K-12 Education: School Districts Frequently Identified Multiple Building Systems Needing Updates or Replacement

Public school facilities primarily serve an educational role, and they also serve a civic role as voting places and emergency shelters. School districts collectively spend tens of billions of dollars each year on facilities construction needs at the nearly 100,000 K-12 public schools nationwide.

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 included a provision for GAO to study the condition of public school facilities.

This report examines (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.

GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of school districts and also surveyed 50 states and the District of Columbia; visited 55 schools in 16 districts across six states, selected for geographic variation and other characteristics; analyzed federal data on school district expenditures for capital construction projects; and interviewed federal, state, district, and school officials.

About half (an estimated 54 percent) of public school districts need to update or replace multiple building systems or features in their schools, according to GAO's national survey of school districts. For example, an estimated 41 percent of districts need to update or replace heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in at least half of their schools, representing about 36,000 schools nationwide that need HVAC updates (see figure). In about half of the 55 schools GAO visited in six states, officials described HVAC-related problems, such as older systems that leaked and damaged flooring or ceiling tiles. If not addressed, such problems can lead to indoor air quality problems and mold, and in some cases caused schools to adjust schedules temporarily. To determine the condition of their school facilities, an estimated two-thirds of districts conducted a facilities condition assessment at least once in the last 10 years. According to GAO's survey of the 50 states and District of Columbia, most states do not conduct statewide assessments to determine school facilities' needs and instead leave this task to school districts.

School districts' highest priorities for their school facilities were improving security (an estimated 92 percent), expanding student access to technology (87 percent), and monitoring health hazards (78 percent), according to GAO's school district survey. In school districts GAO visited, officials said they first address health hazards and safety issues. In nearly all districts GAO visited, security also had become a top priority, with some districts prioritizing security updates over replacing building systems, such as HVAC. In about half of districts nationwide, funding for school facilities primarily came from local sources such as property taxes, based on GAO's survey. High-poverty districts more commonly relied on state funding and used property taxes less commonly than low-poverty districts. According to GAO's state survey, 36 states provided capital funding to school districts for school construction or renovations, including five of the six states GAO visited, though the funding amounts and mechanisms differed considerably within and across states.

Public school facilities play an integral role in the educational and civic life  of local communities. Each year, over 50 million students and 6 million  teachers and staff use these facilities during school hours. In addition,  school facilities often operate as community centers, voting places, and  emergency shelters.

In the last year, several school districts across the country have  temporarily closed schools due to hazardous conditions of the school  buildings that can pose health and safety risks to students, teachers, and  staff. For example, water damage caused by a leaking roof or heating,  ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system can lead to problems with  indoor air quality and exposure to substances such as mold or asbestos.

To address these and other concerns, public school districts collectively  spend tens of billions of dollars each year on facilities construction needs  at the nearly 100,000 K-12 public schools across the nation, according to  Department of Education (Education) data.

The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of  Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education  Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019,  included a provision for us to study the condition of public school  facilities. This report examines (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 both objectives, we surveyed all 50 states and the District of  Columbia on their role in assessing, collecting information on, and  providing resources for school facilities. We conducted the survey from  September to December 2019. We also conducted a nationally  representative survey of K-12 public school districts from August to  October 2019. The unweighted response rate was 57 percent. Estimates  generated from the survey, adjusting for nonresponse, are generalizable  to the population of public school districts. We also visited 55 schools in  16 school districts across six states (California, Florida, Maryland,  Michigan, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) to observe a predetermined  set of key building systems and features in each school. We interviewed  district and school staff about their roles in funding, assessing, or  providing other resources for facilities to school districts and schools. We  selected states to vary geographically, as well as in the amount and type  of funding they provide for school facilities, and data they collect on the  condition of school facilities.

To determine relevant systems and features for school facilities, 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 multiple subject matter experts and stakeholders in the field  of school facilities and building assessments. We used this information to  create two lists of building systems and features, which we asked about in  our surveys and observed 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 also 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’s day-to-day operations,  there are systems and features that appear on both lists (see fig. 1).

To address our second objective, we also analyzed federal data on  school district expenditures for capital construction projects. We used  Education’s Local Education Agency Finance Survey for school year  2015-16 to examine patterns in expenditures by school district  characteristics, such as poverty and locale. 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.  See appendix I for more information on our objectives, scope, and  methodology.

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.

Background K-12 Public School Facilities Funding

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.

School Districts Frequently Identified Multiple Building Systems Needing Attention, Typically Through Formal Facilities Assessments

We Estimate About Half of School Districts Need to Update or Replace Multiple Building Systems and Features, Such as HVAC 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.

Majority of School Districts Evaluated Facilities to Determine Conditions

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.

School Districts Prioritized Safety and Technology Updates and Primarily Used Local Funding for School Facilities

School Districts Prioritized Safety and Technology while Also Addressing Repairs and Modernization Projects

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.

About Half of Districts Primarily Relied on Local Funding for School Facilities

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.

State Support for School Facilities Varied Within and Across States

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Web-based Survey of State Educational and School Facility Agencies

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.

School District Visits and School Observations

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.

Appendix II: Surveys of School Districts and States on School Facilities

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.

Appendix III: School Facilities in Districts that Received Federal Impact Aid

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.

Appendix IV: School Facilities in Charter School Districts

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.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

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.

School districts spend billions of dollars a year on building and renovating facilities at the nearly 100,000 K-12 public schools nationwide. We surveyed districts and states about common school facilities’ issues and priorities.

districts’ highest priorities for school facilities were improving security, expanding technology, and addressing health hazards

about half of districts needed to update or replace multiple systems like heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) or plumbing

an estimated one-third of schools needed HVAC system updates

funding for school facilities primarily came from local government sources