School Facilities: States' Financial and Technical Support Varies (Letter
Report, 11/28/95, GAO/HEHS-96-27).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the role of states in
supporting school facilities improvements, focusing on: (1) state
funding and technical assistance to local school districts; and (2) the
extent to which states collect information on school building
conditions.
GAO found that: (1) most states have a role in school facilities
construction, renovation, and maintenance, and 13 states have
established comprehensive facilities programs; (2) states provided $3.5
billion for school facilities construction during fiscal year 1994; (3)
state financial assistance for school facility construction ranged from
$6 per student to more than $2,000 per student; (4) the number of staff
devoted to providing facilities guidance and oversight varied, with most
states having fewer than 6 full-time equivalent staff; (5) twenty-three
states collected data on the condition of school buildings in their
area, seventeen states collected data on building inventories, and 10
states collected no data on school facilities; and (6) some state
officials believe that school facilities matters are primarily a local
responsibility.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-96-27
TITLE: School Facilities: States' Financial and Technical Support
Varies
DATE: 11/28/95
SUBJECT: Data collection operations
Educational facility construction
Facility maintenance
Facility repairs
State/local relations
Technical assistance
Intergovernmental fiscal relations
State budgets
Public schools
IDENTIFIER: Florida
New Hampshire
Kansas
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
November 1995
SCHOOL FACILITIES - STATES'
FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
VARIES
GAO/HEHS-96-27
School Facilities: State Involvement
(104789)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
FTE - full-time equivalent
LEA - local education agency
SEA - state education agency
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259315
November 28, 1995
The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
The Honorable Claiborne Pell
The Honorable Paul Simon
The Honorable Paul Wellstone
United States Senate
This report is one in a series addressing your request for a
comprehensive review of the condition of America's school facilities.
We have already reported that school officials estimate that about
$112 billion is needed to restore school facilities to good overall
condition and that many schools cannot adequately support modern
technology or accommodate instructional activities related to
education reform.\1 The magnitude of this need has overwhelmed the
resources of many local school districts and raised the question of
whether, and to what degree, the nation's schools can look to the
states to play a major role in addressing the need.
As part of this review, you asked us to examine the current role of
states in supporting school facilities improvements. More
specifically, you asked for information on what states are doing to
provide funding and technical assistance and compliance review to
school districts. In addition, you asked for information on the
degree to which states collect and maintain information on the
condition of school buildings. Table 1 outlines three areas of state
involvement and the types of activities associated with each.
Table 1
Areas of State Involvement Reviewed by
GAO
Area of
involvement Types of activities
------------------ --------------------------------------
Funding States provide funding for
construction, renovation, or major
maintenance of school facilities
through grants or loans to pay for
local construction costs or debt
service.
Technical States provide information and
assistance and guidance on funding, construction
compliance review requirements, planning, architectural
matters, education specifications, and
other facilities-related issues.
States review architectural plans and
other documents for conformance with
fire and building codes, education
program specifications, or other state
requirements. (Education program
specifications provide detailed
requirements for school facility needs
such as large-and small-group
instruction and properly constructed
and outfitted science laboratories.)
Data collection on States conduct one-time studies of
condition of facilities conditions statewide.
facilities States maintain an ongoing system of
regularly updated condition data or
revise data when districts apply for
facilities funding.
----------------------------------------------------------
Our report results are based primarily on information provided by
each state's education agency (SEA) for state fiscal year 1994. We
obtained the information through telephone interviews with SEA
officials and supporting documentation provided by the agencies.
Although in most states other agencies are also involved in at least
some school facilities activities, exploring other agencies'
activities was beyond the scope of this study. We conducted this
study from October 1994 to September 1995 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not verify
the information reported to us by state officials. (See app. I for
a discussion of our methodology.)
--------------------
\1 School Facilities: Condition of America's Schools
(GAO/HEHS-95-61, Feb. 1, 1995) and School Facilities: America's
Schools Not Designed or Equipped for 21st Century (GAO/HEHS-95-95,
Apr. 4, 1995).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
While the construction of school buildings has traditionally been a
local responsibility, nearly all states now have some role in school
facilities construction, renovation, and major maintenance (hereafter
referred to collectively as construction), and 13 states have
established comprehensive facilities programs. As a group, states
reported providing about $3.5 billion for school facilities
construction during fiscal year 1994.\2 However, states' involvement
in facilities matters varied greatly. For example, state financial
assistance for school facilities in the 40 states with ongoing
assistance programs ranged from $6 per student to more than $2,000
per student. States' technical assistance and compliance review
activities also varied greatly; the number of staff devoted to
providing facilities guidance and oversight varied from fewer than 1
full-time equivalent (FTE) to 72, with most states having fewer than
6 FTE staff.
In addition, the amount and type of data that states collected and
maintained on school facilities varied greatly. Twenty-three states
reported collecting at least some data on the condition of school
buildings, with 15 of those updating such data regularly. Seventeen
states did not collect information on building condition but
collected other types of facilities information such as building
inventories. The remaining 10 states collected no facilities
information at all or did so on an extremely limited basis.
Overall, the data on state involvement suggest that while most states
are providing facilities support to school districts, many states do
not currently play a major role in addressing school facilities
issues. However, states' philosophies vary on the appropriate level
of state involvement in facilities matters. Officials in some states
reported a long history of state assistance to local education
agencies (LEA), while others reported that school facilities matters
were primarily a local responsibility.
--------------------
\2 Typically, states' fiscal years run from July 1 to June 30.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Traditionally, financing the construction of public schools has been
a function of local government. Until the 1940s, only 12 states
provided any financial assistance for school construction. State
participation increased during the baby boom of the 1950s, when local
communities needed classrooms and states had surplus revenues. Even
with such increases, however, localities were mainly responsible for
school facilities construction.
Beginning in the 1970s, litigation in many states highlighted
disparities in school districts' ability to raise money for public
education. Court decisions resulted in many states increasing
funding levels and playing a larger role in lessening financial
disparities between rich and poor districts. Although these
decisions have pertained mainly to the state's role in providing for
instruction rather than to a focus on buildings, the past 20 years
have seen a general increase in state involvement with
facilities-related matters. By 1991, state funding for school
facilities totaled more than $3 billion or about 20 percent of all
funds used for public school construction.\3
Increasingly, the physical condition of school buildings has become a
concern in school finance litigation. In 1994, for example, the
Arizona Supreme Court found the state's school funding system
unconstitutional on the basis of disparities in the condition of its
schools. Also, court challenges in Texas and Ohio have focused on
inequities in districts' abilities to make capital expenditures and
the importance of suitable facilities for a constitutionally
acceptable education system. School finance experts expect
disparities in facilities to be a continued aspect of litigation.
Meanwhile, states face pressure from other rising budget
expenditures, such as for health care and prisons.\4
--------------------
\3 Honeyman, David S., "Finances and the Problems of America's School
Buildings," The Clearing House, November/December 1994, p. 95.
\4 See School Finance: Trends in U.S. Education Spending
(GAO/HEHS-95-235, Sept. 15, 1995).
NEARLY ALL STATES INVOLVED,
SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVELY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Forty-eight states reported participating in at least one of the
three areas of state involvement in school facilities that we
identified. State involvement ranged from participation in all three
areas to participation in just one or none of the areas.
(State-by-state involvement as reported by SEAs is summarized in app.
II, table II.1.) In all,
40 states reported providing ongoing facilities funding,
44 states reported participating in technical assistance or
compliance review activities, and
23 states reported collecting and maintaining information about the
condition of school facilities. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Number of States
Providing Funding and Technical
Assistance and Compliance
Review and Maintaining Data on
the Condition of Facilities
(See figure in printed
edition.)
We characterized 13 states as having comprehensive facilities
programs: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, South
Carolina, and West Virginia. Our review of state programs addressed
the extent of state involvement and did not evaluate program
effectiveness. We considered programs comprehensive if they had a
facilities program framework in place that provided ongoing funding,
conducted a variety of technical assistance and compliance review
activities, maintained current information on the condition of school
buildings statewide, and had one or more FTE staff working on
facilities matters. Although a total of 19 SEAs reported activities
in all three areas, for some states the level of activity reported in
at least one of these areas was limited in some way. For example,
Pennsylvania participated in all three areas, including collecting
information on the condition of facilities; however, officials
reported that the information was updated only when a LEA applied for
project funding. Since the interval between these updates may be as
much as 20 years, the information maintained by the state may be out
of date.
Kentucky is an example of a state we characterized as having a
comprehensive program. A facilities official reported that the SEA
Division of Facilities Management provided guidance to LEAs in
implementing locally developed 4-year facility plans that included
detailed information on the condition of school buildings. Eight
professional staff and three support staff provided the LEAs with
information and guidance throughout the planning, budgeting, and
building of school facilities. Staff also reviewed building plans
for compliance with education specifications. The state had three
funding assistance programs and reported providing about $66 million
in state financial assistance for facilities in state fiscal year
1994--mostly through a $100 per student capital outlay allotment paid
as part of the state foundation funding.\5 The SEA reviewed all major
LEA construction and renovation projects, whether or not state
funding was used.
Another 21 states reported activities in two of the three areas.
Most of them provided funding and technical assistance and compliance
review but did not collect and maintain information on the condition
of school facilities. For example, an Indiana official reported that
the state provided funding through three programs, and the SEA staff
reviewed architectural plans for compliance with state education
administrative codes and advised local officials on funding and other
processes related to facilities planning and construction.
Eight states reported participation in just one area. For example,
an Illinois official reported that while the state did not have an
ongoing funding program or collect condition data, the SEA facilities
staff did provide technical assistance and compliance review for
certain locally funded projects to correct life/safety code
violations.
Along with the variation among states in facilities activities and
level of involvement, we also found differences in state views and
traditions on the extent of the state role in providing facilities
assistance. Several states reported many years of providing funding,
illustrating the view that states have a role in school facilities
assistance. Officials in other states expressed the view that school
facilities matters are the responsibility of the local districts.
--------------------
\5 Foundation programs establish a minimum level of expenditure per
pupil that is guaranteed by the state. A state may fully fund the
foundation or may require each district to contribute a local share.
MOST STATES PROVIDED FACILITIES
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, THOUGH
LEVELS VARIED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
A total of 40 states reported providing ongoing financial assistance
to local districts for the construction of public elementary and
secondary schools.\6 Collectively, these states reported providing an
estimated $3.5 billion in grants and loans for school facilities
construction in state fiscal year 1994. Ten states reported no
regular, ongoing programs to assist districts with construction
costs, although some of these had recently provided one-time
appropriations for facilities or considered proposals for funding
school construction.
While most states reported providing financial assistance for school
construction, funding levels varied widely. On a per pupil basis,
state funding provided in fiscal year 1994 ranged from a high of
$2,254 per student in Alaska to a low of $6 per student in Montana
(see table 2). The median amount of assistance provided per student
was about $104.\7
With the exception of Hawaii\8 and Alaska, which provided full or
nearly full state support for school construction, all states
provided less than $300 per student. Eight states--Arkansas,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, and
Virginia--reported providing at least some portion of their
assistance in the form of loans to districts.
Table 2
Amount of State Aid Provided for School
Facilities Construction in State Fiscal
Year 1994 for States With Ongoing
Funding Programs
State
State funding for funding per
State grants and loans pupil
------------------------ ------------------ ------------
Alaska\a $273,956,043 $2,254
Hawaii\b 133,088,000 740
Florida 579,182,541 290
Connecticut 137,541,140 281
Delaware 29,373,300 275
Maine 43,500,000 203
North Carolina 219,506,574 195
Massachusetts 170,000,000 193
New York 451,000,000 167
Vermont 16,400,000 163
Indiana 149,863,628 155
Minnesota 122,900,000 153
Washington 137,600,000 150
Georgia 151,170,000 123
Rhode Island 17,008,435 117
Maryland 87,000,000 113
Pennsylvania 184,000,000 105
Colorado 65,656,512 105
Virginia 108,800,000 104
Kentucky 66,380,260 104
New Mexico 28,763,442 93
New Hampshire 15,327,295 84
Wyoming 8,000,000 80
Mississippi 36,000,000 72
New Jersey 69,945,000 61
North Dakota 5,660,000 48
South Carolina 25,807,048 41
Ohio 68,600,000 38
Idaho 7,015,342 30
Utah 9,612,055 21
Kansas 7,000,000 16
Alabama 9,790,992 14
Michigan 20,227,052 13
Arkansas 4,764,506 11
California 52,000,000\c 10
Montana 1,000,000 6
West Virginia 0\d 0
Tennessee not provided not provided
Arizona unknown\e unknown\e
Wisconsin unknown\e unknown\e
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: Ten states had no regular, ongoing program to assist districts
with capital construction costs. These states--Illinois, Iowa,
Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Dakota, and Texas--are not included in the table.
\a In Alaska, officials reported that the state has typically
provided a high level of support for school construction since the
1980s. In fiscal year 1994, state funds accounted for 93 percent of
school construction funding.
\b Hawaii's schools are uniquely organized as a single state system
with no individual local districts; thus, school construction in
Hawaii is entirely state funded, and the amount shown reflects total
funding for school facilities.
\c California has historically issued bonds every 2 years for school
construction. The last bonds passed in 1992 totaled $2.8 billion.
State officials reported that bond sales scheduled for 1994 did not
succeed. The amount shown represents funding for the Deferred
Maintenance program, which does not depend on state bond sales.
\d West Virginia provides financial assistance for school
construction but provided none in fiscal year 1994, according to the
state official we interviewed.
\e Reported by state officials as unknown.
The following descriptions of funding programs in three states
provide more context for the amount of state aid provided for school
facilities.
Florida has eight programs to aid school facilities: Florida has
provided financial assistance for school facilities construction
since 1947. Its eight funding programs for facilities
assistance are funded from gross receipts from utility taxes and
motor vehicle licensing tax revenues. Two programs are based on
district enrollment growth relative to enrollment growth
statewide; a third program provides funding for maintenance
based on the square footage and age of a district's buildings
plus building replacement costs. The remaining programs target
projects such as joint-use facilities, vocational-technical
centers, and projects to assist districts using modified school
calendars. One program targets funding to districts with
limited ability to raise local revenues for facilities.
In New Hampshire, facilities aid is linked to LEA consolidation:
New Hampshire reimburses local districts for a percentage of
their construction debt. The state contribution ranges from 30
to 55 percent and favors districts that have consolidated.
Districts can receive an extra 20 percent for portions of
projects attributable to the construction of kindergartens.
(New Hampshire is the only state without mandatory
kindergarten.) The state reimburses districts over a minimum of
5 years or the longest period of time required by the funding
instruments used by the district.
In Kansas, facilities aid is based on district wealth: Kansas
began providing funding to local districts for school facilities
in state fiscal year 1993. Depending on the assessed valuation
per pupil of the school district, the state program provides aid
ranging from none to a high of around 50 percent for less
wealthy districts. No cap exists on the total amount of
assistance the state provides. Funding is provided as an
entitlement to school districts; the state pays its share of
local debt service for all districts passing bond measures.
Not only do funding levels vary among states in any 1 year, but
construction funding can vary dramatically within states from year to
year, making it difficult to capture the complete picture of state
support in one snapshot. Some states supplement their regular
construction funding programs from time to time with additional
monies for school facilities construction. For example, a state
official in New Jersey reported that in fiscal year 1993 the state
made a one-time appropriation of $250 million to address health and
life/safety needs in schools in addition to the regular facilities
funding provided that year. In several states where we obtained data
for multiple years, construction funding reported by officials
increased or decreased more than 50 percent between fiscal years 1993
and 1994. These fluctuations can reflect such circumstances as
changes in school construction needs or in the availability of state
funding.
Putting the amount of state assistance for school construction--about
$3.5 billion nationwide in state fiscal year 1994--in context of
total facilities expenditures is difficult because of limited data on
local spending, a major part of those expenditures. When we asked
state officials for this information, many reported that they did not
have or collect this data. Preliminary data from the Bureau of the
Census show that, counting revenues from all sources, total
expenditures for school construction and purchases of land and
existing buildings and improvements to buildings were about $15.7
billion for the 1991-92 school year.
When we asked states whether they had any information about unmet
needs for construction funding, officials from several states noted
instances of facilities needs outstripping available state resources.
For example, a state official in Alaska reported that in fiscal year
1994 local districts submitted requests for funding totaling $880
million for a grant program that received an appropriation of $171
million. Similarly, a state official from Wyoming noted that
district requests for funding totaled $42 million in fiscal year
1995, although the state had only $13.5 million available. In
contrast, officials from two states commented that they had no
backlog in requests for funding.
--------------------
\6 In this report, financial assistance for school construction
includes grants or loans provided to districts to pay for capital
outlay or debt service for school facilities construction,
renovation, or major maintenance. We considered states to provide
financial assistance for school construction if they had programs in
place that (1) were ongoing as opposed to one-time appropriations and
(2) specifically set aside funds for school construction, either
through separate programs or through components of their basic
education support program that provided for capital outlay or debt
service. We did not include funding for maintenance and operations
provided through basic education support programs.
\7 Data for the amount of financial assistance provided are reported
by state officials and do not account for any differences in
construction costs among states.
\8 Hawaii's schools are uniquely organized as a single state system
with no individual local districts; thus, school construction in
Hawaii is entirely state funded, and the amount shown reflects total
funding for school facilities. In Alaska, officials reported that
the state has typically provided a high level of support for school
construction since the 1980s. In fiscal year 1994, state funds
accounted for 93 percent of school construction funding.
ALTHOUGH STATE FUNDING
PROGRAMS VARIED, SOME
FEATURES WERE COMMON
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
States reported using a variety of mechanisms to allocate funding for
facilities, and many reported having multiple programs. Some
programs provided assistance to districts requesting aid for specific
construction projects; others provided each district with a fixed
amount of funding per student or a proportion of available funding
based on such factors as a district's facility needs relative to
facility needs statewide.
Delaware exemplifies how programs can vary within a state. An
official reported three funding programs: one focused on major
capital projects that provides funds on a project-by-project basis
accounting for district ability to pay, a second program for
scheduled maintenance and repairs that distributes available funding
to districts on the basis of enrollment and requires a local match,
and a third program for unscheduled repairs that uses a flat rate
formula including factors of building age and enrollment.
While states reported using various ways to distribute funds, we
found common features among the programs:
Most states reported prioritizing funding toward districts with
less ability to pay. While states reported using a variety of
ways to prioritize which districts receive funding and how much
they receive, most reported considering district ability to pay
in awarding some portion of assistance. Of the 40 states
providing construction funding, 34 reported programs that gave
some weight to ability to pay, either through eligibility
criteria, allocation formulas, or prioritization criteria. For
example, Montana has restricted its debt service subsidy program
to districts whose taxable property wealth per pupil was less
than the statewide average. Maryland reported providing
districts with a percentage of approved project costs that
ranged from 50 to 80 percent, depending on ability to pay.
States varied, however, in the degree to which they considered
district wealth. For example, officials in North Carolina
reported four funding programs, one of which targeted assistance
to poorer districts with critical facility needs. In New York,
all construction funding has been provided through one program
that considered district wealth in providing a percentage of
approved project costs. In addition to ability to pay, other
funding prioritization factors that state officials reported
using included enrollment growth and facility overcrowding,
physical condition of buildings, and whether districts had
consolidated.
Most states reported providing aid as grants rather than loans.
Only 8 of the 40 states reported providing any assistance for
school facilities in the form of loans to local districts.
Most states reported providing facilities funding through state
budget appropriations. A total of 29 of the 40 states reported
providing at least a portion of construction funding through
state budget appropriations. Another often used source of
funding was state bonds. A few states also reported using
special revenue sources dedicated to school construction. For
example, Wyoming reported using mineral royalties from
school-owned lands to support its capital construction grant
program.
Most states reported providing no assistance for preventive or
routine maintenance through their construction funding programs.
Officials typically described state programs as providing
assistance for the construction and renovation of school
buildings. While many states also reported funding major
maintenance projects, such as roof replacements, most said they
did not provide assistance for routine or preventive
maintenance.
OVER THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
STATES CONDUCTED TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE OR COMPLIANCE REVIEW
ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Forty-four states reported providing technical assistance to LEAs for
facilities or reviewing facilities projects for compliance with state
requirements. (See app. II, table II.2.) Although technical
assistance and compliance review activities tended to be similar
among states, the level of involvement varied considerably as did the
number of staff devoted to the efforts. As we conducted our study,
we also found that agencies other than the SEA had at least some
responsibility for school facilities. However, pursuing information
about activities in these other agencies was beyond the scope of this
study, and we focused mainly on the activities and staffing levels at
the SEAs.
SEAS' LEVELS OF TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND COMPLIANCE
REVIEW ACTIVITY VARIED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
A total of 44 states reported providing technical assistance to
LEAs--specifically, information or guidance on facilities
regulations, planning, construction, or maintenance. Technical
assistance was typically furnished by phone, through publications and
manuals, at meetings between SEA and LEA representatives, or through
workshops and formal training. The assistance in some states was
limited to answering a few LEA questions and in others it also
included guidance on needs assessments and long-range plans; building
design; hazardous materials; engineering, legal, and architectural
matters; among other subjects.
We found considerable variance in the levels of technical assistance
provided. Some states provided a limited level of technical
assistance. For example, Montana's SEA reported providing
information--but not training--on regulations, requirements, and
other facility guidelines. Oregon reported providing guidance only
on asbestos removal regulations and processes, including sponsoring a
yearly training class. Other SEAs were more involved in technical
assistance activities. For example, a Maryland SEA official reported
that its facilities staff spent a large portion of their time in the
field working with local committees to plan and design school
buildings. They conferred with architects on school design;
presented training for school board officials, engineers, architects,
and school custodial staff; and provided a variety of facilities
issues publications to LEAs.
A total of 37 states also reported compliance review activities
relative to building and fire codes, state education specifications,
or other state regulations. Compliance review activities were fairly
standard among states, consisting primarily of reviewing project
architectural plans to ensure that they conform to regulations and
requirements. Over two-thirds of the 50 states reported overseeing
compliance with education specifications or other state regulations
associated with facilities, while nearly one-third reported reviewing
plans for building or fire code compliance.
Although states' compliance review activities were fairly standard,
their levels of involvement varied. For example, Ohio officials
reported that the facilities unit reviewed architectural plans for
conformance with education standards but did little compliance
enforcement. In contrast, Connecticut officials reported that the
SEA facilities unit reviewed plans for compliance with several codes,
including state building, life safety, and health codes, as well as
federal health, safety, and accessibility requirements. Approval of
the facilities unit was required for a project to receive state aid.
SEA FACILITIES STAFFS TENDED
TO BE SMALL, AND SOME SEAS
SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES WITH
OTHER AGENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
Of the 44 states providing technical assistance or compliance review,
a total of 28 reported SEA staffs with fewer than six FTE employees
involved in facilities-related work--including 12 states with one FTE
or fewer (see fig. 2). SEA facilities staffing levels in the 44
states ranged from .02 to 72 FTEs. (See app. II, table II.2.)
Officials reported that facilities staff expertise may include
finance, education specifications, building codes, and plans
checking. Some reported architects, engineers, or attorneys on
staff.
Figure 2: SEA Staffing Levels
for States With Technical
Assistance and Compliance
Review Activities
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In many states, SEA officials told us that other state agencies were
involved to at least some extent in school facilities activities--in
particular, compliance activities. For example, most states reported
that the State Fire Marshal had school facilities responsibilities,
often related to code compliance or building inspection. Other state
agencies frequently mentioned by officials as having facilities
responsibilities included departments of health, labor, and
environment. In three states--California, Hawaii, and
Maryland--major facilities responsibilities were shared among the SEA
and other agencies. For example, in California, staff in two
divisions of the Department of General Services as well as the SEA
played major roles. Finally, in two states--South Dakota and West
Virginia--the major school facilities activities were handled outside
the SEA. For example, in South Dakota, all facilities responsibility
was transferred to the State Fire Marshal's Office by legislation
passed in 1994.
Facility staffing levels are changing in some states. Several SEAs
reported proposed or enacted reductions in facilities staff or
facilities responsibilities. For example, in Maine, since a 1991
recession, facilities unit FTEs have been reduced from three to one
professional staff as part of a general reduction in the size of the
SEA. More recently, Florida has reduced its facilities unit staffing
by 75 percent and New York by 25 percent for fiscal year 1996. On
the other hand, two SEAs reported that they hope to increase their
facilities units by one or two staff.
ALMOST HALF OF THE STATES
MAINTAINED INFORMATION ON THE
CONDITION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Fewer states reported collecting and maintaining current information
on the condition of school buildings compared with the number of
states providing financial or technical assistance and compliance
review for facilities. We considered states to collect such data if
the information documented the condition\9 of individual schools and
was collected or at least updated in the last 5 years.
A total of 23 states reported maintaining information on the
condition of school buildings (see fig. 3). Of these, 15 states
reported collecting facility condition data on a regular, ongoing
basis, updating their information annually or every few years. The
remaining eight states reported conducting a one-time study of the
condition of their facilities sometime in the last 5 years.
Figure 3: Facilities
Information Maintained by
States
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Seventeen states reported maintaining other types of information on
their facilities that was not specifically related to building
condition. In many cases this information was an inventory of school
buildings, which often included such data as the number of buildings,
their age and size, and building use. Other types of facility
information that states collected included data on the total
appraised value of school facilities and building architectural
plans. Nearly all states collecting information on the condition of
school buildings reported maintaining other facilities data as well.
Ten states reported that they maintained no information on school
facilities or did so on an extremely limited basis, such as retaining
current application materials and financial records or reports on the
general adequacy of facilities resulting from standard school
accreditation reviews. For example, in Connecticut, the official we
interviewed reported that the state collected only the information
and plans necessary for the projects under review at any given time.
(For a delineation of the facilities information collected by
individual states, see app. II.)
--------------------
\9 We considered information on the condition of schools to include
data on the overall condition of buildings or the condition of
specific components of the building structure or building systems.
The information could be in the form of standard ratings, narrative
descriptions, or detailed catalogs of facility needs resulting from
systematic assessments of building conditions. We did not consider
information limited to cost estimates of future projects to be
information on the condition of facilities.
COMPREHENSIVENESS OF
FACILITY CONDITION DATA
VARIED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
For the 23 states collecting some type of data on the condition of
facilities, the comprehensiveness of the information and the
frequency of data collection varied. Some states reported using
professional architects or state-trained staff to conduct assessments
of the condition-specific components of the building structure, such
as walls and roofs, or building systems, such as plumbing and
heating. Often these labor-intensive studies were conducted as
one-time efforts or were updated once every several years. Other
states reported relying on districts to report an overall rating for
the condition of their buildings. For example, in Alabama, districts
must complete an annual building inventory survey that includes one
item to rate the overall condition of buildings on a four-point scale
from "excellent" to "should be razed."
NEARLY ONE-THIRD OF STATES
WOULD LIKE TO GATHER
ADDITIONAL DATA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
When we asked state officials about any changes they would like to
make to their information gathering systems, almost one-third said
they would like to collect additional information. Several expressed
interest in developing an inventory of their school buildings or
updating their present inventories. Many states were also interested
in starting to gather building condition information or updating
condition information collected earlier. In addition to gathering
more data, officials in many states expressed an interest in
automating more of the information they collect. For example,
officials in several states hoped to make data collection from local
districts more interactive using computers. Two state officials
expressed interest in computerizing architectural plans.
On the other hand, officials in several states believed their current
level of data collection was sufficient. In six states that
collected relatively little facilities data, officials said they did
not want to gather any additional information, and a few said the
information they had was adequate for the scope of their state's
program. For example, in Rhode Island, the state aid specialist said
that as long as the state program remains locally oriented they
require no further data. Officials in a few states said that they
would have to increase their staff to collect or analyze more
information and did not want to do this.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Although local governments have traditionally been responsible for
facilities construction, renovation, and major maintenance, most SEAs
have established a state presence in school facilities matters using
a variety of approaches. However, states' levels of involvement
varied: about one-fourth of them had programs that included ongoing
funding assistance, a variety of technical assistance and compliance
review activities, and data collection on the condition of
facilities; 10 states were involved in one or none of the activities.
Further, officials reported differing viewpoints and traditions on
state involvement in facilities matters. Such variations in approach
and philosophy among states illustrate the lack of consensus on the
most appropriate and effective state role.
Today, state involvement in school facilities remains in flux.
Because the physical condition of school buildings has become a
concern in school finance equity litigation, experts expect
disparities in facilities to be a continuing and pressing issue.
States will likely be looked to for ways to lessen these disparities.
State governments, however, face pressure from other rapidly rising
budget expenditures--such as health care--that compete for the same
limited funds.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
The Department of Education reviewed a draft of this report and had
no comments. In addition, we provided state-specific information to
state officials for verification and incorporated their comments in
the text as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to
appropriate House and Senate Committees and all members, the
Secretary of Education, and other interested parties.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7014 or my assistant director, Eleanor
L. Johnson, on (202) 512-7209 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III.
Sincerely yours,
Linda G. Morra
Director, Education and
Employment Issues
METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
To determine the extent to which states provided funding and
technical assistance and compliance review for school facilities and
maintained information on the condition of school buildings, we
conducted telephone interviews with state officials responsible for
school facilities in all 50 states. In nearly all cases, we spoke
with staff at the state education agency (SEA) responsible for school
facilities. In a few states, we also spoke with officials located in
other state agencies extensively involved in school facilities.
Where necessary, for clarification, we conducted follow-up telephone
interviews. We supplemented this information with supporting
documentation provided by state officials. All data were
self-reported by state officials, and we did not verify their
accuracy. We conducted our work between October 1994 and September
1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
The focus of our study was state fiscal year 1994. Typically, this
covered the period from July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1994. We learned
of changes in state programs that occurred after this time during
follow-up interviews with state officials and included these when
they suggested trends in changing levels of state involvement.
STATE-BY-STATE INFORMATION
========================================================== Appendix II
STATES' INVOLVEMENT VARIED IN
THREE AREAS REVIEWED BY GAO
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
States' involvement in providing assistance for school facilities
ranged widely (see table II.1). To illustrate, profiles of
assistance provided in three states--Georgia, Maine, and
Colorado--are presented following table II.1.
Table II.1
Overview of State Activities for School
Facilities
Technical
Ongoing assistance Data on
funding or facility
State program compliance condition
---------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Alabama x x x
Alaska x x x
Arizona x x
Arkansas x x
California x x
Colorado x
Connecticut x x
Delaware x x
Florida x x x
Georgia x x x
Hawaii x x x
Idaho x x x
Illinois x
Indiana x x
Iowa x
Kansas x x
Kentucky x x x
Louisiana
Maine x x
Maryland x x x
Massachusetts x x x
Michigan x x
Minnesota x x x
Mississippi x x
Missouri x
Montana x x
Nebraska x
Nevada
New Hampshire x x
New Jersey x x
New Mexico x x
New York x x
North Carolina x x x
North Dakota x x x
Ohio x x x
Oklahoma x x
Oregon x
Pennsylvania x x x
Rhode Island x x x
South Carolina x x x
South Dakota x
Tennessee x
Texas x x
Utah x x
Vermont x x
Virginia x x
Washington x x x
West Virginia x x x
Wisconsin x x
Wyoming x x x
----------------------------------------------------------
COLORADO--INVOLVED IN
FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1
Colorado requires that each local education agency (LEA) set aside
$202 per pupil of the state and local basic aid funding to be used
for long-range capital needs such as new facilities, major
renovations, land, school buses, or risk management purposes such as
liability insurance or workers compensation. The funding cannot be
used for debt service. The Colorado state education agency (SEA) has
no staff assigned to facilities activities, and technical assistance
is limited to answering a few questions during the year. Colorado
does not routinely collect information on facilities; an official
told us that measuring the condition of schools is considered a local
issue.
MAINE--INVOLVED IN FUNDING
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2
The Maine School Construction Program provided LEAs with about $43.5
million in state fiscal year 1994 to pay debt service on capital
construction bonds through the state's foundation funding. The
amount received is based in part on the assessed valuation per
student and on project priority criteria such as overcrowding. A
staff of three in the Division of School Business Services spend part
of their time overseeing the facilities funding program and providing
information and assistance to LEAs throughout the funding and
construction processes. The division works with LEAs on compliance
with state education program guidelines and coordinates project
review and approval among other agencies, such as the State Fire
Marshal and the Bureau of General Services. The SEA does not
currently gather information about the condition of buildings but
hopes to conduct a survey of LEAs to gather descriptive information
on their facilities.
GEORGIA--INVOLVED
EXTENSIVELY IN ALL THREE
AREAS REVIEWED BY GAO
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3
The Georgia Department of Education provides facilities assistance to
LEAs through a system of annual entitlements based on district needs,
including enrollment increases. LEAs may permit their entitlements
to accrue over time, which allows each school system to undertake
significant projects rather than make minor repairs year after year.
LEAs must submit to the state a 5-year comprehensive facilities plan
validated by an outside survey team and provide from 10 to 25 percent
of the project costs. The SEA Facilities Services Section has field
consultants who provide assistance to their assigned LEAs and an
architect who reviews all architectural project plans for compliance
with state requirements. Georgia provided about $151 million to LEAs
for facilities in state fiscal year 1994.
STATES' LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE
REVIEW AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
VARIED
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Levels of compliance review and technical assistance varied widely
among states. (See table II.2). Profiles of three states that
exemplify this variance--New York, Washington, and Wisconsin-- follow
table II.2.
Table II.2
SEA Staffing Levels for Facilities-
Related Technical Assistance and
Compliance Review Activities
Technical
Full-time assistance/
equivalents compliance
State (FTE) activities
---------------------- ------------ --------------------
Florida 72.00 A, B, C
North Carolina 41.50 A, B, C
==========================================================
New York 24.00 A, B, C
California\a 20.00 A, C
New Jersey 20.00 A, B, C
Georgia 18.00 A, B, C
Hawaii\a 18.00 A, B, C
Illinois 11.00 A, B
Kentucky 11.00 A, C
Pennsylvania 10.00 A, C
West Virginia\b 10.00 A, C
Connecticut 9.00 A, B, C
==========================================================
Washington 7.00 A, C
Alaska 6.00 A, C
Minnesota 6.00 A, C
South Carolina 6.00 A, B, C
Maryland\a 5.50 A, B, C
Alabama 5.00 A, C
Massachusetts 5.00 A, C
Indiana 4.00 A, C
Mississippi 4.00 A, B, C
New Mexico 4.00 A, C
South Dakota\b 4.00 A, B
Virginia 4.00 A
Ohio 3.50 A, C
Arkansas 3.00 A, C
Oklahoma 3.00 A, B, C
Delaware 2.00 A
Missouri 2.00 A
Vermont 2.00 A, B, C
Maine 1.80 A, C
New Hampshire 1.62 A, C
Utah 1.25 A, C
Iowa 1.20 A, C
Kansas 1.00 A, B
North Dakota 1.00 A, B, C
Texas 1.00 A
==========================================================
Wisconsin 1.00 A
Wyoming 0.75 A, C
Idaho 0.74 A, C
Colorado 0.49
Michigan 0.35 A
Nevada 0.25
Rhode Island 0.25 A, C
Montana 0.10 A
Oregon 0.02 A, C
Arizona 0.00
Louisiana 0.00
Nebraska 0.00
Tennessee 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------
KEY
A. Technical assistance includes providing information or guidance
to LEAs on funding or construction issues using one or more of a
variety of activities, including telephone consultations or site
visits, attending district meetings, presenting training to district
staff or those working on school construction projects, or publishing
informational documents for district use.
B. Compliance review for building or fire codes includes reviewing
architectural plans for conformance with building, mechanical,
electrical, or related structural and life/safety codes.
C. Compliance review for education specifications or other state
regulations includes reviewing architectural plans or other documents
for conformance with state education specifications such as for the
size and use of school building space. It also includes reviewing
documents for conformance with other state requirements, such as the
use of women- or minority-owned companies, or wages paid to school
construction workers.
\a In addition to the SEA FTEs shown, officials report significant
numbers of staff carrying out facilities activities in other state
agencies. The number of additional FTEs located in other agencies in
California is 188; Hawaii, 99; and in Maryland, 17.2.
\b FTEs shown are not situated in the SEA but are in other state
agencies that have the primary responsibility for school facilities.
NEW YORK--INVOLVED IN MANY
TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE/COMPLIANCE
ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1
New York's SEA staff present workshops and publish newsletter
articles on regulations and facilities planning as well as
architectural, engineering, and legal issues. They also provide
information to about 100 telephone callers per day. Staff review
architectural plans for compliance with the building code and
education specifications. They assess the need for projects, approve
sites, enforce the state environmental review act, determine
eligibility for state building aid and petroleum overcharge funds,
issue building permits, and approve leases. The SEA oversees a fire
inspection program that enforces building and fire codes for existing
buildings through annual inspections conducted by LEA-hired
inspectors. Staff certify completed projects for occupancy, provide
on-call assistance for environmental hazard problems and are
implementing a requirement for LEA comprehensive 5-year capital
plans.
WASHINGTON--INVOLVED IN
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/
COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2
Washington's SEA school facilities section staff provide information
to local school districts on health and safety issues and ensure that
state-assisted school construction projects comply with state law.
The section provides assistance to school districts and other state
and federal agencies by acting as an information clearinghouse.
WISCONSIN--INVOLVED IN
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.3
Wisconsin's SEA staff provide assistance interpreting the building
code and health and safety regulations--usually by telephone or
sending documents by mail. The staff present occasional on-site
workshops, referrals to other agencies, and assistance with LEA
facilities plans.
NEARLY HALF OF THE STATES
MAINTAINED INFORMATION ON THE
CONDITION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
Nearly half of the states maintained information on the condition of
school facilities. Some collected it on an ongoing basis, while
others had done a recent, one-time study. Most states maintained
information on facilities other than condition. Only 10 states
maintained extremely limited or no information on facilities. Table
II.3 describes the extent of facilities information maintained by
each state.
Table II.3
Extent of Facilities Information
Maintained by States
Maintains Maintains no
information on information or
facilities only extremely
Recent one- other than limited
State Ongoing time study condition information
------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Alabama X X
Alaska X\a X
Arizona X X
Arkansas X
California X
Colorado X
Connecticut X
Delaware X\a
Florida X X
Georgia X X
Hawaii X X
Idaho X X
Illinois X
Indiana X\a
Iowa X\a
Kansas X
Kentucky X X
Louisiana X
Maine X
Maryland X X
Massachusetts X\a X\a
Michigan X
Minnesota X X
Mississippi X
Missouri X
Montana X
Nebraska X X
Nevada X
New Hampshire X
New Jersey X
New Mexico X
New York X
North Carolina X X
North Dakota X X
Ohio X X
Oklahoma X X
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X X
Rhode Island X X
South Carolina X
South Dakota X
Tennessee X
Texas X X
Utah X
Vermont X
Virginia X
Washington X X
West Virginia X X
Wisconsin X
Wyoming X X
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Development of information system still in progress but data
collection under way.
GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================= Appendix III
GAO CONTACTS
Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7209
Linda Y. A. McIver, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 287-4821
Susan J. Lawless, Senior Evaluator, (206) 287-4792
STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
R. Jerry Aiken, Computer Specialist (Programmer/Analyst)
D. Catherine Baltzell, Supervisory Social Science Analyst
Sandra L. Baxter, Senior Evaluator
Tamara A. Lumpkin, Evaluator
Stanley H. Stenersen, Senior Evaluator
Virginia A. Vanderlinde, Evaluator
Dianne L. Whitman, Evaluator
*** End of document. ***