What the First Round of Recipient Reported Stimulus Data Tells Us: Not Much

Late last week the federal government released the first round of data on economic stimulus spending through the new website Recovery.gov. This preliminary data, which is reported by stimulus funds recipients, included data only for federal contracts as opposed to grant and loan programs. Very few education contracts have been awarded thus far because the majority of education stimulus funds go directly through local education agencies and institutions of higher education. However, the data does include information on 16 contracts made through Department of Education programs. Unfortunately, this data is not detailed enough to provide comprehensive information on how the funds are being spent and from what source, suggesting that future waves of stimulus recipient reported data may not be as useful as we had hoped.

These 16 contracts amount to more than $27.7 million in stimulus funding distributed by 11 states including Alaska, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Thus far, the contracting organizations have received $1.9 million (6.9 percent) of the total funds. According to the data reported, these funds have either saved or created 162 jobs. (A table containing this information is available here.)

The vast majority of the contracted funds – $24 million – will be distributed through the Student Aid Administration stimulus funds in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These funds will go to service federal guaranteed loans provided to students in each of those states. Nearly $2.5 million in Title I funds will be distributed to a non-public education entity in Salem, Massachusetts to provide additional services to disadvantaged students in private schools.

The remaining $1.2 million will be distributed to various organizations for higher education, impact aid construction, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), and school improvement uses. In some cases, the data collected on these contracts provides useful and comprehensive information on how the funds will be spent. For example, the Benton County Board of Education in Tennessee will receive $451,600 in SFSF to retain 11 teacher jobs. Fort Leavenworth Unified School District in Kansas will receive $404,595 in Impact Aid Construction Funds to renovate the roof and interior of its gym and auditorium.

In other cases, however, the reported data provides little to no information on the source of the funds or what they will be used for. For example, Siemens Building Technologies will receive three separate grants totaling $116,812 for services they will provide at the Chemekata Community College in Oregon. The Treasury Accounting Symbol attached to these grants indicates that they are for a higher education program supported with economic stimulus funding but does not specify which higher education program. The only other information provided for each grant is a building name or number on the Community College campus.

Data collected on two school improvement program contracts are equally unclear. These two contracts, also with Siemens Building Technologies, from the Lake Washington School District in Washington State total $211,000. While the Treasury Accounting Symbol attached to these grants does not specify which school improvement program these funds are from, the brief descriptions (“Upgrades at 3 schools” and “Support Services Center”) imply that they may be for Enhancing Education through Technology Grants (ED Tech). In the absence of further detail, however, we cannot be sure if that is indeed the case.

Without a doubt, the reporting requirements attached to the stimulus funds represent a major shift in how federal agencies track the expenditure of federal funds on the ground. But this first round of data suggests that the information being collected lacks the detail necessary to really track what the funds are being spent on. In many cases, the Treasury Account Symbols used in the data do not provide information on specific funding sources. Similarly, the level of detail in the recipient provided fields often lack detail on actual projects receiving funds. Hopefully these limitations will not completely undermine what could have otherwise been an invaluable tool for evaluating the success of the stimulus.