Appendix E to Part 300 - Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort Calculation Examples

Latest version.

Appendix E to Part 300 - Local Educational Agency Maintenance of Effort Calculation Examples

The following tables provide examples of calculating LEA MOE. Figures are in $10,000s. All references to a “fiscal year” in these tables refer to the fiscal year covering that school year, unless otherwise noted.

Tables 1 through 4 provide examples of how an LEA complies with the Subsequent Years rule. In Table 1, for example, an LEA spent $1 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-2013 on the education of children with disabilities. In the following year, the LEA was required to spend at least $1 million but spent only $900,000. In FY 2014-2015, therefore, the LEA was required to spend $1 million, the amount it was required to spend in FY 2013-2014, not the $900,000 it actually spent.

Table 1 - Example of Level of Effort Required To Meet MOE Compliance Standard in Year Following a Year in Which LEA Failed To Meet MOE Compliance Standard

Fiscal year	Actual level of effort	Required level of effort	Notes
2012-2013	$100	$100	LEA met MOE.
2013-2014	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE.
2014-2015		100	Required level of effort is $100 despite LEA's failure in 2013-2014.

Table 2 shows how to calculate the required amount of effort when there are consecutive fiscal years in which an LEA does not meet MOE.

Table 2 - Example of Level of Effort Required To Meet MOE Compliance Standard in Year Following Consecutive Years in Which LEA Failed To Meet MOE Compliance Standard

Fiscal year	Actual level of effort	Required level of effort	Notes
2012-2013	$100	$100	LEA met MOE.
2013-2014	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE.
2014-2015	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE. Required level of effort is $100 despite LEA's failure in 2013-2014.
2015-2016		100	Required level of effort is $100 despite LEA's failure in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

Table 3 shows how to calculate the required level of effort in a fiscal year after the year in which an LEA spent more than the required amount on the education of children with disabilities. This LEA spent $1.1 million in FY 2015-2016 though only $1 million was required. The required level of effort in FY 2016-2017, therefore, is $1.1 million.

Table 3 - Example of Level of Effort Required To Meet MOE Compliance Standard in Year Following Year in Which LEA Met MOE Compliance Standard

Fiscal year	Actual level of effort	Required level of effort	Notes
2012-2013	$100	$100	LEA met MOE.
2013-2014	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE.
2014-2015	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE. Required level of effort is $100 despite LEA's failure in 2013-2014.
2015-2016	110	100	LEA met MOE.
2016-2017		110	Required level of effort is $110 because LEA expended $110, and met MOE, in 2015-2016.

Table 4 shows the same calculation when, in an intervening fiscal year, 2016-2017, the LEA did not maintain effort.

Table 4 - Example of Level of Effort Required To Meet MOE Compliance Standard in Year Following Year in Which LEA Did Not Meet MOE Compliance Standard

Fiscal year	Actual level of effort	Required level of effort	Notes
2012-2013	$100	$100	LEA met MOE.
2013-2014	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE.
2014-2015	90	100	LEA did not meet MOE. Required level of effort is $100 despite LEA's failure in 2013-2014.
2015-2016	110	100	LEA met MOE.
2016-2017	100	110	LEA did not meet MOE. Required level of effort is $110 because LEA expended $110, and met MOE, in 2015-2016.
2017-2018		110	Required level of effort is $110, despite LEA's failure in 2016-2017.

Table 5 provides an example of how an LEA may meet the compliance standard using alternate methods from year to year without using the exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, and provides information on the following scenario. In FY 2015-2016, the LEA meets the compliance standard using all four methods. As a result, in order to demonstrate that it met the compliance standard using any one of the four methods in FY 2016-2017, the LEA must expend at least as much as it did in FY 2015-2016 using that same method. Because the LEA spent the same amount in FY 2016-2017 as it did in FY 2015-2016, calculated using a combination of State and local funds and a combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis, the LEA met the compliance standard using both of those methods in FY 2016-2017. However, the LEA did not meet the compliance standard in FY 2016-2017 using the other two methods - local funds only or local funds only on a per capita basis - because it did not spend at least the same amount in FY 2016-2017 as it did in FY 2015-2016 using the same methods.

Table 5 - Example of How an LEA May Meet the Compliance Standard Using Alternate Methods From Year to Year

Fiscal year	Local funds only	Combination of State and local funds	Local funds only on a per capita basis	Combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis	Child count
2015-2016	* $500	* $950	* $50	* $95	10
2016-2017	400	* 950	40	* 95	10
2017-2018	* 500	900	* 50	90	10

Table 6 provides an example of how an LEA may meet the compliance standard using alternate methods from year to year in years in which the LEA used the exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, including using the per capita methods.

Table 6 - Example of How an LEA May Meet the Compliance Standard Using Alternate Methods From Year to Year and Using Exceptions or Adjustment Under §§ 300.204 and 300.205

Fiscal year	Local funds only	Combination of State and local funds	Local funds only on a per capita basis	Combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis	Child count
2015- 2016	$500 *	$950 *	$50 *	$95 *	10
2016- 2017	400	950 *	40	95 *	10
2017-2018	450 *	1,000 *	45 *	100 *	10
	In 2017-2018, the LEA was required to spend at least the same amount in local funds only that it spent in the preceding fiscal year, subject to the Subsequent Years rule. Therefore, prior to taking any exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, the LEA was required to spend at least $500 in local funds only In 2017-2018, the LEA properly reduced its expenditures, per an exception in § 300.204, by $50, and therefore, was required to spend at least $450 in local funds only ($500) from 2015-2016 per Subsequent Years rule − $50 allowable reduction per an exception under § 300.204)		In 2017-2018, the LEA was required to spend at least the same amount in local funds only on a per capita basis that it spent in the preceding fiscal year, subject to the Subsequent Years rule. Therefore, prior to taking any exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, the LEA was required to spend at least $50 in local funds only on a per capita basis In 2017-2018, the LEA properly reduced its aggregate expenditures, per an exception in § 300.204, by $50 $50/10 children with disabilities in the comparison year (2015-2016) = $5 per capita allowable reduction per an exception under § 300.204 $50 local funds only on a per capita basis (from 2015-2016 per Subsequent Years rule) − $5 allowable reduction per an exception under § 300.204 = $45 local funds only on a per capita basis to meet MOE
2018-2019	405	1,000 *	45 *	111.11 *	9
	In 2018-2019, the LEA was required to spend at least the same amount in local funds only that it spent in the preceding fiscal year, subject to the Subsequent Years rule. Therefore, prior to taking any exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, the LEA was required to spend at least $450 in local funds only In 2018-2019, the LEA properly reduced its expenditures, per an exception in § 300.204 by $10 and the adjustment in § 300.205 by $10 Therefore, the LEA was required to spend at least $430 in local funds only. ($450 from 2017-2018 − $20 allowable reduction per an exception and the adjustment under §§ 300.204 and 300.205)	Because the LEA did not reduce its expenditures from the comparison year (2017-2018) using a combination of State and local funds, the LEA met MOE	In 2018-2019, the LEA was required to spend at least the same amount in local funds only on a per capita basis that it spent in the preceding fiscal year, subject to the Subsequent Years rule. Therefore, prior to taking any exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, the LEA was required to spend at least $45 in local funds only on a per capita basis In 2018-2019, the LEA properly reduced its aggregate expenditures, per an exception in § 300.204 by $10 and the adjustment in § 300.205 by $10 $20/10 children with disabilities in the comparison year (2017-2018) = $2 per capita allowable reduction per an exception and the adjustment under §§ 300.204 and 300.205 $45 local funds only on a per capita basis (from 2017-2018) − $2 allowable reduction per an exception and the adjustment under §§ 300.204 and 300.205 = $43 local funds only on a per capita basis required to meet MOE. Actual level of effort is $405/9 (the current year child count)	Because the LEA did not reduce its expenditures from the comparison year (2017-2018) using a combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis ($1,000/9 = $111.11 and $111.11 > $100), the LEA met MOE

* LEA met MOE using this method.

Note: When calculating any exception(s) and/or adjustment on a per capita basis for the purpose of determining the required level of effort, the LEA must use the child count from the comparison year, and not the child count of the year in which the LEA took the exception(s) and/or adjustment. When determining the actual level of effort on a per capita basis, the LEA must use the child count for the current year. For example, in 2018-2019, the LEA uses a child count of 9, not the child count of 10 in the comparison year, to determine the actual level of effort.

Tables 7 and 8 demonstrate how an LEA could meet the eligibility standard over a period of years using different methods from year to year. These tables assume that the LEA did not take any of the exceptions or adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205. Numbers are in $10,000s budgeted and spent for the education of children with disabilities.

Table 7 - Example of How an LEA May Meet the Eligibility Standard in 2016-2017 Using Different Methods

Fiscal year	Local funds only	Combination of State and local funds	Local funds only on a per capita basis	Combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis	Child count	Notes
2014-2015	* $500	* $1,000	* $50	* $100	10	The LEA met the compliance standard using all 4 methods.*
2015-2016						Final information not available at time of budgeting for 2016-2017.
How much must the LEA budget for 2016-2017 to meet the eligibility standard in 2016-2017?	500	1,000	50	100		When the LEA submits a budget for 2016-2017, the most recent fiscal year for which the LEA has information is 2014-2015. It is not necessary for the LEA to consider information on expenditures for a fiscal year prior to 2014-2015 because the LEA maintained effort in 2014-2015. Therefore, the Subsequent Years rule in § 300.203(c) is not applicable.

Table 8 - Example of How an LEA May Meet the Eligibility Standard in 2017-2018 Using Different Methods and the Application of the Subsequent Years Rule

Fiscal year	Local funds only	Combination of State and local funds	Local funds only on a per capita basis	Combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis	Child count	Notes
2014-2015	* $500	* $1,000	* $50	* $100	10
2015-2016	450	* 1,000	45	* 100	10
2016-2017						Final information not available at time of budgeting for 2017-2018.
How much must the LEA budget for 2017-2018 to meet the eligibility standard in 2017-2018?	500	1,000	50	100		If the LEA seeks to use a combination of State and local funds, or a combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis, to meet the eligibility standard, the LEA does not consider information on expenditures for a fiscal year prior to 2015-2016 because the LEA maintained effort in 2015-2016 using those methods.
						However, if the LEA seeks to use local funds only, or local funds only on a per capita basis, to meet the eligibility standard, the LEA must use information on expenditures for a fiscal year prior to 2015-2016 because the LEA did not maintain effort in 2015-2016 using either of those methods, per the Subsequent Years rule. That is, the LEA must determine what it should have spent in 2015-2016 using either of those methods, and that is the amount that the LEA must budget in 2017-2018.

Table 9 provides an example of how an LEA may consider the exceptions and adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205 when budgeting for the expenditures for the education of children with disabilities.

Table 9 - Example of How an LEA May Meet the Eligibility Standard Using Exceptions and Adjustment in §§ 300.204 and 300.205, 2016-2017

Fiscal year	Local funds only	Combination of State and local funds	Local funds only on a per capita basis	Combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis	Child count	Notes
Actual 2014-2015 expenditures	* $500	* $1,000	* $50	* $100	10	The LEA met the compliance standard using all 4 methods.*
Exceptions and adjustment taken in 2015-2016	−50	−50	−5	−5		LEA uses the child count number from the comparison year (2014-2015).
Exceptions and adjustment the LEA reasonably expects to take in 2016-2017	−25	−25	−2.50	−2.50		LEA uses the child count number from the comparison year (2014-2015).
How much must the LEA budget to meet the eligibility standard in 2016-2017?	425	925	42.50	92.50		When the LEA submits a budget for 2016-2017, the most recent fiscal year for which the LEA has information is 2014-2015. However, if the LEA has information on exceptions and adjustment taken in 2015-2016, the LEA may use that information when budgeting for 2016-2017. The LEA may also use information that it has on any exceptions and adjustment it reasonably expects to take in 2016-2017 when budgeting for that year.

Table 10 provides examples both of how to calculate the amount by which an LEA failed to maintain its level of expenditures and of the amount of non-Federal funds that an SEA must return to the Department on account of that failure.

Table 10 - Example of How To Calculate the Amount of an LEA's Failure to Meet the Compliance Standard in 2016-2017 and the Amount That an SEA Must Return to the Department

Fiscal year	Local funds only	Combination of State and local funds	Local funds only on a per capita basis	Combination of State and local funds on a per capita basis	Child count	Amount of IDEA Part B subgrant
2015-2016	* $500	* $950	$50 *	$95 *		Not relevant.
2016-2017	400	750	40	75	10	$50
Amount by which an LEA failed to maintain its level of expenditures in 2016-2017	100	200	100 (the amount of the failure equals the amount of the per capita shortfall ($10) times the number of children with disabilities in 2016-2017 (10))	200 (the amount of the failure equals the amount of the per capita shortfall ($20) times the number of children with disabilities in 2016-2017 (10))

The SEA determines that the amount of the LEA's failure is $100 using the calculation method that results in the lowest amount of a failure. The SEA's liability is the lesser of the four calculated shortfalls and the amount of the LEA's Part B subgrant in the fiscal year in which the LEA failed to meet the compliance standard. In this case, the SEA must return $50 to the Department because the LEA's IDEA Part B subgrant was $50, and that is the lower amount.

* LEA met MOE using this method.

[80 FR 23667, Apr. 28, 2015]

                    
                        var val = document.getElementById('citecontent').innerHTML;
                        art.dialog.defaults.title = window.location.href;
                        art.dialog.data('cite', val);
                        art.dialog.data('homeDemoPath', '/Scripts/plus/artDialog/');
                        art.dialog.open('/Scripts/plus/artDialog/citeiframe.html');