Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Current Funding Trends

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
Current Funding Trends
Updated April 11, 2008
Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division



Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
Current Funding Trends
Summary
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal
statute that supports special education and related services for children with
disabilities. This report traces recent funding trends for this program and tracks the
status of actions to “fully fund” the grants-to-states program under Part B of IDEA.
FY2008 total funding for IDEA is nearly $12.0 billion. FY2008 funding for the Part
B grants-to-states program is $10.9 billion. Since FY1995, funding for the Part B
grants to states program has nearly quintupled, although in recent years funding
growth has slowed. Full funding of IDEA is generally considered to be 40% of the
excess cost (i.e., the additional cost) of educating children with disabilities. The
FY2008 amount for the grants-to-states program represents 17.17% of the estimated
excess cost of serving children with disabilities, which is virtually the same percent
as the 17.13% of excess cost that the FY2007 appropriation represented.
The President’s FY2009 budget would increase overall funding for IDEA to
$12.3 billion, with funding for the grants-to-states program increasing to $11.3
billion, an increase of $337 million above the FY2008 appropriation. Because of
projected increases in the estimated cost of special education and in the number of
children with disabilities served, this amount would represent a slight decrease in the
estimated FY2007 excess cost to 17.09%.
This report will be updated as warranted to reflect congressional action on IDEA
appropriations and to incorporate updated data for excess cost calculations.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Recent Funding Trends.............................................1
FY2009 Budget Request............................................2
Estimated FY2008 and FY2009 State Grants............................3
“Full Funding” of IDEA.............................................6
“Excess” Costs................................................6
Part B Grants-to-States Authorizations.............................8
Maximum State Grants........................................11
List of Tables
Table 1. IDEA Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2008 and the
IDEA FY2009 Budget Request...................................3
Table 2. Final FY2007, Estimated FY2008, and FY2009 Request
IDEA Part B Grants-to-States Allocations...........................4
Table 3. Estimated Percentage of Average Per-Pupil Expenditure
(APPE) for FY1995-FY2009.....................................7
Table 4. Authorizations for the IDEA Part B Grants-to-States Program
(P.L. 108-446, §611(i)).........................................8
Table 5. Estimated FY2008 and FY2009 IDEA Part B Grants-to-States
Allocations Based on Appropriated and Proposed Amounts,
and FY2008 and FY2009 Authorization Levels......................9



Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA): Current Funding Trends
Introduction
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the major federal
statute that supports special education and related services for children with
disabilities. As a condition of accepting IDEA funding, the act requires that states
and local educational agencies (LEAs) provide a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) to each eligible child with a disability. The IDEA is divided into four parts.
Part A contains the general provisions, including the purposes of the act and
definitions. Part B, the most often discussed part of the act, contains provisions
relating to the education of school aged (the grants-to-states program) and state grants1
program for preschool children with disabilities (Section 619). Part C authorizes
state grants for programs serving infants and toddlers with disabilities, while Part D
contains the requirements for various national activities designed to improve the
education of children with disabilities. Part B is permanently authorized. Parts C2
and D are authorized through FY2011. P. L. 108-446 made significant changes to
IDEA, most of which went into effect on July 1, 2005.3
Recent Funding Trends4
In FY2008, IDEA funding for grants to states is nearly five times more than it
was in FY1995 — increasing from $2.3 billion to $10.9 billion — although in recent
years, funding growth has slowed. FY2008 funding for the Part B grants to states
contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L.110-161)
increased by $165 million, or 1.5% over the FY2007 level. (See Table 1.)


1 Part B includes the funding formulas, provisions relating to evaluations, eligibility
determinations, individual educational programs (IEPs), and educational placements. It also
contains detailed requirements for procedural safeguards as well as withholding of funds and
judicial review.
2 IDEA authorizes appropriations for Parts C and D programs and activities through
FY2010. These authorities were automatically extended for an additional fiscal year by the
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA — 20 U.S.C. §1226a).
3 For further information, see CRS Report RL32716, Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA): Analysis of Changes Made by P.L. 108-446, by Richard N. Apling and Nancy
Lee Jones. (Hereafter cited as CRS Report RL32716.)
4 All dollar figures are in current dollars; no price-level adjustments have been applied.

Under P. L. 110-161, funding for the preschool program is decreased by nearly
$7 million or is 1.75% less than the FY2007 level. The Part C infant and toddlers
program is decreased by approximately $0.7 million or is 0.2% less than the FY2007
level. Funding for the Part D national programs is increased by about $21.9 million
or 11%. This increase is a result of restoring some of the FY2006 funding for state
personnel development, which was not funded in FY2007. State personnel
development was funded at $50.5 million in FY2006 and $22.6 million in FY2008.5
FY2009 Budget Request
Table 1 compares the FY2008 appropriations for IDEA with the President’s
FY2009 budget request. Overall funding for IDEA would increase by 3% under the
President’s budget, from $11.98 billion to $12.34 billion. Almost all of this increase
would fund the 3% increase in the Part B grants-to-states program, which would
increase by $337 million over the FY2008 amount. Part B preschool state grants and
Part C infants and toddlers grants would be level funded. Total funding for Part D
(national programs and activities) would increase by $17.1 million, or 7.6%. The
increase would be directed to state personnel development. According to the
Department of Education, the FY2008 appropriation does not include sufficient funds
“to cover the 2008 continuation awards or provide new funding for the 6 States with
projects expiring on September 30, 2008.”6 The FY2009 request of $48.0 million for
state personnel development would pay for these costs.
In addition to state grants, funding for the Part B grants-to-states program contains
set-asides for the outlying areas,7 for the freely associated states,8 and for children with
disabilities served in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools. The Secretary is also
authorized to reserve up to $25 million9 of Part B appropriations for technical
assistance for the states (P.L. 108-446, §611(c)) related to state requirements for data
collection and analysis under §616(i). For FY2007 and FY2008, the Secretary
reserved $15 million from the Part B grants to states appropriation for this purpose.
The President proposes reserving $15 million for FY2009.


5 Both the House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 109-515) and the Senate
Appropriations Committee report (S.Rept. 109-287) indicated that no funding was
recommended for FY2007 for state personnel development because funding from FY2006
was still available for this purpose (p. 199). The FY2006 funding level was$50.5 million.
6 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary. p. 41.
7 The outlying areas are defined as “the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands” (P.L. 108-446, §602(22)).
8 The freely associated states are: the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States
of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau (P.L. 108-446, §611(b)(1)(C)).
9 This maximum is to be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.

Table 1. IDEA Appropriations for FY2007 and FY2008 and
the IDEA FY2009 Budget Request
(in thousands of dollars)
% Change% Change
IDEA (FY2007- FY2009 (FY2008-
Program/Activ ity FY2007 FY2008 FY2008) Request FY2009)
Part B10,782,96110,947,5111.53%11,284,5113.08%
grants to states
Part B
preschool grants380,751374,099-1.75%374,0990.00%
(Section 619)
Subtotal, Part B11,163,71211,321,6111.41%11,658,6102.98%
Part C
infants and436,400435,654-0.17%435,6540.00%
toddlers grants
Subtotal, state11,600,11211,757,2641.35%12,094,2642.87%
grants
Part D (total)202,755224,62910.79%241,6797.59%
Total, IDEAa11,802,86711,981,8931.52%12,335,9432.95%
Source: U.S. Department of Education (ED) Budget Service spreadsheets and P.L. 110-161.
Note: Totals may differ slightly due to rounding. All dollar figures are in current dollars; no price-
level adjustments have been applied.
a. The total amount appropriated for FY2008 does not include approximately $11.8 million for the
Special Olympics education program appropriated under the authority of the Special Olympics
Sport and Empowerment Act (P.L. 108-406).
Estimated FY2008 and FY2009 State Grants
Table 2 shows estimated Part B grants-to-states allocations based on the
FY2007 and FY2008 appropriations and on the FY2009 request. The FY2008
estimates are compared to states’ FY2007 grants. The FY2009 estimates are
compared to the FY2008 estimates. Increases in FY2008 estimated grants range
from 1.37% to 3.03%. The interaction of IDEA formula provisions accounts for the
smallest states receiving percentage increases that are nearly twice the percentage
increases of most other states. The formula requires (at the proposed level of the
FY2007 increase) that no state receive less than a% of the overall increase in
funding since FY1999 or 90% of the percentage increase of total IDEA Part B grants-
to-states appropriations over the previous year, whichever amount is greater. In
addition, no state may receive a grant that is more than the overall annual growth rate
in appropriations plus 1.5 percentage points. The minimum grant for the eight
smallest states is the a% of appropriations growth since FY1999; however, for six
of these states, this would be more than the overall annual growth plus 1.5 percentage
points. So these six states receive the latter percentage increase (1.53% + 1.5% =
3.03%). Most other states receive the other minimum growth rate of 90% of the
annual growth in total appropriations (0.1.53 times 90% = 1.37%). FY2009
estimated increased range from 277% to 4.58%. For both FY2008 and FY2009, the
total amount for set-asides represents inflationary increases for Bureau of Indian



Affairs (BIA) schools, outlying areas, and the freely associated states,10 and level
funding for technical assistance to the states.
Table 2. Final FY2007, Estimated FY2008, and FY2009 Request
IDEA Part B Grants-to-States Allocations
(dollars rounded to nearest $000)
Estima ted
EstimatedEstimated% Change
FY2009 Grants% Changefrom
(Based on fromFY2008 to
Final FY2007EstimatedFY2009FY2007 toFY2009
StateGrantsFY2008 GrantsRequest)FY2008Request
Alabama 170,486,000 172,827,000 177,615,000 1.37% 2.77%
Alaska 33,552,000 34,370,000 35,493,000 2.44% 3.27%
Arizona 167,830,000 172,909,000 180,825,000 3.03% 4.58%
Arkansas 105,159,000 106,603,000 109,557,000 1.37% 2.77%
California 1 ,150,176,000 1,165,973,000 1,198,276,000 1.37% 2.77%
Co lo rado 142,142,000 144,726,000 151,248,000 1.92% 4.51%
Co nnecticut 124,652,000 126,364,000 129,865,000 1.37% 2.77%
Delaware 30,750,000 31,680,000 33,131,000 3.03% 4.58%
District of
Co lumb ia 15,461,000 15,929,000 16,658,000 3.03% 4.58%
Florid a 593,036,000 598,437,000 615,017,000 1.37% 2.77%
Georgia 295,043,000 303,971,000 317,888,000 3.03% 4.58%
Hawaii 37,427,000 37,941,000 38,992,000 1.37% 2.77%
Idaho 50,887,000 51,586,000 53,016,000 1.37% 2.77%
Illinois 474,790, 000 481,311,000 494,646,000 1.37% 2.77%
Indiana 239,750,000 243,042,000 249,776,000 1.37% 2.77%
Iowa 114,456,000 116,028,000 119,242,000 1.37% 2.77%
Kansas 100,185,000 101,561,000 104,375,000 1.37% 2.77%
Kentucky 147,980,000 150,013,000 154,169,000 1.37% 2.77%
Lo uisiana 177,474,000 179,912,000 184,896,000 1.37% 2.77%
Maine 51,300,000 52,005,000 53,445,000 1.37% 2.77%
Maryland 187,713,000 190,291,000 195,563,000 1.37% 2.77%
Massachusetts 266,132,000 269,787,000 277,261,000 1.37% 2.77%
Michigan 375,542,000 380,700,000 391,247,000 1.37% 2.77%
Minneso ta 177,961,000 180,405,000 185,404,000 1.37% 2.77%
Mississippi 111,568,000 113,101,000 116,234,000 1.37% 2.77%
Misso uri 212,961,000 215,886,000 221,867,000 1.37% 2.77%


10 The recent practice of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has been to increase
funding for outlying areas and the freely associated states by the rate of inflation. Recent
appropriations language (including language in the act making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies
for FY2006, P.L. 109-149) limits increases in BIA funding under IDEA to the rate of
inflation, unless that amount would be greater than an amount based on the percentage
increase in funds provided under §611(i).

Estima ted
EstimatedEstimated% Change
FY2009 Grants% Changefrom
(Based on fromFY2008 to
Final FY2007EstimatedFY2009FY2007 toFY2009
StateGrantsFY2008 GrantsRequest)FY2008Request
Montana 34,572,000 35,120,000 36,244,000 1.59% 3.20%
Nebraska 70,005,000 70,966,000 72,932,000 1.37% 2.77%
Nevada 63,116,000 65,026,000 68,003,000 3.03% 4.58%
New
Hamp shire 44,492,000 45,103,000 46,352,000 1.37% 2.77%
New Jersey338,874,000343,582,000353,045,0001.37%2.77%
New Mexico85,445,00086,618,00089,018,0001.37%2.77%
New York711,692,000721,466,000741,454,0001.37%2.77%
North Carolina294,557,000304,552,000317,915,0002.13%4.39%
North Dakota24,969,00025,724,00026,902,0003.03%4.58%
Ohio 410,348,000 415,983,000 427,508,000 1.37% 2.77%
Oklaho ma 138,669,000 140,574,000 144,469,000 1.37% 2.77%
Oregon 120,909,000 122,570,000 125,966,000 1.37% 2.77%
Pennsylvania 400,450,000 405,950,000 417,197,000 1.37% 2.77%
Puerto Rico102,591,000105,695,000110,534,0003.03%4.58%
Rhode Island40,998,00041,561,00042,712,0001.37%2.77%
South Carolina164,211,000166,466,000171,078,0001.37%2.77%
South Dakota29,744,00030,644,00032,047,0003.03%4.58%
T ennessee 218,639,000 221,642,000 227,782,000 1.37% 2.77%
T exas 904,579,000 916,138,000 952,229,000 1.37% 3.94%
Utah 99,999,000 101,664,000 106,147,000 1.61% 4.41%
Vermont 24,075,000 24,803,000 25,939,000 3.03% 4.58%
Virginia 264,057,000 267,684,000 275,100,000 1.37% 2.77%
Washington 207,507,000 210,357,000 216,185,000 1.37% 2.77%
West Virginia71,200,00072,178,00074,177,0001.37%2.77%
Wisconsin 195,173,000 197,854,000 203,335,000 1.37% 2.77%
Wyoming 25,257,000 26,021,000 27,212,000 3.03% 4.58%
Subtotals to
st a t e s 10,640,540,000 10,803,246,000 11,137,190,000 1.55% 3.09%
Total set-
asides 142,421,000 144,265,500 147,321,000 1.29% 2.12%
To t a ls 10,782,961,000 10,947,512,000 11,284,511,000 1.53% 3.08%
Source: CRS calculations based on data obtained from the U.S. Department of Education (ED)
Budget Service.
Note: Totals may differ slightly due to rounding. FY2008 and FY2009 grants are estimates only and
do not necessarily represent amounts states and other entities will eventually receive. These amounts
are provided for the purpose of policy discussion only.



“Full Funding” of IDEA
Actual and proposed Part B grants-to-states funding and state grant amounts are
often discussed in terms of: (1)”excess “costs, (2) authorization levels of funding, and
(3) maximum state grants. Each of these measures, discussed below, can be an
indicator of the “full funding” of IDEA.
“Excess” Costs
When Congress enacted the predecessor legislation to IDEA11 in 1975, the
available estimate of the cost of educating children with disabilities was, on average,
twice the cost of educating other children. A determination was made that the federal
government would pay some proportion of this additional or “excess” cost. The
metric for determining this excess cost was the national average per-pupil
expenditure (APPE). The final determination was that the federal government would
pay up to 40% of this excess cost.12 Although appropriations for IDEA Part B grants
to states have increased significantly over the last decade, funding still falls short of
the amount that would be necessary to provide 40% of APPE (i.e., 40% of excess
cost), one measure of IDEA “full funding.”
Table 3 shows estimated percentages of excess cost since FY1995. This
percentage, shown in column six, is obtained by dividing the dollars available per
child with a disability (column 4) by the APPE (column five). The amount available
per child with a disability was obtained by dividing the appropriation for the Part B
grants-to-states-program (column 2) by the number of children with disabilities
(column 3).13 The FY2008 appropriated amount accounts for 17.2% of the estimated
excess cost, and the FY2009 budget request would account for 17.1% of estimated
excess cost. For FY2008, the estimated amount needed to reach 40% of Average
Per-Pupil Expenditure (APPE) is $25.5 billion, the product of 40% of the number of
children with disabilities and the APPE. The FY2008 appropriation of $10.9 billion
is well below this amount.


11 Federal special education legislation existed prior to 1975 — most notably the Education
of the Handicapped Act (EHA). P.L. 94-142 (the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975) substantially amended the EHA, creating the essential structure and principles
of federal assistance to special education that are still reflected in current law. In 1990, the
name of the act was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by P.L. 101-
476. Congress made extensive amendments to IDEA in 1997 (P.L. 105-17) and again in
2004 (P.L. 108-446); however the basic characteristics of the act resemble those first
enacted in 1975.
12 “In 1975, when the Act was originally enacted, Congress established the goal of providing
up to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure to assist States and local
educational agencies with the excess costs of educating students with disabilities.” H.Rept.

108-77, p. 93.


13 Beginning in FY1999, certain amounts have been excluded from appropriations for the
purposes of calculating percentages of APPE. From FY1999 to FY2004, these amounts
were designated for evaluations and studies. For FY2005 and succeeding fiscal years, these
amounts are designated for technical assistance to the states.

Note that any increase in appropriations does not necessarily mean an increase
in the percentage of APPE. For example, the FY2007 appropriation increase by $200
million over the FY2006 amount, yet the percentage of APPE declined from 17.7%
to 17.1%. This resulted because the growth rates of the number of children with
disabilities and of APPE were greater than the growth rate in appropriations.
Table 3. Estimated Percentage
of Average Per-Pupil Expenditure (APPE) for FY1995-FY2009
Dollars per Child
Appropriationsas Percentage of
for IDEA Number ofAverage APPE
Part B grantsChildren withDollars perper-Pupil(estimated
to states Disabilities Child with aExpenditurepercentage of
FY(in $000)(in 000)Disability(APPE)excess cost)
(column 1)(column 2)(column 3)(column 4)(column 5)(column 6)
1995 2,322,915 5,467 425 5,429 7.8%
1996 2,323,837 5,629 413 5,640 7.3%
1997 3,107,522 5,806 535 5,796 9.2%
1998 3,801,000 5,978 636 6,046 10.5%
1999 4,301,000 6,133 701 6,296 11.1%
2000 4,976,685 6,274 793 6,631 12.0%
2001 6,323,685 6,381 991 7,006 14.1%
2002 7,512,533 6,483 1,159 7,499 15.5%
2003 8,858,398 6,611 1,340 7,839 17.1%
2004 10,052,106 6,723 1,495 8,148 18.4%
2005 10,579,746 6,820 1,551 8,400 18.5%
2006 10,567,961 6,814 1,551 8,786 17.7%
2007 10,767,961 6,796 1,584 9,249 17.1%
2008 Est.10,932,5116,7961,6099,37017.2%
2009 Req.11,269,5116,7961,6589,70117.1%
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from U.S. Department of
Education (ED) data.
Note: FY1999-FY2004 funds exclude amounts for studies and evaluations; FY2005 through FY2009
funds exclude amounts for technical assistance. Estimates offull funding percentages of APPE will
change for any fiscal year for which ED revises data to calculate these estimates.



Part B Grants-to-States Authorizations
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 108-446, IDEA authorized “such sums as may be
necessary” for the Part B grants-to-states program. The 2004 reauthorization of
IDEA added specific authorization levels for FY2005 to FY2011. The authorization
levels were intended to provide a path to “full funding” by FY2011.14 Table 4 lists
these authorized amounts.
Table 4. Authorizations for the IDEA Part B Grants-to-States
Program (P.L. 108-446, §611(i))
Fiscal YearAuthorization
2005 12,358,376,571
2006 14,648,647,143
2007 16,938,917,714
2008 19,229,188,286
2009 21,519,458,857
2010 23,809,729,429
2011 26,100,000,000
2012 and subsequent yearssuch sums as may be necessary
Table 5 compares estimated FY2008 Part B grants-to-states allocations (column
2) with estimated allocations based on the FY2008 authorization level for the
program (column 3) and estimated FY2009 allocations based on the President’s
budget request (column 5) with those based on the FY2009 authorization (column
6). Table 5 also shows the estimated percent increase each state would receive if the
authorized amounts for FY2008 and FY2009 were the amounts that were
appropriated (columns 4 and 7, respectively). In general, states would receive on
average approximately 77% more for FY2008 than they would based on the FY2008
appropriation, and approximately 92% more for FY2009 than they would under the
FY2009 budget request.


14 The House report noted that the House bill (H.R. 1350) “has established a clear and
genuine pattern to reach the 40 percent goal within the next seven years.” (H.Rept. 108-77,
p. 93). The Senate bill (S. 1248) contained a similar authorization pattern.

Table 5. Estimated FY2008 and FY2009 IDEA Part B
Grants-to-States Allocations Based on
Appropriated and Proposed Amounts,
and FY2008 and FY2009 Authorization Levels
Estimated %Estimated %
Change Change
B etw een B etw een
Grants BasedGrants Based
on Estima ted on
EstimatedEstimatedAppropriationFY2009 GrantsEstimatedAppropriation
FY2008 GrantsFY2008 Grantsand Grants(Based onFY2009 Grantsand Grants
Based onBased onBased onPresident’sBased onBased on
St a t e Appropriatio n Authorizatio n Authorizatio n Request ) Authorizatio n Authorizatio n
(column 1)(column 2)(column 3)(column 4)(column 5)(column 6)(column 7)
Alabama 172,827,000 306,583,000 77.4% 177,615,000 342,318,000 92.7%
Alaska 34,370,000 60,336,000 75.5% 35,493,000 68,077,000 91.8%
Arizona 172,909,000 301,808,000 74.5% 180,825,000 342,479,000 89.4%
Arkansas 106,603,000 188,242,000 76.6% 109,557,000 211,149,000 92.7%
California 1 ,165,973,000 2,068,354,000 77.4% 1,198,276,000 2,309,435,000 92.7%
Co lo rado 144,726,000 255,347,000 76.4% 151,248,000 286,658,000 89.5%
Co nnecticut 126,364,000 220,421,000 74.4% 129,865,000 250,288,000 92.7%
Delaware 31,680,000 55,298,000 74.5% 33,131,000 62,749,000 89.4%
District of
Co lumb ia 15,929,000 27,804,000 74.5% 16,658,000 31,551,000 89.4%
Florid a 598,437,000 1,061,586,00 77.4% 615,017,000 1,185,321,000 92.7%
Georgia 303,971,000 530,574,000 74.5% 317,888,000 602,074,000 89.4%
Hawaii 37,941,000 67,305,000 77.4% 38,992,000 75,150,000 92.7%
Idaho 51,586,000 91,511,000 77.4% 53,016,000 102,177,000 92.7%
Illinois 481,311,000 853,812,000 77.4% 494,646,000 953,330,000 92.7%
Indiana 243,042,000 431,140,000 77.4% 249,776,000 481,393,000 92.7%
Iowa 116,028,000 202,392,000 74.4% 119,242,000 228,042,000 91.2%
Kansas 101,561,000 180,162,000 77. 4% 104,375,000 201,161,000 92.7%
Kentucky 150,013,000 266,112,000 77.4% 154,169,000 297,129,000 92.7%
Lo uisiana 179,912,000 319,151,000 77.4% 184,896,000 356,350,000 92.7%
Maine 52,005,000 90,714,000 74.4% 53,445,000 101,445,000 89.8%
Maryland 190,291,000 337,563,000 77.4% 195,563,000 376,908,000 92.7%
Massachusetts 269,787,000 470,599,000 74.4% 277,261,000 526,272,000 89.8%
Michigan 380,700,000 675,336,000 77.4% 391,247,000 754,051,000 92.7%
Minneso ta 180,405,000 320,027,000 77.4% 185,404,000 357,328,000 92.7%
Mississippi 113,101,000 200,633,000 77.4% 116,234,000 224,018,000 92.7%
Misso uri 215,886,000 382,967,000 77.4% 221,867,000 427,604,000 92.7%
Montana 35,120,000 62,170,000 77.0% 36,244,000 69,563,000 91.9%
Nebraska 70,966,000 123,789,000 74.4% 72,932,000 139,919,000 91.8%
Nevada 65,026,000 113,501,000 74.5% 68,003,000 128,796,000 89.4%
New Hampshire45,103,00078,674,00074.4%46,352,00089,335,00092.7%
New Jersey343,582,000599,228,00074.4%353,045,000670,118,00089.8%
New Mexico86,618,000153,654,00077.4%89,018,000171,564,00092.7%
New York721,466,0001,265,905,00075.5%741,454,0001,429,004,00092.7%



Estimated %Estimated %
Change Change
B etw een B etw een
Grants BasedGrants Based
on Estima ted on
EstimatedEstimatedAppropriationFY2009 GrantsEstimatedAppropriation
FY2008 GrantsFY2008 Grantsand Grants(Based onFY2009 Grantsand Grants
Based onBased onBased onPresident’sBased onBased on
St a t e Appropriatio n Authorizatio n Authorizatio n Request ) Authorizatio n Authorizatio n
(column 1)(column 2)(column 3)(column 4)(column 5)(column 6)(column 7)
North Carolina304,552,000536,266,00076.1%317,915,000603,224,00089.7%
North Dakota25,724,00044,901,00074.5%26,902,00050,952,00089.4%
Ohio 415,983,000 737,925,000 77.4% 427,508,000 823,936,000 92.7%
Oklaho ma 140,574,000 249,368,000 77.4% 144,469,000 278,434,000 92.7%
Oregon 122,570,000 217,431,000 77.4% 125,966,000 242,774,000 92.7%
Pennsylvania 405,950,000 720,127,000 77.4% 417,197,000 804,063,000 92.7%
Puerto Rico105,695,000184,489,00074.5%110,534,000209,350,00089.4%
Rhode Island41,561,00072,496,00074.4%42,712,00081,073,00089.8%
South Carolina166,466,000295,300,00077.4%171,078,000329,719,00092.7%
South Dakota30,644,00053,489,00074.5%32,047,00060,697,00089.4%
T ennessee 221,642,000 393,177,000 77.4% 227,782,000 439,005,000 92.7%
T exas 916,138,000 1,625,166,000 77.4% 952,229,000 1,814,590,000 90.6%
Utah 101,664,000 179,928,000 77. 0% 106,147,000 201,366,000 89.7%
Vermont 24,803,000 43,293,000 74.5% 25,939,000 49,127,000 89.4%
Virginia 267,684,000 474,853,000 77.4% 275,100,000 530,200,000 92.7%
Washington 210,357,000 373,159,000 77.4% 216,185,000 416,654,000 92.7%
West Virginia72,178,000125,902,000 74.4%74,177,000140,797,00089.8%
Wisconsin 197,854,000 349,538,000 76.7% 203,335,000 391,888,000 92.7%
Wyoming 26,021,000 45,419,000 74.5% 27,212,000 51,539,000 89.4%
Subtotals to
st a t e s 10,803,246,000 19,084,923,000 76.7% 11,137,190,000 21,372,138,000 91.9%
Total set-asides144,265,000144,265,0000.0%147,321,000147,321,000.0%
To t a ls 10,947,512,000 19,229,188,000 75.6% 11,284,511,000 21,519,459,000 90.7%
Source: CRS calculations based on data obtained from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Budget Service.
Note: Totals may differ slightly due to rounding. State grants are estimates only and do not necessarily represent amounts states
and other entities will eventually receive. These amounts are provided for the purpose of policy discussion only.



Maximum State Grants
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 108-446, the maximum amount states could
receive under the Part B grants-to-states program was based on 40% of the national
average per pupil expenditure (APPE) times the number of children with disabilities
the state serves.15 The sum of these maximum grants is a third measure of IDEA
“full funding.” P.L.108-446 maintained this maximum-grant calculation through
FY2006. Thereafter, the maximum grant is 40% of APPE times the number of
children with disabilities the state served in school year 2004-2005 adjusted by the
annual rates of change in the state’s population in the age range comparable to ages
for which the state provides education for children with disabilities16 (85% of the
adjustment) and in the state’s children living in poverty in the same age range (15%
of the adjustment). Since it is not clear what sources of data or the methodology the
Department of Education would use to determine state maximum grants, it is not
possible to estimate them for this report.


15 P.L. 105-17 §611(a)(2).
16 For most states this age range is 3 to 20 or 3 to 21.