table 8 indicates, almost all counties with eligibility rates of 30% or higher are located in the South. As a consequence of the low cost factor applied in most Southern States, the average allocation per eligible is reduced in counties with high concentrations of eligible children. Over 2.2 million eligible children, almost a quarter of the total, live in counties with eligibility rates of 30% or higher.

Due to their large numbers of formula-eligible children, central cities and nonmetropolitan areas receive large amounts of Title I funds. However, due to their relatively low expenditures on education, nonmetropolitan and southern areas receive less for each formula child than central city or suburban jurisdictions. If allocations are related to total school-aged population, the patterns observed under the performula analyses are changed quite dramatically. As Table 9 demonstrates, under the school-aged population standard, nonmetropolitan areas almost match central cities in per-child funding, and both receive twice as much as suburban areas.

In the same way, the regional tabulations presented in Table 10 show that the South is the major beneficiary of the allocation formula if dollars per school-aged child are used as the standard. Southern counties in every category except central cities (in which the Northeast receives more than the South) benefit more than any other area in relation to their school-aged population. Because the average level of spending in the South is low, Title I funds also generally have their greatest impact on total expenditures in Southern counties.

This pattern is a direct result of the proportion of formula-eligible children in the various place types. In general, areas with high percentages of formula-eligible children will receive higher allocations per school-aged child than will those with lower proportions of formula eligibles. In fact, the correlation between the Title I allocation per child and the percentage of formula-eligible children is very high--0.93.

The South has the highest eligibility rate of any of the regions, and this fact explains why it fares so much better under the per school-aged child standard than under the per formula-child analysis.

COUNTY AND DISTRICT COMPARISONS

If the comparisons among various kinds of counties under the dollars per formulachild standard could be replicated at the district level, comparisons of the county and