United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

November 1995 SCHOOL FACILITIES

States’ Financial and

Technical Support

Varies

GAO/HEHS-96-27

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

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.

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).

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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 assistance and

compliance review

States provide information and guidance on funding,

construction 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 condition

of facilities

States conduct one-time studies of facilities conditions

statewide. 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.)

Results in Brief 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

2

Typically, states’ fiscal years run from July 1 to June 30.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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.

Background 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

3

Honeyman, David S., “Finances and the Problems of America’s School Buildings,” The Clearing

House, November/December 1994, p. 95.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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

Nearly All States

Involved, Several

Comprehensively

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.)

4

See School Finance: Trends in U.S. Education Spending (GAO/HEHS-95-235, Sept. 15, 1995).

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

Figure 1: Number of States Providing

Funding and Technical Assistance and

Compliance Review and Maintaining

Data on the Condition of Facilities

Number of States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Ongoing Funding Program

Technical Assistance and/or Compliance Review

Facility Condition Data

Facility-Related Activities

40

44

23

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.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

Most States Provided

Facilities Financial

Assistance, Though

Levels Varied

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 Hawaii8

 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 grants

and loans

State funding per

pupil

Alaskaa $273,956,043 $2,254

Hawaiib 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

(continued)

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.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

State

State funding for grants

and loans

State funding per

pupil

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 52,000,000c 10

Montana 1,000,000 6

West Virginia 0d 0

Tennessee not provided not provided

Arizona unknowne unknowne

Wisconsin unknowne unknowne

(Table notes on next page)

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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.

aIn 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.

bHawaii’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.

cCalifornia 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.

dWest Virginia provides financial assistance for school construction but provided none in fiscal

year 1994, according to the state official we interviewed.

eReported 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

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

Although State Funding

Programs Varied, Some

Features Were Common

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.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

• 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

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

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.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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

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.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

Figure 2: SEA Staffing Levels for

States With Technical Assistance and

Compliance Review Activities

Number of SEAs

0

10

20

30

40

50

Fewer

Than 6

6 - 20 Over 20

Staffing Levels in FTEs

28

13

3

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

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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

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 condition9

 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.

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.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

Figure 3: Facilities Information

Maintained by States Number of States

0

10

20

30

40

50

Condition

Information

Other Information Only

Limited or No Information Collected

Type of Facilities Information

23

17

10

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

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

projects under review at any given time. (For a delineation of the facilities

information collected by individual states, see app. II.)

Comprehensiveness of

Facility Condition Data

Varied

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

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.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

Conclusions 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 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.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
B-259315 

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

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Methodology

22

Appendix II 

State-by-State

Information

23

States’ Involvement Varied in Three Areas Reviewed by GAO 23

States’ Levels of Compliance Review and Technical Assistance

Varied

26

Nearly Half of the States Maintained Information on the

Condition of School Facilities

29

Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

31

Tables Table 1: Areas of State Involvement Reviewed by GAO 2

Table 2: Amount of State Aid Provided for School Facilities

Construction in State Fiscal Year 1994 for States With Ongoing

Funding Programs

7

Table II.1: Overview of State Activities for School Facilities 23

Table II.2: SEA Staffing Levels for Facilities-Related Technical

Assistance and Compliance Review Activities

26

Table II.3: Extent of Facilities Information Maintained by States 29

Figures Figure 1: Number of States Providing Funding and Technical

Assistance and Compliance Review and Maintaining Data on the

Condition of Facilities

5

Figure 2: SEA Staffing Levels for States With Technical

Assistance and Compliance Review Activities

14

Figure 3: Facilities Information Maintained by States 16

Abbreviations

FTE full-time equivalent

LEA local education agency

SEA state education agency

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix I 

Methodology

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.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

States’ Involvement

Varied in Three Areas

Reviewed by GAO

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

State

Ongoing funding

program

Technical

assistance or

compliance

Data on facility

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

(continued)

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

State

Ongoing funding

program

Technical

assistance or

compliance

Data on facility

condition

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

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

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

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

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

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.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

States’ Levels of

Compliance Review

and Technical

Assistance Varied

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

State

Full-time

equivalents (FTE)

Technical assistance/

compliance activities

Florida 72.00 A, B, C

North Carolina 41.50 A, B, C

New York 24.00 A, B, C

Californiaa 20.00 A, C

New Jersey 20.00 A, B, C

Georgia 18.00 A, B, C

Hawaiia 18.00 A, B, C

Illinois 11.00 A, B

Kentucky 11.00 A, C

Pennsylvania 10.00 A, C

West Virginiab 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

Marylanda 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 Dakotab 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

(continued)

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

State

Full-time

equivalents (FTE)

Technical assistance/

compliance activities

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.

aIn 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.

bFTEs shown are not situated in the SEA but are in other state agencies that have the primary

responsibility for school facilities.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

New York—Involved in

Many Technical

Assistance/Compliance

Activities

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

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

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.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

Nearly Half of the

States Maintained

Information on the

Condition of School

Facilities

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

Collects information on condition

State Ongoing

Recent one-time

study

Maintains

information on

facilities other than

condition

Maintains no

information or only

extremely limited

information

Alabama X X

Alaska Xa X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X

California X

Colorado X

Connecticut X

Delaware Xa

Florida X X

Georgia X X

Hawaii X X

Idaho X X

Illinois X

Indiana Xa

Iowa Xa

Kansas X

Kentucky X X

Louisiana X

Maine X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts Xa Xa

Michigan X

Minnesota X X

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana X

Nebraska X X

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix II 

State-by-State Information

Collects information on condition

State Ongoing

Recent one-time

study

Maintains

information on

facilities other than

condition

Maintains no

information or only

extremely limited

information

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

aDevelopment of information system still in progress but data collection under way.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

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

(104789) Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-27 School Facilities: State Involvement
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100