Preparing for Federal Facility Legislation: Plans for the Equitable School Access to Facilities Act in Your State

For decades, public charter schools have delivered strong academic outcomes while operating under a structural disadvantage that traditional public schools rarely face: the lack of access to high-quality learning spaces. While school districts can rely on taxpayer-funded buildings, bond proceeds, and long-established municipal and state capital programs to ensure access to facilities, charter schools are often left to piece together financing through leases, debt, philanthropy, or short-term solutions that divert resources away from classrooms.

A newly proposed federal bill, the Equitable Access to School Facilities Act, aims to address this long-standing imbalance by reimagining and significantly expanding the federal State Facilities Incentive Grant (SFIG) program. If enacted, this legislation could fundamentally reshape how states support charter school facilities and unlock new, scalable approaches to ownership, financing, and long-term sustainability for charter school communities nationwide.

Why the Original SFIG Fell Short

The State Facilities Incentive Grant program has existed for years as one small part of the federal Charter Schools Program, which, in total, represents roughly $500 million annually in U.S. Department of Education funding. Despite its promise, SFIG has historically been one of the least known and most underutilized components of the CSP grant portfolio.

Several factors contributed to its limited impact. First, the program was historically small, typically around $10 million per competition. Second, it was offered infrequently, often only once every five years. Third, eligibility was narrow, restricted exclusively to state departments of education who were implementing a per pupil facility funding formula. As a result, for most of its history, only California and Indiana successfully accessed these funds. Even after the cap was lifted in 2024, only a few additional states have received funding (Colorado, Texas, and Ohio), leaving most of the country untouched by the program’s benefits.

The Equitable Access to School Facilities Act is designed to respond to these shortcomings, expanding both who can apply and how the funding can be used, while encouraging broader participation across states.

Expanded Eligibility: Opening the Door to More State Actors

One of the most important changes in the new legislation is the expansion of eligibility beyond state education agencies. Under the proposed framework, a broader category of “state entities” would be allowed to apply. This includes state charter school associations and other nonprofit organizations that specialize in facilities, finance, or real estate development for public charter schools.

This change reflects a growing recognition that effective facilities policy is not always implemented within a department of education. In many states, charter support organizations and nonprofit intermediaries have developed deep expertise in financing, credit enhancement, and public-private partnerships. Allowing and encouraging these entities to apply directly increases the likelihood that innovative, well-designed programs will emerge.

However, eligibility is still tied to state policy conditions. Priority is given to states that already demonstrate favorable charter facilities laws, including:

• Dedicated facilities funding
• Access to unused or underutilized district buildings
• Authority for charter schools to issue tax-exempt bonds through conduit issuers
• No restrictive land-use prohibitions

In other words, the program is designed not only to fund projects, but to reward and reinforce strong state policy environments.

A Broader Vision for Allowable Uses

The most transformative aspect of the Equitable Access to School Facilities Act lies in its expanded list of allowable uses. Rather than focusing narrowly on per-pupil facilities aid, the bill envisions SFIG as a flexible incentive tool that can catalyze a wide range of state-level solutions. Some potential use cases are listed below.

1. Per-Pupil Facilities Funding Formulas

At its core, SFIG still supports the creation or expansion of per-pupil facilities funding programs. Federal matching funds could help states offset the initial cost of launching such formulas, lowering political and fiscal barriers while states build sustainable long-term systems.

2. Incentivizing Access to District Buildings

District-owned buildings often sit vacant while charter schools struggle to find affordable space. Under the new framework, SFIG funds could help offset lease costs during initial years, making it easier for districts to lease buildings to charter schools at negotiated rates without imposing unaffordable burdens on schools.

3. Revolving Loan Funds at Scale

Revolving loan funds have gained popularity as a way to multiply public dollars. Nevada provides a compelling example: by combining $10 million in state funds with private philanthropy and nonprofit lending capital, the state was able to generate nearly $100 million in loan capacity.

The Equitable Access to School Facilities Act would allow states to use federal SFIG dollars in a similar way, potentially turning modest federal investments into large, self-sustaining loan pools that support charter school acquisition, construction, and renovation.

4. Credit Enhancement Programs

Credit enhancement programs reduce risk for lenders and lower borrowing costs for schools. Washington, D.C.’s credit enhancement initiative, for example, helped support an incubator model in which third-party organizations acquired facilities and leased them to growing charter schools. Enhancements could cover periods of vacancy or repayment risk, making private capital more willing to engage.

Federal funds could be used either to grow existing state credit enhancement programs or to launch new ones. This approach could supplement the existing Credit Enhancement grant program.

5. Moral Obligation Bond Programs

Only a handful of states (currently Colorado, Utah, and Idaho) operate moral obligation programs that allow the state’s credit rating to support charter school bond issuances. These programs often rely on reserve funds that provide partial guarantees to bondholders.

The proposed legislation would allow SFIG dollars to help states establish these reserve funds, enabling charter schools to access lower-cost, tax-exempt financing on a scale previously reserved for districts.

6. District Bond Participation

In some jurisdictions, charter schools are allowed to participate in district bond offerings. California has a long history with this, and more recently Kansas City offered charter schools access to district bond-funded facilities.

SFIG funds could help de-risk these shared bond structures by covering issuance costs, creating reserves, or providing guarantees that make districts more comfortable including charter schools.

7. Shared Tax Levy Models

Florida recently enacted a policy requiring municipalities to share local property tax revenues with charter schools on a proportional basis. While equitable, such changes can create short-term disruptions for municipalities.

A state facilities incentive grant could help smooth this transition by temporarily offsetting lost district revenue while shared tax levy systems are implemented.

8. Independent Facilities Authorities

Indiana offers a compelling model in which a quasi-independent public authority owns school buildings and leases them to both district and charter schools. This structure removes perverse incentives that discourage districts from sharing space and professionalizes facilities management statewide.

SFIG funds could support the creation, startup costs, and early operations of similar authorities in other states.

9. Long-Term Facilities Sustainability

Finally, the legislation recognizes that facilities funding is not only about acquisition, but also long-term operations and maintenance. Upfront investments—such as solar installations or energy-efficient upgrades—can significantly reduce operating costs over time but are often financially out of reach.

Federal incentive grants could support state programs that encourage these investments through tax incentives or direct support, improving sustainability and freeing operating dollars for instruction.

Preparing for What Comes Next

The Equitable Access to School Facilities Act was introduced in the Senate in May 2025 and in the House in January 2026 and has not yet been enacted. Still, its introduction signals growing bipartisan recognition that facilities inequity remains one of the most significant barriers facing charter schools nationwide.

State associations, nonprofit facilities organizations, and policymakers would be wise to begin planning now to identify potential program designs, build partnerships, and assess how federal incentives could align with existing state initiatives.

While SFIG will remain a competitive grant, broader eligibility and expanded uses could make it far more accessible and impactful than in the past. Thoughtful preparation could mean the difference between another underutilized federal program and a genuine catalyst for equitable facilities access.

If you are interested in learning more about this program, please look for information about an upcoming webinar on this topic, or contact us directly at ma**@*********er.org.