Local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts or districts) receive funding for education primarily from state and local sources. School districts can typically use this funding for a wide range of purposes, including school maintenance and operations. Maintenance may include routine replacement of lighting, filters, or building system parts, as well as emergency repairs to building systems. According to Education, maintenance and operations may also cover care and upkeep of grounds and equipment, vehicles (other than student transportation), and security. When school districts need to construct, renovate, replace, or make major repairs to building systems or features, such as roofing or plumbing, they typically use capital funding, which is separate from funding used for maintenance and operations. School districts use various mechanisms to fund capital projects. The specific funding mechanisms available to a given school district may differ based on state laws or regulations, and may require approval from state or local voters. A common funding mechanism for capital projects is to issue bonds. Bonds are debt securities issued by states, school districts, and other governmental entities and are repaid with interest, often through local property taxes or other types of local revenue. In some states, school districts might also use funding mechanisms called capital reserves and sinking funds to raise funds for school facilities projects. Capital reserves allow districts to hold end-of-year surpluses of general education funding in a capital reserve fund, which typically grows over time and can be used for large-scale projects. Sinking funds are usually generated from local property taxes and allow districts to set aside a percentage of property taxes each year to be used for capital projects. Districts do not pay interest because the funds are not borrowed; however, the funds generated may not be sufficient for large-scale projects. In specific circumstances, some federal funding is available for school facilities. For example, Education administers the Impact Aid program, which compensates local school districts that, among other things, have lost property tax revenue due to federal activities. This may include the presence of tax-exempt federal property, such as a military installation, children in public schools whose parents work and live on federal property, or children living on Indian lands. In fiscal year 2019, Education provided $17.4 million in Impact Aid grants to school districts, specifically for construction, renovation, or repair of school facilities. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides funding for school districts affected by some natural disasters, partly to repair and replace damaged buildings. For example, in 2019, following Hurricane Harvey, FEMA awarded grants to two school districts in Texas to set up a temporary middle school and replace books, equipment, and furniture, among other things. A facilities condition assessment is a systematic inspection of building systems and features using a standardized method for recording observations about condition. For example, one might walk through a building, record the condition of building systems and features, and identify deficiencies. Individuals conducting these assessments may also review documentation on the building systems, conduct interviews with administrators or other stakeholders, and develop cost estimates of physical deficiencies. Facilities condition assessments help districts identify deferred maintenance needs in schools, which can help them plan and budget for facilities. School districts can use data gathered from these assessments to develop a facility condition index (FCI). FCIs provide a point-in-time comparison of the cost of repairing deficiencies in a building with the cost of replacing the building, and can help school districts compare conditions across their facilities. FCIs may also help school districts budget for targeted replacements or improvements of building systems. Based on our nationally representative survey of school districts, we estimate that about half (54 percent) of districts need to update or replace at least two building systems in many of their schools. Further, we estimate about a quarter of districts (26 percent) need to update or replace at least six systems in many of their schools. In terms of specific building systems and features, we estimate that 41 percent of school districts need to update or replace HVAC systems in at least half their schools (about 36,000 schools nationwide). We also estimate about a quarter of districts need to update or replace other building systems, including interior lighting, roofing, safety and security systems, or plumbing in at least half their schools (see fig. 2). We saw similar results among the 55 schools we visited. Of those, 28 had HVAC issues, such as older systems that frequently malfunction or leak and damage flooring or ceiling tiles, according to our observations and discussions with district and school officials. For example, one school we visited in Rhode Island had parts or components of their operating HVAC systems that were nearly 100 years old, according to district officials (see fig. 3). In Michigan, we visited one school that district officials said used an original boiler from the 1920s to heat the building. According to district officials, older boilers are labor-intensive to maintain because city code requires an engineer to be on site when each boiler is operating; without constant monitoring when in operation, the boilers could build up too much pressure and explode. Officials in a New Mexico district said their mechanical systems experience issues because hard water (i.e., water with a high concentration of minerals) damages the systems and causes them to malfunction. Because of the hard water, the district spent $150,000 to replace an 8-year-old boiler that, according to district officials, should have lasted 20 years. District officials said they would like to purchase filtration and water softening systems to address the issue, but that the district cannot afford to do so. If not addressed, HVAC issues can result in health and safety problems. Officials in several school districts we visited said there are serious consequences to not maintaining or updating HVAC systems, including lost educational time due to school closings and the potential for mold and air quality issues (see fig. 4). For example, officials in a Michigan district said about 60 percent of their schools do not have air conditioning, and in 2019, some temporarily adjusted schedules due to extreme heat. Without air conditioning, schools relied on open windows and fans, which were not always effective at cooling buildings to safe temperatures for students and staff, according to district officials. Officials in a Maryland district said the district retrofitted some schools with air conditioning, but did not update pipes and insulation serving the HVAC systems, which has caused moisture and condensation problems in these buildings. Officials were concerned the moisture and condensation could lead to air quality and mold problems, but said that to remedy these issues could cost over $1 million for each building. School districts also reported needing to update or replace other key building systems and features. Based on our school district survey, we estimate that about 30,000 schools need to update or replace interior lighting and about 28,000 schools need to update or replace roofing. Of the 55 schools we visited, some had recently updated or replaced these systems, while others continued to face challenges. For example, 15 schools had installed light emitting diode (LED) systems or incorporated other energy efficient features, such as motion sensors to turn off lights in unused rooms or automatic dimmers that adjust based on the amount of daylight in a given space (see fig. 5). Six schools had not recently updated their interior lighting, but officials expressed a desire to do so in the near future, such as by switching to LED systems. Some district officials said LED systems can reduce energy consumption and utility costs. Of the 55 schools we visited, 18 had problems with their roofing, according to district and school officials. Roofing problems ranged from small leaks to larger issues requiring a costly replacement (see fig. 6). For example, officials in a Rhode Island district said that replacing the roofing at one school would likely cost about $3 million. These officials said, because the district did not have the funds to replace it, they instead planned to spend $20,000 on temporary fixes, with the hope that these fixes would last until funding was available for a full replacement. Based on our survey of school districts, we estimate that 65 percent of districts had conducted a facilities condition assessment of their schools at least once in the last 10 years and about 35 percent had not or did not know if their district had (see fig. 7). Of the districts that had conducted these assessments, almost all did so to evaluate safety and hazards (99.6 percent) and support capital planning, including prioritizing large- scale projects (96.6 percent). Additionally, of these districts, an estimated: 86.2 percent assessed facilities at every school in their district; 68.6 percent evaluated their facilities at least every 5 years; and 39.5 percent hired contractors or professional firms to conduct the assessment. We estimate that at least 53 percent of all students in the nation attended a school that had a facilities condition assessment in the last 5 years. We estimate that 16 percent of districts had not conducted a facilities condition assessment in the last 10 years. In our survey, several districts provided reasons why they had not done so, including a lack of available funding or because they assessed school conditions through other mechanisms, such as informal walkthroughs. In addition to district-level facilities condition assessments, 11 states conducted a state-level facilities condition assessment in the last 10 years, according to our state survey (see fig. 8). Common reasons provided by these states for evaluating school facilities included to assess safety and hazards (9 states) and provide facilities information to the public (9 states). However, most states (38 of 49) either had not conducted or did not know if their state had conducted a state-level facilities condition assessment. Of these 38 states: 15 states reported they required school districts to conduct 21 states reported that they neither conduct statewide assessments nor require school districts to do so; and, Two states did not know if their state had conducted such an assessment. States that had not conducted a statewide facilities condition assessment or required districts to do so frequently said they do not assess school conditions because school districts are primarily responsible for addressing deficiencies with school facilities. Most of the districts we visited said they had conducted a facilities condition assessment. Specifically, of the 16 school districts we visited in six states, officials in 12 districts said they had recently conducted a facilities condition assessment for a variety of reasons, such as to develop facilities master plans or raise support for a bond. For example, officials in one urban California district said they conducted an extensive facilities condition assessment for planning purposes and developed a master plan of issues identified in schools 20 years or older. During the assessment, the district assigned barcodes to certain systems, such as HVAC and water fountains, to track conditions across schools (see fig. 9). District officials said they update facilities data as they complete projects. Officials in a rural Michigan district said they conducted an assessment before asking voters to approve a sinking fund. District staff identified the value, age, cost for repairs, and expected lifecycle of all major systems, which helped them estimate funding needs for the next 10 years. Officials in one Florida district said they do not conduct facilities condition assessments because the district is small and the facilities manager knows the condition of their schools and when facilities’ issues arise. Of the six states we visited, officials from Rhode Island and New Mexico said their states had conducted statewide facilities condition assessments and Florida officials reported requiring school districts to conduct these assessments. Officials in Rhode Island and New Mexico said data from these assessments help determine state funding for districts. For example, according to officials, Rhode Island hired a consulting firm to assess school facilities in order to develop an independent estimate of the statewide funding need; in 2017, that estimate was about $3 billion. Officials in three of the states we visited—Michigan, California, and Maryland—said their states had neither conducted a facilities condition assessment nor reported requiring school districts to do so. Officials in Michigan said their state provides no funding for school facilities nor requires districts to conduct facilities condition assessments because districts are responsible for planning and prioritizing school facilities’ needs. Michigan officials said districts often assess facility conditions before seeking bonds or other local funding to show local voters the level of need. Officials in California similarly said that school districts are primarily responsible for evaluating school conditions and noted that it would be cost-prohibitive for the state to conduct a statewide assessment, given the number of schools in the state. Maryland officials said the state has not had funding to conduct a statewide assessment since 2003, but they are currently planning a future statewide assessment. After this initial assessment, the state plans to assess each school facility every 3 to 4 years, according to these officials. In addition to key building systems such as HVAC, lighting, and roofing, school districts considered the need to ensure schools are free from health hazards, as well as update schools with modern educational spaces and features. Specifically, based on our survey, we estimate that school districts’ high priorities when updating or renovating school facilities are as follows: security (estimated 92 percent), student access to technology (87 percent), monitoring hazards to student and staff health (78 percent), and improving telecommunication features such as wireless internet (74 percent). In comparison, the 100 largest school districts, which serve approximately 10.4 million students, identified security (estimated 99 percent), monitoring health hazards (94 percent), and completing projects to increase physical accessibility for students with disabilities (86 percent) as their high priorities. Overall, in response to our survey, districts ranked the level of priority of each building system or feature on a categorical scale of five levels, which we assigned numerical rankings of 1 (not a priority) to 5 (top priority). Average priority ratings ranged from approximately 4.5 for safety and security to approximately 2.9 for access to natural light (see fig. 10). Similarly, officials in nearly all of the 16 school districts we visited told us that some combination of addressing urgent health hazards, improving security, and upgrading technology were among their top priorities. In addition, district staff told us they were undertaking projects to modernize spaces and improve the learning environment, when possible. Districts implemented these priorities differently based on their needs and resources. Many school district officials said they address facility issues that affect staff and student health with more urgency than many other issues. At schools we visited around the country, officials reported initiatives to address health concerns that ranged from total renovations to temporary mitigation programs (see fig. 11). For example, officials in a district in California told us that in two schools we visited they removed all materials containing lead, as well as replaced all roofs that contained asbestos, in accordance with health and safety regulations. These officials also said staff tests the water quality in all schools per recommended guidelines. In a different district, officials said they had concerns about water quality, but that they did not have the funding to remediate the issue in all schools. Therefore, the district provides bottled water to students in nearly all of its schools, and installs water filtration systems when it constructs or renovates schools. In several schools in five states we visited, officials said there is asbestos in floor or ceiling tiles or other materials that would require abatement during any renovation. Because abatement increases costs, schools may prioritize other projects or find workarounds. For example, at one high school in Florida, the district installed interactive white boards on top of old chalkboards rather than risk disturbing asbestos in the walls by removing the chalkboards. Officials in two districts also told us about addressing potential health hazards related to climate. For example, at a school in Florida, officials said they have to address mold and mildew issues due to frequent flooding and high humidity. During heavy storms, school personnel work to clear drains and place sandbags in an attempt to mitigate water intrusion and flooding. In 13 of the 16 districts we visited, officials told us that security has become a top priority, though the specific measures they took to update their security features varied considerably (see fig. 12). One high school we visited recently experienced a school shooting. District officials said they were implementing a variety of new security initiatives, first at the high school, and then at all other schools in the district. In the high school, officials applied a specialized film to exterior windows to make them bullet resistant. The school has a new security vestibule where visitors wait before entering the school, and staff placed comment boxes throughout the school encouraging students to submit safety tips. In Michigan, we visited a middle school that installed additional barricades on classroom doors, and trained students on how to use them during lockdown drills. In California, we visited an elementary school that added exterior windows to the front office so staff could see visitors approaching, and installed a lockdown alarm button. Officials from some districts we visited said they prioritized security over failing building systems. For example, one district in Rhode Island where we observed problems with key building systems, including ceiling damage from a leaking roof, broken windows, and holes in the walls and foundation of a school building, installed new security features throughout their schools. These included equipping classroom doors with electronic lockdown mechanisms that staff can activate remotely. The district updated the main entrance with heavy, reinforced doors and bulletproof glass. In a district in Florida, we visited an elementary school that updated security systems, including installing new cameras. This was despite the school having major challenges with its HVAC system that require maintenance staff to go up to the roof every day to adjust the air conditioning. In addition, we observed multiple buckets throughout the school to collect water leaking through the roof, and the principal described how it frequently “rained” in her office. District officials said they are seeking state funding to renovate the entire school, but decided to first address security updates because all classrooms have exterior doors, making it difficult to control access to the school. In this same district, officials told us they had recently renovated the middle-high school and ensured that all classrooms had “hard corners”—spaces where students could congregate and not be visible to an active shooter in the hallway. Officials in many school districts we visited said that ensuring adequate access to technology was necessary for students to be successful academically (see fig. 13). All schools we visited had WiFi access, though officials in one rural district in New Mexico described access as spotty. The majority of schools we visited provided a laptop or tablet to all or almost all students or had a goal to do so. Officials in a district in California said their most important project of the past decade was to update their fiber optic capability to have a robust WiFi network. All students in this district receive a laptop or tablet beginning in second grade, and officials said these updates allowed students to easily use devices in school. In some school districts that did not provide individual devices, schools had portable technology carts to store and charge devices, so students could access them as needed. Officials in districts we visited also said they use technology to enhance educational offerings. For example, a high school in Maryland equipped a classroom with cameras and a microphone so students could attend community college classes remotely. When renovating schools, some officials told us they incorporate and anticipate technology needs. For example, a newly renovated school in Florida installed electrical outlets on table surfaces in the media center and microphones in all classrooms so students could hear teachers better. At a newly renovated school in Maryland, officials installed a projector and sound system in the cafeteria for students to watch movies and listen to music during lunch, which they said created calmer lunch breaks. Officials in districts we visited said they chose among other competing facility priorities based on available funding as well as conditions at individual schools, such as the age and condition of buildings, timeframe constraints, public opinion, space constraints, and enrollment projections. In school districts we visited that reported having local taxes or bond funds available for facility projects, officials described both the need to address the condition of basic building systems and the need to renovate schools with modern educational spaces and features. For example, officials in a Rhode Island district said they are using most of the approximately $300 million in their 5-year capital plan to ensure schools are safe, warm, and dry. These district officials estimated their school facilities need over $1 billion in updates and replacements to key building systems, based on a recent assessment. However, they said they are using 25 percent of available capital funds to modernize educational spaces, such as collaborative workspaces, student common areas, and outdoor classrooms (see fig. 14 for examples of school modernizations in districts we visited). Officials said that participants in public forums preferred educational enhancements over facility repairs. In this same district, officials said they prioritized system repairs they can complete over the summer because the district does not have designated swing spaces to accommodate students during the school year. In a district in Florida, officials similarly described using the funding from a $1 billion bond for school facilities to address health and safety concerns, HVAC issues, and roofing. They balanced these building system repairs with projects to modernize buildings, including increasing natural light by replacing the windows, upgrading technology to support engineering and robotics programs, and creating open and collaborative spaces. See textbox for examples of how school officials told us school renovations improved student experiences. Additionally, several districts we visited considered enrollment and building capacity to help prioritize projects, but they faced different challenges. Specifically, some districts experienced space constraints and needed to ensure sufficient space for all students, while others had the opposite challenge of maintaining schools that were under-enrolled (see text box). In a district in California, officials said they built nine schools in the past decade because of the increasing student population. At a high school in Maryland, the principal said his priority was ensuring sufficient space because the school was at capacity and he was struggling to find additional classrooms and furniture. Due to population fluctuations at a nearby military installation, he said he often turns offices and workspaces into classrooms and vice versa. Conversely, in a district we visited in Michigan, officials said they struggled with the inefficiencies of maintaining school facilities with low enrollment because closing schools can be difficult, given how it can affect currently enrolled students and neighborhoods. Based on our survey of school districts, funding for school facilities primarily came from local sources for about half of school districts. Specifically, an estimated 55 percent of districts used local funding as their primary source for school facilities, compared to state (36 percent) and federal (1 percent) funding. Based on our survey analysis, we found significant differences in the primary funding sources for school facilities for high-poverty and low-poverty districts. Specifically, high-poverty districts more commonly relied on state funding to address facility needs than low-poverty districts, whereas low-poverty districts more commonly relied on local funding (see fig. 15). School districts reported using several funding mechanisms to access local funding for school facilities projects. The most common was property taxes, which an estimated 77 percent of all school districts used for school facilities. Other local funding came from grants, bonds, other taxes, and public-private partnerships (see fig. 16). Similar to our findings on the sources of school facilities funding, based on our survey analysis we found significant differences in the local funding mechanisms used by high-poverty and low-poverty districts. Specifically, high-poverty districts used property taxes less commonly than low-poverty districts. As noted above, high-poverty districts instead more commonly relied on state funding to address facility needs. We also analyzed federal data on school district expenditures for school facilities and found differences by poverty level (see text box). Spotlight: Federal Data on School District Expenditures for Capital Construction Each year, Education collects data on school district expenditures for capital construction. In school year 2015-16, this spending totaled $44.6 billion. We analyzed these data by school district characteristics: Poverty: Capital construction expenditures, on average, were about $300 less per student in high-poverty districts ($719 per student) compared to low-poverty districts ($1,016). About 1.5 million more students attended school in high-poverty districts than low-poverty districts in 2015-16. Low-poverty districts spent about $1 billion more on capital construction than high-poverty districts that year. Size: Capital construction expenditures per student were similar in the largest (by number of students enrolled) 100 districts compared to smaller districts. Both groups of districts, on average, spent $837 per student on capital construction in school year 2015-16. Locale: Capital construction expenditures per student were similar, on average, for urban ($838 per student) and rural districts ($834). Officials in school districts we visited described various challenges they faced in securing funding for school facilities and how they have managed with limited funding. For example, officials in a Michigan district said the district had $1.5 billion in outstanding bond repayments and state borrowing related to bond repayments. As a result, the district is unable to issue an additional secured bond to fund new school facilities projects. According to officials, Michigan does not provide state-level funding for school facilities, so the district funded some recent school facilities projects using general education surpluses resulting from staff vacancies. However, as the district hired teachers and other staff, funding for facilities will decline, further limiting the district’s ability to address issues with school facilities. That district has also deferred maintenance in order to handle emergency repairs, according to officials. Officials in a high- poverty district in one state we visited said their tax base generates minimal local revenue for school facilities. According to officials, the district is mostly dependent on state funding. In the past decade, the state established a partnership between various public entities, which provided $1 billion to the district to address school facility needs, according to district officials. Officials said the funding through this partnership was enough to renovate about 25 schools. However, officials estimated the district has about $5 billion in unmet needs, and its 2012 facilities condition assessment recommended it consider replacing 50 schools. We also visited districts that have consistently had access to funding for school facilities. For example, officials in one low-poverty California district said their district is generally able to obtain funds needed for school facilities projects, primarily through local taxes and passing general obligation bonds. Officials said there are currently few challenges with the condition of the district’s school facilities because of routine and preventive maintenance. Though school districts most commonly used local funding to address school facility needs, 36 states provided some level of capital funding to school districts for school construction or renovations, based on our state survey (see fig. 17). In addition, states reported using various criteria to determine funding for capital projects, including the condition of a district’s schools (23 states), type of project, such as HVAC or fire safety (22), and size of the student population (18). Fewer states (17) reported providing districts with funding for maintenance and operations—used for routine upkeep and replacement of building system parts—separate from general education funding. State support for school facilities similarly varied within and among the six states that we visited. Five of the six states we visited reported providing state-level capital funding for school facilities, although the amount and mechanisms differed. For example, according to state officials, New Mexico has a capital fund for schools supported through taxes on the oil and gas industry and bases its state funding on a school’s condition. These officials described how New Mexico assesses and ranks all schools based on the condition of their facilities, and funds projects starting with the highest priority school on the list, until each year’s funds are depleted. The state uses capital funds to match local dollars. The percentage of a project’s cost covered by the state depends on the district’s ability to raise local funds. In one district we visited, the state pays 100 percent. Florida targets funding for school facilities to rural districts and charter schools, both of which have limited access to local funding sources such as property taxes, according to officials. These officials said the state has a specific program to support capital projects in rural districts, and other funding—generated from taxes on landlines and utilities—has in recent years gone to charter schools. In California, districts receive state funding based on the order the state receives eligible applications, until funds are depleted, according to state officials. Michigan officials said the state does not fund school facilities projects at the state level, although the state has a program to review school districts’ local bond measures. The state does not require school districts to submit their bonds for state approval, but doing so allows the district to access the state’s credit rating, which usually lowers the district’s interest rate, among other benefits, according to these officials. In three states we visited, state officials we interviewed told us that financial support for capital projects may fluctuate each year depending on availability of state funding. For example, Rhode Island officials said that after the 2007-2009 recession, the state legislature stopped funding school facilities until 2015. This resulted in deferred maintenance in Rhode Island’s schools that the state and school districts now need to address in addition to any new capital projects, according to officials. Based on our state survey, five states require districts to use a portion of their general education funding for maintenance and operations. Three of these states reported requiring districts to use 3 percent or less of their general education funding for this purpose, one state reported requiring districts to use 6 percent, and one state did not know what percent was required. Officials in Rhode Island said they have a new policy to require districts to set aside a portion of the state funds they receive for maintenance and operations to protect the state’s increasing investment in school facilities, and that the state is phasing in the requirement over 5 years. Officials in New Mexico said that while they do not require this type of set aside, they evaluate how well districts maintain their facilities, and districts that inadequately maintain them may be ineligible for some types of state facilities funding. Many states also reported that they considered state-level priorities for school facilities when providing funding and guidance to school districts. Based on our survey, more than half of states provided financial support, as well as standards and guidance, for specific building systems and features of school facilities (see fig. 18). State funding and guidance related to state-level priorities can affect school district decisions on facilities. For example, Rhode Island approved a $250 million state bond for school facilities in 2018, and will provide higher reimbursements for district expenditures on projects reflecting state priorities, such as health and safety and decreasing overcrowding, according to state officials. In two rural districts within two states, district officials told us they cannot afford to undertake capital projects without state funding, and therefore have to balance state requirements with local needs and preferences for their facilities. For example, one district in New Mexico opted to renovate an existing gym using state matching funds, rather than fully replace it, because this allowed the district to maintain existing square footage. According to officials in that district, the state developed standards for how large a gym can be and still receive state funding for a full replacement, and the district prioritized renovating and maintaining the larger existing space instead. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Education (Education) for review and comment. We also provided selected draft excerpts to relevant officials we interviewed in state agencies and school districts. Education as well as several state and district officials provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at https://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. In this report, we examined: (1) the common facility condition issues school districts identify in public schools and how they have done so and (2) school districts’ highest priorities for their school facility renovations and updates, and how districts and states fund them. To address these objectives, we used the following methodologies, which we describe in detail below: Surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Surveyed a nationally representative sample of K-12 public school districts. Visited 16 school districts in six states and interviewed state, district, and school staff. Conducted building walkthroughs at 55 schools (including five charter schools) and observed a standard set of building systems and features in each school. Analyzed federal data on district expenditures for capital construction projects. We took several steps to inform each of our methodologies and provide background for our objectives. To better understand the federal role in school facilities, we interviewed officials from the Department of Education’s (Education) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), as well as Education’s Office of Impact Aid Programs and the Office for Civil Rights. During these interviews, we asked officials about their role in collecting information on the condition of school facilities, as well as providing funding and guidance on school facilities, among other topics. We also interviewed officials from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools and the National Indian Impacted Schools Association to learn about facility concerns in public school districts that receive federal Impact Aid. We reviewed federal documentation including NCES’s 2014 report, Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 2012-13 and the Congressional Research Service’s 2015 report on federal programs related to school facilities. In addition, we reviewed guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency on creating and maintaining healthy and environmentally friendly school facilities. To better understand assessments of building conditions, as well as to obtain information on school building systems and features, we reviewed the Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process, an international standard for assessing the condition of a building. Additionally, we interviewed officials at the 21st Century School Fund, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Association for Learning Environments, the Center for Cities and Schools at the University of California, Berkeley, the Center for Green Schools, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Education Commission of the States. We used this information to create two lists of building systems and features, which we asked about in our surveys and asked to observe in the schools we visited. Specifically: The first list focused on key systems and features that may be necessary to a school building’s day to day operations; the second list focused on additional or emerging priorities for systems and features that school districts may consider when modernizing school facilities. We validated these lists of systems and features through survey pretests with facilities personnel in six states. Because some modernization priorities are also key to a school building’s day-to-day operations, there are systems and features that appear on both lists (see app. II for a full list of our survey questions, including all systems and features about which we asked school districts). We modified and combined the above lists for our state survey to ask states about their priorities and support for school building systems and features. To address both research questions, we designed and administered a web-based survey to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We sent the survey to the relevant state agency that oversees school facilities, or to the state superintendent of education to be forwarded to the state official best equipped to answer questions related to the condition of school facilities. We conducted the survey between September and December 2019. To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, we contacted nonrespondents via email and phone throughout the period the survey was open. In total, 49 states responded to the survey; Mississippi and Illinois did not respond. Data in this report are based on the 49 states that responded, unless otherwise noted. To ensure the quality and reliability of the survey, we pretested the questionnaire with three states that vary in their level of involvement in school facilities, among other factors. We conducted the pretests to check (1) the clarity and flow of the questions, (2) the appropriateness of the terminology used, (3) if the information could be easily obtained and whether there were concerns about the reliability of data that would be collected, and (4) if the survey was comprehensive and unbiased. We revised the questionnaire based on the pretests. We reviewed responses to assess if they were consistent and contained all of the relevant information. The survey included open-ended and closed-ended questions about: The state’s role in assessing the condition of school facilities and the level of information the state has about the condition of school facilities. The state’s role in providing funding to school districts for school facilities and the factors it considers in determining funding levels. The extent to which the state provides standards, guidance and other non-financial resources to school districts about their facilities. Whether the state collects information or provides additional assistance to school districts that receive federal Impact Aid funds. To address both research questions, we designed and administered a generalizable survey of a stratified random sample of local educational agencies, which we refer to as school districts throughout this report. We sent the survey to school district superintendents to be forwarded to the district official best equipped to answer questions related to the condition of school facilities. The survey included questions about: School districts’ policies and practices regarding whether they conduct facilities condition assessments. How often school districts conduct or update these assessments. How school districts use the information from assessments to make decisions regarding school repairs, renovations, and replacements. The extent to which the school districts were facing issues with the condition of building systems and features within their schools. The funding mechanisms that school districts use to address issues with the physical condition of public schools. We defined our target population to be all school districts in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia that are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Bureau of Indian Education. We used the Local Education Agency Universe database from Education’s Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 2016-2017 school year as our sampling frame. For the purpose of our survey, we limited the sampling frame to school districts that: were located in the 50 states or the District of Columbia; had one or more schools and one or more students; and were not closed according to the 2016-2017 School Year or preliminary 2017-18 School Year CCD data available just prior to survey deployment. The resulting sample frame included 17,248 school districts and we selected a stratified random sample of 664 school districts. We stratified the sampling frame into 19 mutually exclusive strata based on urban classification and poverty classification (see table 1). We selected the largest 100 school districts, based on student enrollment, with certainty. To determine the appropriate sample size for the survey, we first determined the minimum sample size needed to achieve precision levels of percentage estimates within plus or minus 10 percentage points, at the 95 percent confidence level, within each of three sub-groups: low, medium, and high-poverty districts. Within each of these poverty sub- groups, we proportionately allocated the sample across the race and urban classification groups. We then increased the sample size within each non-certainty stratum for an expected response rate of 55 percent in order to achieve the necessary number of completed surveys for our desired precision level. We defined the three locale classifications (i.e., city, suburban, and rural) based on the NCES urban-centric locale codes. The rural classification included school districts classified as either rural or town. To build a general measure of the poverty level for each school district we used the proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) as indicated in the CCD data and classified these into the following three groups: High-poverty: more than 75 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; Mid-poverty: Between 25.1 and 75.0 percent of students in the school district were eligible for FRPL; and Low-poverty: 25 percent or fewer students in the school district were eligible for FRPL. We assessed the reliability of the CCD data by reviewing existing documentation about the data and performing electronic testing on required data elements and determined they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We administered the survey from August to October 2019. We identified that 11 of the 664 sampled school districts were closed or had no physical school buildings, so these were removed from the universe and sample. Six of these out of scope sample districts were discovered soon after survey deployment, thus, we were able to replace these six sample districts with the next randomly selected district within the same strata. This resulted in a final in scope population of 17,237 districts and 659 in scope sample districts. We received 378 valid survey responses from this in scope sample resulting in an unweighted response rate of 57 percent and a weighted response rate of 53 percent. We analyzed the response status to our survey to identify potential sources of nonresponse bias in accordance with best practices in survey research and echoed in Office of Management and Budget, Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys (September 2006). We examined the response propensity of the sampled school districts using both bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models, including several demographic characteristics available for respondents and nonrespondents: urban classification, race, poverty, district size (number of schools and number of students in a district), and the stratification variable that combines these characteristics. We detected a significant association between both strata and number of students within a district and the propensity to respond to our survey. We did not detect a significant association between urban classification, race, or poverty and the response propensity. We adjusted for the characteristics significantly associated with response propensity using weighting class adjustments. Specifically, we grouped the predicted response propensity derived from our logistic regression model that includes strata and the number of students using quintiles of the predicted response propensity distribution to form five weighting adjustment groups. We applied nonresponse adjustments to the sampling weights within these groups to form nonresponse adjusted analysis weights used in our survey analyses. Based on the nonresponse bias analysis and resulting nonresponse adjusted analysis weights, we determined that estimates using these weights are generalizable to the population of eligible school districts and are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We took steps to minimize non-sampling errors, including pretesting draft instruments and using a web-based administration system. We pretested the draft instrument from June to July 2019 with officials in five school districts in different states and with varying characteristics such as size of the student population. In the pretests, we asked about the clarity of the questions and the flow and layout of the survey. Based on feedback from the pretests, we revised the survey instrument. To obtain the maximum number of responses to our survey, and to minimize non-sampling error caused by nonresponse, we sent reminder emails to nonrespondents and contacted some nonrespondents over the telephone. We express the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for example, plus or minus 10 percentage points). This interval would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the study population. We compared—as appropriate—weighted survey estimates generated for school districts by the school district strata described above. For each subgroup, we produced percentage estimates and standard errors for each level and used these results to confirm the significance of the differences between weighted survey estimates. To address both research questions, we visited six states—California, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode Island—from June to September 2019. We selected these states because they varied in the amount and type of funding they provided to school districts for school facilities, the level of information they collected on the condition of school facilities, and for geographic variation. Within these states, we visited 16 school districts, which we selected based on variation in the size and population density of the district, poverty level, racial and ethnic composition, and the receipt of federal Impact Aid funding (see table 2). Within each district, we visited between two and five schools, depending on the size of the district and logistical considerations. We also visited five charter schools across four states, chosen based on their proximity to a selected school district. In total, we visited 55 schools that varied in grade level, enrollment, physical size, age, and condition. For resource efficiency, we generally interviewed state and district officials via phone in advance of the site visit, and toured schools with district and school officials. States: We interviewed state officials who were knowledgeable about their state’s role in funding, assessing, or providing other resources to school districts for school facilities. We discussed the agency’s roles and responsibilities related to statewide school facilities condition assessments or data collection initiatives, state-level priorities for school facilities, and funding mechanisms within the state for school facilities. School districts: We interviewed school district officials in each district we visited. Similar to our school district survey, we discussed their policies and practices on facilities condition assessments, how often they conduct or update these assessments, and how they make decisions regarding school repairs, renovations, and replacements. We also asked questions about how the districts prioritize upgrades and repairs to school facilities and the funding mechanisms they use to address issues with the physical condition of public schools. School Observations: To select schools in each district, we used CCD data to randomize the list of all schools in the district and selected the first two to four schools with consideration for different grade levels. We then asked district officials to verify that our random selections showed sufficient variety in the age and overall condition of the building. We substituted recommended schools when appropriate to ensure we had appropriate variety in seeing schools of different ages and conditions. When logistically feasible, we visited a nearby charter school as well. We toured schools with a combination of district and school officials. During these visits, we used a data collection instrument to ask officials about school building systems and features that school personnel identified as particularly in need of repair or replacement, as well as new or upgraded systems. We photographed these as appropriate. Information we gathered from these interviews and observations, while not generalizable, provides insight into the conditions present in the states and school districts we visited at the time of our interviews, and may be illustrative of efforts in other states and school districts. To examine expenditures for capital construction by school district characteristics, we analyzed federal data from Education’s Local Education Agency Finance Survey for school year 2015-16, the most recent available at the time of our analysis. Education collects these data annually as part of the CCD. State educational agencies provide these data on behalf of their school districts to NCES and the U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division. In school year 2015- 16, states reported finance data for 96.7 percent of school districts, according to Education’s survey documentation. We analyzed school district data on capital construction expenditures by poverty level, locale, district size, racial demographics, and receipt of federal funding through Impact Aid or Indian education grants. We normalized data across school districts that fell into these different categories by calculating capital construction expenditures per student and per school. We determined these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives by reviewing relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable Education officials, and testing for missing data, outliers, and other potential errors. Through discussions with NCES officials, we determined it was necessary to exclude some school districts from our analysis to develop accurate per pupil and per school calculations. Specifically, we excluded school districts for which the state did not report finance data and school districts where the number of students and schools was zero or missing. We conducted this performance audit from February 2019 to June 2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. This appendix contains the closed- and open-ended questions from our surveys of (1) local educational agencies (referred to in this report as school districts or districts) and (2) state educational and school facility agencies. In some cases, respondents received different questions based on their response to a prior question. For example, school districts that conducted a facilities condition assessment in the last 10 years received additional questions about those assessments, however school districts that had not conducted such an assessment received questions to explain the reasons why. For a detailed discussion of our survey methodologies, see appendix I. This appendix summarizes key information on the condition of and funding for school facilities in districts that received Impact Aid. The Department of Education (Education) administers the Impact Aid program to assist school districts that experience a financial burden as a result of certain federal activities being carried out there. For example, federal Indian lands and military installations are exempt from property taxes—a key funding source that school districts use to offer a free public education. Impact Aid is intended to compensate school districts, in part, for the lost tax revenue. As noted in this report, property tax revenue was the most common source of funding school districts used for school facilities—an estimated 77 percent of all districts used property taxes for this purpose, based on our nationally representative survey. Districts with reduced property tax revenue, due to tax-exempt federal property or other reasons, may struggle to raise the funds needed for repairs and renovations to their school facilities. School districts that are eligible to receive Impact Aid might qualify for several types of payments under the program. About 90 percent of all Impact Aid funding falls under the category of Basic Support payments. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), school districts generally use these funds for current expenditures, such as administration, instruction, and transportation. However, because Impact Aid Basic Support payments are not limited to specific uses, school districts may also use them for capital expenditures. According to Education’s data, approximately 1,040 school districts (of a total of about 14,000 school districts nationwide) received Basic Support payments in fiscal year 2018 totaling $1.26 billion. The amount of these payments varied considerably by district—ranging from a high of about $55 million to a low of $540. Differences in the payments districts received resulted from several factors, including the number and types of federally-connected students the district served, according to CRS. In fiscal year 2018, there were 28 “heavily-impacted” school districts, meaning they were substantially affected by the presence of federally- connected children. Heavily-impacted districts receive increased Basic Support payments. In addition to Basic Support payments, some school districts are eligible for Impact Aid Construction grants for construction and emergency facility repair and renovation. From fiscal year 2014 to 2019, appropriations for Impact Aid Construction funds have consistently been about $17.4 million each year. According to CRS, appropriations language in recent years has determined whether Impact Aid Construction funds are distributed through formula grants to eligible school districts or competitive grants to a limited number of school districts, and from fiscal year 2013 to 2018, distribution alternated between these two types of grants. Approximately 150 school districts are eligible to receive Impact Aid Construction grants, according to Education officials. In fiscal year 2018, these funds were distributed through competitive grants and eight school districts received grants, ranging from $143,000 to $5.3 million. Sixty-seven school districts that received Impact Aid responded to our survey of school districts. In addition, eight of the 16 districts we visited received Impact Aid Basic Support payments in fiscal year 2018. These districts varied based on their proximity to different tax-exempt federal properties (i.e., military installations and Indian lands), as well as the number and percentage of federally-connected students they educated. Two districts we visited received Impact Aid Construction grants. Overall, on our survey of school districts, responses from the nongeneralizable group of districts that received Impact Aid were similar to the generalizable results for all districts nationwide both in terms of the key school building systems and features districts needed to update or replace and district priorities when updating or renovating school facilities. Table 3 shows the number of school districts receiving Impact Aid payments that reported that at least half of their schools needed updates or replacements to each building system or feature listed. As shown, districts most commonly indicated needing to update or replace heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems (32); followed by safety and security (27), roofing (25), interior light fixtures (23), and plumbing (23). Based on our school district survey, 51 of 66 districts that received Impact Aid had conducted a facilities condition assessment of their schools at least once in the last 10 years. Of those 51 school districts, 34 reported assessing schools at least every 5 years. Nearly all districts (50 of 51) reported conducting the assessment for capital planning purposes and to assess safety and hazards. Similar to generalizable estimates from our nationally representative survey of school districts, districts that received Impact Aid placed a high priority on safety and security (59 of 66 districts), monitoring environmental conditions (55 of 64), and student access to technology (54 of 65). Overall, more than half of districts that received Impact Aid and responded to our survey (36 of 66) reported that local funding was their primary source for funding school facilities projects. In comparison, 19 districts reported state funding as their primary source, eight districts reported federal funding, and three districts selected the “Other” option or did not know. Similar to generalizable estimates from our survey of school districts, about three-quarters of districts that received Impact Aid and responded to our survey (49 of 66) reported using property tax revenue for school facilities. In addition, about two-thirds of them reported using local bonds and local grants for this purpose. Fewer districts reported using public- private partnerships, sales tax revenue, or other tax revenue for school facilities. As noted above, districts may receive Impact Aid because they have lost property tax revenue due to certain federal activities, including being on or near federal property that is exempt from property taxes. Districts that serve a large proportion of federally-connected students, such as those located on or near federal Indian lands or military installations, may look similar to high-poverty districts in their lack of access to local funding mechanisms for school facilities. However, there is wide variety in the amount of Impact Aid payments districts received. This variety was similarly reflected in the eight school districts we visited that received Impact Aid. For example, the Basic Support payments the districts we visited received in fiscal year 2018 ranged from about $16,000 to about $8.6 million, and the percentage of federally-connected students in the districts we visited ranged from 1 to 100 percent. Officials in one of the districts we visited that received Impact Aid explained that, because the district is located on an Indian reservation, there is no property tax base to levy or bond against. In the absence of these local funding options, officials said the district relied on state funding and some federal Impact Aid funding to address facility needs, and noted that the lack of local funding made it difficult for them to reach their goals for their school facilities. For example, officials said the state does not provide funding for designated classrooms for bilingual education. Because the district does not have the local property tax base to fund these spaces, officials said they must be creative with classes and teacher schedules to provide bilingual education. The location of these classes moves to different parts of the school at different times, meaning that teachers cannot set up a stable classroom that is properly equipped to teach bilingual education to students in the district, according to district officials. None of the officials we interviewed in the eight districts that received Impact Aid said their district used Basic Support payments to address issues with the conditions of school facilities. Officials in two districts we visited described receiving Impact Aid construction grants. Officials in one of these districts explained that when these funds are distributed via formula grant, the amounts are not large enough to support a major capital project. An official in the district that had received a competitive grant in recent years said the district used the funds to build a new combined middle and high school. In addition, representatives from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools and the National Indian Impacted Schools Association told us they have heard anecdotally about some school districts using their Impact Aid funds as the basis for borrowing funds to pay for school facilities projects. They described this as particularly risky because Impact Aid appropriations levels are not guaranteed to remain consistent each year. The representatives said if funding levels for Impact Aid are reduced in the future, the districts would still have to pay back the borrowed funds before allocating funding for other purposes such as general operations, teacher salaries, educational materials, and other essentials for educating students in the school district. On our state survey, eight states reported providing additional school facilities funding or other assistance to districts in the state that receive Impact Aid. For example, an official in New Mexico told us the state has two programs targeted to school districts that get Impact Aid. One program awarded $10 million to districts in 2019 to help them provide teacher housing, according to state officials. State officials said a second state program in New Mexico awarded $24 million in 2019 to districts that received Impact Aid to assist them with projects that were ineligible for funding through New Mexico’s other programs. For example, these officials said this funding could help schools in need of athletic fields, performing arts centers, or administrative buildings. Charter schools comprise a small but growing group of public schools. We previously reported that, in contrast to most traditional public schools, many charter schools are responsible for financing their own buildings and other facilities, i.e., charter school districts may not have access to the same local funding mechanisms as traditional school districts. As a result, charter schools vary in terms of whether they own their own building or pay rent, and whether they operate in buildings originally designed as a school or in buildings that have been redesigned for educational purposes. Sometimes charter schools may also share space in their building with others, such as non-profit organizations. In addition to differences in facility access and finance, charter school governance also varies. We previously reported that in some states, charter schools function as their own school district, while in other states, charter schools have the option to choose between being their own school district or part of a larger school district. The data presented in this appendix are limited to the nongeneralizable responses of the 52 charter school districts that responded to our survey of school districts, unless otherwise noted. In addition, we visited five charter schools across four states (California, Florida, Maryland, and Rhode Island) as part of our school district site visits. This appendix summarizes key information on the condition of and funding for school facilities in these charter school districts and schools. Responses from the nongeneralizable group of charter school districts were similar to the generalizable results for all districts in the nation for key building updates, as well as priorities for modernizing school facilities, but different for how these districts access funding for school facilities. The highest number of charter school districts (20 of 51) indicated needing to update or replace heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in the majority of their schools, followed by windows (16), roofing (15), and interior light fixtures (15). School officials at a charter school we visited told us they were having ongoing issues with several key building features, such as doors and windows. The charter school rents their facility from the traditional school district and has a lease that specifies who is responsible for certain maintenance and repair projects. School officials told us the school has a “utilities-only” lease, meaning they should not be responsible for any repairs, but officials told us they had to take on several projects to make the facility usable. Although the traditional school district—of which this charter school is a part—is responsible for many of these projects, district officials said they have not had the funding to address this. For example, before the school opened, school officials said they had to install door handles on interior doors and re-key the building so that they were able to lock and unlock doors. In addition, school officials told us that teachers have complained that windows are nailed shut and cannot be opened. Based on our school district survey, 24 of 52 charter school districts had conducted a facilities condition assessment of their schools at least once in the last 10 years. Of those 24 school districts, 19 reported assessing schools at least every 5 years. Twenty-three charter school districts reported conducting the assessment to assess safety and hazards. Officials at four of the five charter schools we visited told us they were responsible for maintaining their own facilities. The other charter school we visited was part of a larger network of charter schools, and had regional offices that assisted with facilities and operations. When updating or renovating school facilities, charter school districts responding to our survey ranked security and technology as their highest priorities, similar to the generalizable results for all districts in the nation. The top reported priorities were student access to technology (44 of 52), safety and security (43 of 51 districts), and telecommunication systems such as WiFi (36 of 51). An official at a charter school we visited in Florida said safety and security was one of their main focuses when constructing the school. The school and parking lot are gated, and there is a camera to monitor all cars and people entering the campus. School officials told us that all classrooms and common areas are equipped with phones that can broadcast announcements throughout the campus, and that they have a lightening alert system so that they can move students indoors if a storm is approaching. As previously noted, charter schools may or may not be part of a larger school district, and may not be able to access local funding sources such as property tax revenue. As noted in this report, property tax revenue was the most common source of funding that all school districts reported using for school facilities—an estimated 77 percent of all districts nationwide used property taxes for this purpose. Most charter school districts that responded to our survey indicated that state funding was their primary method of funding school facilities (32 of 49) and fewer (8 of 49) reported local funding as their primary method. The most common local funding mechanism that charter school districts reported using for facilities was grant funding (20 of 46 districts), followed by public-private partnerships (12 of 47 districts). A charter school we visited told us about several areas in their school that they had improved with grants from non-profit organizations. For example, a teacher at the school applied for a grant from a foundation to replace the basketball hoops and paint in the gym, and a separate organization had installed a new playground at the school. Based on our state survey, 26 states provide funding to charter schools for facilities—22 states provide direct funding to charter schools and four states provide funding to non-charter school districts, which would indirectly fund certain charter schools. Of the 26 states, 20 states reported doing so either through a funding formula, or a combination of funding formula, charter school requests, and other methods. The most common factor that states considered when determining levels of facilities funding for charter schools was the size of the student population (12 of 25 states). Of the 26 states that provide funding to charter schools for construction or maintenance and operations of charter school facilities, 19 reported using allocated funding from the state legislature to do so. Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Director, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Bill MacBlane (Assistant Director), David Watsula (Analyst-in-Charge), Liz Spurgeon, and Alexandra Squitieri made key contributions to this report. Mariel Alper, Michael Armes, Susan Aschoff, John Bauckman, Alex Galuten, Alison Grantham, Elizabeth Hartjes, Lara Laufer, Sheila R. McCoy, Jean McSween, John Mingus, Lauren Mosteller, Mimi Nguyen, Jean Recklau, Almeta Spencer, Manuel Valverde, Sonya Vartivarian, and Paul Wright provided additional support.