Skip Navigation
Illustration/Logo View Quarterly by  This Issue  |  Volume and Issue  |  Topics
Education Statistics Quarterly
Vol 5, Issue 2, Topic: Elementary and Secondary Education
Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools
By: Timothy Smith, Rebecca Porch, Elizabeth Farris, and William Fowler
 
This report was originally published as the Executive Summary of the Statistical Analysis Report of the same name. The sample survey data are from the "Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools" survey, conducted through the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS).
 
 

Since the 1990s, the United States has experienced periods of volatility in energy costs (Joskow 2002). Public schools have not been immune to the increased energy costs associated with these periods. In light of these experiences, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education undertook the "Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools" survey. The survey examined the effects of energy needs on public school districts and was designed to contribute to a better understanding of how increases in energy expenditures influence school district budgeting and actions. It was not designed to assess the role that weather may have played in affecting energy expenditures, to evaluate the utility of various cost-saving measures that districts might employ to reduce energy expenditures, or to examine several other factors that might directly affect energy budgets.

Although the survey of 851 public school districts focused primarily on fiscal year1 2001 (FY 01), the questionnaire also gathered data on FY 00 energy expenditures and budgeted FY 02 energy expenditures to examine the financial resources available to districts. Data collection began in November 2001, approximately 4 months after the start of FY 02, thereby allowing districts to report total expenditures from FY 01 and budgets allocated for FY 02.

This report examines the effects of increased energy costs on the country's public school systems. Specifically, the following five topics are addressed:

  • energy expenditures in FY 00 and FY 01, and budgeted expenditures for FY 01 and FY 02;
  • efforts to reduce energy consumption;
  • characteristics of districts with sufficient and insufficient energy budgets for FY 01;
  • experiences of districts with energy budget shortfalls; and
  • perceptions of school district staff regarding their districts' ability to respond to immediate and future energy needs.

It is important to note that many of the district characteristics used for independent analyses are related to each other. For example, in 1999–2000, district enrollment and metropolitan status were related, with urban districts typically being larger than rural districts. Relationships also exist between other analysis variables, such as enrollment size and region, metropolitan status and poverty concentration, and per pupil expenditure and percentage of budget allocated for energy. Because of the relatively small sample size used in this study, no attempt has been made to parse out the independent associations of these variables. Their existence, however, should be considered in the interpretation of the data presented in this report.

Back to Top


Survey findings indicate that, on average, school districts spent $137 per pupil on energy expenditures in FY 00. For FY 01, they budgeted an 11 percent increase, raising their budgets to $152 per pupil. However, actual FY 01 per pupil energy expenditures, at $166 per pupil, were 22 percent higher than in FY 00. The average district experienced a 9 percent shortfall between what it had budgeted for FY 01 and its actual expenditures. The average school district budgeted $176 per pupil for FY 02 energy needs, or a 6 percent increase over what it actually spent in FY 01. This $24 per pupil increase over FY 01 budgeted costs translated into an increase of about $1 billion in expected costs.

Back to Top


Key findings from the survey are as follows:

Energy expenditures in FY 01
  • In FY 01, energy expenditures were nearly $8 billion.
  • From FY 00 to FY 01, when inflation was 3.4 percent2 (Snyder and Hoffman 2002), per pupil expenditures for energy rose from $137 to $166 (22 percent). If energy costs had risen at the rate of inflation, an additional $22 per pupil, or $1 billion, would have been available for school districts.
  • Sixty-one percent of public school districts reported a shortfall in energy funding in FY 01.
  • Eighty-three percent of school districts that had experienced an energy budget shortfall attributed the shortfall to increases in the cost per unit of energy.
  • Small school districts spent the most per pupil in energy expenditures in FY 01 ($204). However, both large and midsized school districts were more likely to encounter shortfalls in funding their energy expenditures in FY 01.
  • Rural districts spent more per pupil for energy in FY 01 ($190) than urban or suburban districts ($154 and $164, respectively).
  • School districts in the West spent $149 per pupil on energy, compared with $189 in the Central region.


Table A. Percent of public school districts using various measures to reduce energy expenditures, by selected district characteristics: Fiscal years 2001 and 2002
District characteristic Measures taken in fiscal year (FY) 20011
Renovated/retrofitted facilities Locked in rates Participated in consortia Institute increased fees to use facilities Closed schools/sent students home early
Total 47 39 29 12 7
District enrollment in 1999-2000
1 to 2,499 40 38 26 9 8
2,500 to 9,999 63 44 39 18 7
10,000 or more 75 38 30 29 6
Metropolitan status
Urban 53 22 25 13 3
Suburban 51 44 45 16 7
Rural 43 37 17 8 8
Region
Northeast 46 60 68 11 4
Southeast 59 34 10 13 11
Central 48 52 29 10 8
West 44 9 9 15 7
Poverty concentration2
Less than 10 percent 50 51 42 17 6
10 to 19 percent 53 37 30 10 7
20 percent or more 42 34 18 11 9
Overall FY 01 budget per pupil
Low: Less than $6,500 55 27 18 14 8
Mid-level: $6,500 to $8,999 46 41 27 11 8
High: $9,000 or more 44 46 40 11 6
FY 01 energy budget sufficiency status3
Sufficient 42 40 30 10 9
Insufficient 51 39 29 13 7
Percent of budget allocated for energy4
1 percent or less 47 44 38 10 7
2 percent 51 42 33 13 7
3 percent or more 44 33 19 11 8
 
District characteristic Measures taken in FY 021
Renovated/retrofitted facilities Locked in rates Participated in consortia Instituted/ increased fees to use facilities Closed schools/ sent students home early
Total
47 44 33 15 6
District enrollment in 1999-2000
1 to 2,499
41 42 31 12 7
2,500 to 9,999
59 50 42 22 5
10,000 or more
74 44 32 37 4
Metropolitan status
Urban
55 27 28 22 1
Suburban
49 48 50 21 6
Rural
44 42 21 10 7
Region
Northeast
47 64 70 15 5
Southeast
56 35 10 11 8
Central
44 55 33 11 7
West
48 18 17 23 5
Poverty concentration2
Less than 10 percent
47 56 46 21 6
10 to 19 percent
51 43 35 13 6
20 percent or more
45 38 22 13 7
Overall FY 01 budget per pupil
Low: Less than $6,500
49 34 23 17 7
Mid-level: $6,500 to $8,999
45 45 31 15 7
High: $9,000 or more
47 51 44 14 4
FY 01 energy budget sufficiency status3
Sufficient
40 42 33 14 7
Insufficient
52 45 34 16 5
Percent of budget allocated for energy4
1 percent or less
44 48 41 15 4
2 percent
50 46 36 15 6

3 percent or more

45 40 25 16 7

1Data reflect measures that were taken during the first half of FY 02 or that were anticipated during the fiscal year, since data collection was completed before the end of the fiscal year.

2Poverty concentration is based on Census Bureau data on the percentage of children ages 5–17 in families below the poverty level within districts in 1996–97.

3FY 01 energy budget sufficiency status is based on responses to survey question 2d, part 1 (FY 01 budgeted energy expenditures) and part 2 (FY 01 actual energy expenditures). Districts were classified as having sufficient or insufficient funds allocated to meet their FY 01 energy needs.

4The categories used for percent of budget allocated for energy reflect the following ranges: 1 percent or less includes districts that allocated less than 1.5 percent for energy; 2 percent includes those that allocated from 1.5 percent to less than 2.5 percent for energy; and 3 percent or more includes those that allocated 2.5 percent or more for energy.

NOTE: Percentages presented in this table are based on the estimated number of regular public school districts—14,400. Respondents were able to select as many answers as applied. Poverty concentration was missing for 11 cases, overall fiscal year budget per pupil was missing for 3 cases, fiscal year sufficiency status was missing for 8 cases, and budget allocated for energy was missing for 10 cases in the sample. Those cases were included in the totals and in analyses by other district characteristics. No imputation was performed in cases where information on district characteristics (e.g., poverty concentration) was missing or where districts did not provide information on the survey (e.g., item nonresponse). Ratios (averages) using nonimputed data will implicitly impute the cell ratio for all missing data within the cell. This can cause inconsistencies in the estimates between tables.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools," FRSS 81, 2001. (Originally published as table 3 on pp. 12–13 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)



Efforts to reduce energy consumption
  • During FY 01, school districts took various actions to improve energy efficiency. Forty-seven percent of public school districts renovated or retrofitted existing facilities, 39 percent locked in rates with one or more energy vendors, 29 percent participated in consortia that negotiated prices with third-party energy vendors, 12 percent instituted or increased fees to use facilities, and 7 percent closed schools or sent students home early for at least 1 day (table A).
  • During FY 02, 47 percent of the nation's districts renovated or retrofitted existing facilities, 44 percent locked in rates, 33 percent participated in consortia, 15 percent instituted or increased fees to use facilities, and 6 percent closed schools or sent students home early for at least 1 day.

Characteristics of districts with sufficient and insufficient energy budgets for FY 01
  • The likelihood of experiencing an insufficient energy budget was lower in small districts than in either midsized or large districts (56 percent compared to 72 and 80 percent, respectively).
  • Urban school districts were more likely to have insufficient funds than suburban or rural districts (82 percent compared to 60 and 59 percent, respectively).
  • The likelihood of a shortfall was greatest in districts in the Southeast, where 81 percent of school districts encountered an insufficient energy budget.
  • Districts whose total FY 01 budget averaged $9,000 or more per student were less likely to have insufficient funds allocated for energy needs than districts that budgeted between $6,500 and $8,999 per student.

Figure A. Percent of public school districts with insufficient energy budgets for fiscal year (FY) 2001 reporting various reasons for difficulty responding to the insufficiency: FY 01
Figure A. Percent of public school districts with insufficient energy budgets for fiscal year (FY) 2001 reporting various reasons for difficulty responding to the insufficiency: FY 01

NOTE: Percentages presented in this figure are based on the estimated number of regular public school districts with insufficient budgets—8,700. Respondents were able to select as many answers as applied.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools," FRSS 81, 2001. (Originally published as figure 3 on p. 23 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)

Experiences of districts with energy budget shortfalls
  • When they encountered budget shortfalls, school districts took a variety of actions (either individually or in combination) to cover some energy costs in FY 01: 75 percent reallocated funds from other programs, 53 percent used an unappropriated sur-plus, and 46 percent used a large proportion of the nonpersonnel budget (figure A).
  • Twenty percent of districts experiencing an insufficient energy budget responded by instituting severe austerity measures.
  • Nineteen percent of districts responding to an energy budget shortfall found that supervisory approval of increased energy funding was not immediately forthcoming.
  • In response to a shortfall in the energy budget, 8 percent of districts raised school taxes and 8 percent rolled over the underbudgeted amount to the next fiscal year.
  • Seven percent of districts experiencing an insufficient energy budget used short-term loans to finance the additional funds needed.

Perceptions of school district staff regarding their districts' ability to respond to immediate and future energy needs
  • Forty-two percent of respondents nationwide agreed or strongly agreed that their school district had successfully reduced energy usage in FY 01.
  • Thirty-seven percent of all school districts believed they have a long-term energy problem, and nearly three-quarters believed that "future increases in energy costs pose a major threat to the allocation of district funds to essential areas such as student instruction."

Back to Top


Footnotes

1 Throughout this report, the term "fiscal year" is used to specify the calendar period associated with school district finances. School districts often define the fiscal year from July 1 through June 30, with the year referring to the calendar year in which the fiscal year ends. For example, for many districts, fiscal year 2001 began on July 1, 2000, and ended on June 30, 2001. In using this designation of fiscal years, the 2000–01 school year would cover similar calendar dates as fiscal year 2001.

2 As measured by the Consumer Price Index adjusted to a school-year basis (July through June).

Back to Top


Joskow, P.L. (2002). U.S. Energy Policy During the 1990s. Current History, 101 (653).

Snyder, T.D., and Hoffman, C.M. (2002 ). Digest of Education Statistics: 2001 (NCES 2002–130). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Back to Top


Data source: The NCES Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), "Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools," FRSS 81, 2001.

For technical information, see the complete report:

Smith, T., Porch, R., Farris, E., and Fowler, W. (2003). Effects of Energy Needs and Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools (NCES 2003–018).

Author affiliations: T. Smith, R. Porch, and E. Farris, Westat, Inc.; W. Fowler, NCES.

For questions about content, contact Peter Tice.

To obtain the complete report (NCES 2003–018), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877–433–7827) or visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch).


back to top