Earmarks Galore! More Transparency, But Still Flourishing

Last week, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a database of higher education earmarks for fiscal year 2008. A number of the earmarks are related to K-12 initiatives at colleges and universities, and many of the programs sound valuable and work toward positive goals. Members of Congress are certainly skilled at justifying them. But don’t let these justifications sway you—earmarks mean no accountability to taxpayers and no concrete proof of program effectiveness.

The Office of Postsecondary Education routinely receives the most earmarks in the Department of Education, including some for K-12 initiatives such as teacher training programs. The Chronicle database also includes higher education earmarks distributed through the Office of Innovation and Improvement’s Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE), such as grants to support partnerships between colleges and local school systems.

When you look through the Chronicle’s list of earmarks, many of the K-12 projects sound, on the surface, like worthwhile efforts. $120,851 for professional development for school teachers in mathematics and science? Great! How about $191,593 to create a Principals Institute, to train and certify all Maryland school principals? Sounds promising!

It’s hard to argue that there isn’t a need for these type of projects. But because there are no standards for earmarks, the type and quality of the funded programs varies widely. In addition, it can be difficult for taxpayers to get any detailed information about what the projects actually do.

For example, there is a $383,187 earmark for California State University at Northridge for the “development of an assessment-and-accountability system for K-12 teachers.” Ed Money Watch wants to know more about that project, but a call to Rep. Brad Sherman’s (D-CA) office, one of the sponsors of the earmark, yielded no response (as did most of our calls to Congressional offices). Or how about $286,899 to the Mississippi University for Women “for outreach and research to local school districts.” The sponsor Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-MS) office had no information for Ed Money Watch, and told us to try contacting the school. After several calls to the school, we finally figured out where the money is going, but it sure wasn’t easy.

Of course, there’s also the issue of judging whether the earmarked programs are actually effective. Members of Congress do not use a competitive process to distribute earmarks; it’s all about special constituent interests. And once the earmark is out the door, there is no accountability for how the funds are spent.

It’s good to see that the Chronicle and the Office of Budget and Management have started to publish earmarks in searchable databases, following the mandate of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Transparency forces Members of Congress to at least validate their earmark spending, and maybe even pushes them to keep closer tabs on the money.

The public needs to ask tough questions about earmarks and not get caught up in Congressional spin—unless, maybe, a new President and new Congress get rid of earmarks for good. Wishful thinking from Ed Money Watch.