I'd hesitate to describe it as typical, based on my combined experiences of attending and working in multiple public school districts, including some that would be considered disadvantaged. On the whole, low-SES districts are more likely to be significantly under-resourced in every way (although, as I've said before, there are excellent teachers to be found in every setting). On the other hand, they also do sometimes connect with not only federal Title I funds, but grants, community agencies, university research projects on improving outcomes in low-SES schools, and non-profit initiatives targeting disadvantaged populations. Several of those resources are more likely to find low-SES schools than high-SES schools (but then, of course, high-SES schools are more likely to be able to self- or PTO-fund comparable services).
Also, as a generalization, attendance is a greater problem in disadvantaged populations, which obviously impacts educational outcomes severely. Many of the features you named are exceptionally valuable in terms of increasing and maintaining attendance, positive school climate, and a sense of membership in the school community, all of which are known to positively affect student academic and life outcomes. Schools struggling with inconsistent student attendance and poor motivation may prioritize differently. If they're not in school, it doesn't matter what your academic program is.
And as to Title I versus just-missed-Title I: there is likely something to that. In addition, when community partners go looking for schools to help, they tend to start from those schools listed as Title I, or as having a certain minimum percentage of free-and-reduced lunch.
