HEd Money Watch - logo
 

Details on the Maintenance of Effort Provision of the SFSF

July 9, 2009 - 12:33pm

As states have been submitting their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) applications, questions have arisen regarding Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions. In order to receive SFSF monies, states must maintain fiscal year 2006 spending levels in 2009, 2010, and 2011 for both K-12 and public institutions of higher education, or apply for a waiver. Recent guidance from the Department of Education (ED) provides insight into what the MOE provision actually means for state spending and how states can apply for waivers if necessary.

According to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) legislation, states must satisfy the MOE for state spending on K-12 and higher education separately. This means that states cannot combine all state education spending into one lump sum that must be maintained in each year. Instead, they must ensure that K-12 and higher education receive at least a minimum level of funding individually.

For K-12 education, the guidance clarifies that the MOE requirement pertains primarily to the "principal funding mechanisms" that provide funding to K-12 education. This means that states must spend in 2009, 2010, and 2011 the same amount they spent via these mechanisms in 2006. This must include funds distributed through the state's primary education funding formula but can also include any categorical or block funding provided via other channels. This type of funding could include money distributed to qualifying schools and districts like those that meet a certain student-teach ratio, or money distributed for other services that do not depend on size of student population. Allowing states to exclude categorical funding outside the primary funding formula from the MOE calculation, however, is problematic in states like California that provide significant amounts of K-12 funding through grants and other programs.

The guidance also states that the K-12 MOE calculation can be determined on either an aggregate basis or on a per pupil basis. For example, a state that spending $500 million total and $8,500 per student on K-12 education each year can choose to use either the $500 million amount or the $8,500 per student amount for their MOE calculation. This flexibility can benefit states with rapidly growing student populations like Arizona because they are able to demonstrate maintenance of an aggregate spending level even though spending per pupil is decreasing over time. Similarly, this can benefit states with declining student populations like Maine and North Dakota that can demonstrate a consistent per pupil spending level even though aggregate state spending is decreasing over time.

The guidance concerning the MOE for public institutions of higher education specifies that minimum spending levels must include 2006 state appropriations for higher education under principal funding mechanisms. However, the MOE calculation must exclude any expenditures for capital projects, research, and tuition paid by students. If states distribute unrestricted funds to institutions of higher education that is used for such purposes, states must estimate that amount and exclude it from the MOE calculation. Additionally, spending on state administered financial aid programs cannot be included in the MOE test but money distributed to institutions that is then used for financial assistance through a school-run program is included.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the guidance states that for both the K-12 and higher education MOE calculations, states are only required to maintain total spending, not spending levels for individual programs. As a result, states are free to adjust spending on individual programs (like community colleges or special education) to favor certain services over others. This flexibility is a concern in states like California where community colleges are guaranteed a certain spending level under law but four year universities are not. As a result, funding for four year universities may face larger budget cuts in order to maintain required funding for community colleges.

If a state is unable to maintain the required MOE spending levels for K-12 or higher education or both, they can apply for a waiver for spending in 2009, 2010, and/or 2011. To qualify for the waiver a state must demonstrate that the percent of total state revenues for all education spending in the year for which they are applying for a waiver is at least as great as the percent of those revenues used for education in the previous year. For example, if 37 percent of all state revenues went towards education spending in 2008, a state must show that 2009 education spending will also make up at least 37 percent of total state revenues.

Thus far, no states have applied for MOE waivers. But recent revelations regarding the dire fiscal straits many states are facing suggest that they may be forced to request them soon.  Ed Money Watch will cover such instances as they arise.

Thought so

Dear Jennifer,

Thanks for reporting on this. I'd like to say, though, it looks like I was right about this, at least as regards California.

Still, it seems clear that the State of California knew full well that they couldn't meet their stated funding levels, certainly not for UC and CSU, for Higher Education on their SFSF applications. How is that not a case of making "false statements" to obtain Federal funds?

I suspect that the reason that California hasn't already filed for a waiver is that they are afraid (rightly so) that they can't meet the requirements for a waiver. Of course, since they still haven't even finalized the budget for 2008-09, it is hard to be sure.

Ultimately, the State will, I think, be forced to suspend Proposition 98. It's hard to see how they can avoid that, unless more stimulus funding is forthcoming. You read it here first.

Hi Earl, Yes, it does look

Hi Earl,

Yes, it does look like you were right.  California is definitely in a difficult position with regards to the SFSF funds - and could very possibly be in breach of their SFSF applications if they fail to properly fund higher ed.  I wouldnt be surprised if they file for a waiver after the budget is finallized and they really know what the status of revenue is.

 

 

Loop Hole

I know this was written a few months ago, but I just read the guidance information and I'm a little worried.

It appears that once a waiver is requested and approved, a state can theoretically fully fund k-12 or IHEs while not funding the other at all as long as the percentage requirement is met.

Am I reading the guidance on waiver requests correctly?

Will

Will, I'm not sure I

Will,

I'm not sure I understand your concern, as stated. But if a waiver is requested, they can underfund either K-12 or IHEs. They can't get a waiver unless the percentage of the budget spent on Ed equals its percentage of the overall State budget previously: they can't spend a smaller percentage (of the state total) on Ed. Frankly, I don't see how they could maintain the percentage, and so they could, potentially, forfeit the stimulus dollars for failing to comply with the MOE requirements and for not meeting the waiver requirements.

Whether they will now file a waiver is therefore a question. The IHE General Fund amounts for both 08/09 and 09/10 (according to the CA. LAO) are below the MOE amount of 8.857 billion by $333 million and $145 million respectively. So, one might think that the State is in big trouble. However, I've been told that this deficit will be made up by deferred amounts (and it's difficult to find numbers for this) for the Community Colleges. Seems like kind of tricky accounting.

Perhaps Jennifer has further information.