Fig. 4 shows how educational expenditures in the central city have dropped behind those of the outskirts in recent years. A slight central-city advantage of $9 per pupil in 195717 was transformed to a central-city disadvantage of $62 by 1962 and $124 by 1964-65.

The growth of this central city-outside central city educational gap is caused partly by the outward movement of higher income families. Moreover, after raising the adequacy and quality of their school plants by the late 1950's and early 1960's, the suburbs were able to concentrate more of their resources on enriching instructional programs and improving teacher pay scales.

Many of the central cities, on the other hand, are faced with a gigantic school building replacement need now. A survey of the public school plant in 15 large cities in 1965 showed that, except in Houston and Los Angeles, at least onethird of each city's public school buildings were at least 45 years old (Table 19).

School population.--In the most recent past the proportion of total population attending public schools has increased in the central city while it declined somewhat outside the central city area:

In many of the central cities enrollment in parochial (mainly Catholic) schools has been declining--a reflection of both the flight of the affluent to the suburbs and the increasing difficulty in financing parochial education.* The lower income families either remain in, or move into, the central city and send their children to public rather than to parochial schools. Buffalo and Cleveland are extreme examples of this situation--both cities have experienced 25 percent increases in public enrollment concurrently with 10 percent declines in total population. Chicago has experienced a similar situation as have other central cities, adding to their educational financing problems. The pressures on many suburban public school systems, on the other hand, are lightened as many of their residents are willing and able to support a high level of public school education, especially where they are not faced with heavy general government costs.

Cleveland exemplifies the central city-suburban fiscal problem in the education field. First, the city uses its property tax base so intensively that schools must take a smaller share than that available to other school districts. About 43 percent of the total property tax levy goes for schools in Cleveland,

* Total enrollment in private (including parochial) elementary and high schools fell off almost 300,000 between October 1965 and October 1966, from 6,831 thousand to 6,553 thousand, while such enrollment in public schools increased by 1.2 million during the same period (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Reports P.20, No. 162 and P.20, No. 167).

Figure 4.

EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL, INSIDE (CC)
AND OUTSIDE (OCC) CENTRAL CITIES OF
METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1957, 1962 AND 1965

Note: The figures for 1957 and 1962 are based on a slightly different sample of SMSA's than those for 1965. However, the three sets of data are comparable.

ACIR

TABLE 19.--PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS OVER 45 YEARS OLD,

15 SELECTED LARGE CITIES, AS OF JUNE 19651/

Source:

School Construction, Hearings Before the General Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 1st Session, July and August, 1965 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 357.

compared with an average of over 60 percent in the suburbs, with the figure running near 80 percent in some communities.

Secondly, the central city contains a concentration of "disadvantaged" children who, because of their home environments, range of experiences and presumably their state of health, are less prepared for schoolwork than suburban children. This puts an extra load on the central city school system. Although salaries are competitive, Cleveland has both a higher proportion of teachers without certificates, and a lower proportion of guidance counsellors and other professionals than do the suburbs--a telling, if intangible, cost of sociallytroubled areas.

Emerging trends are even more telling than the current picture. The gap between central city and outside central city educational expenditures was narrowed in only four areas between 1957 and 1965, and in the two Florida localities and St. Louis the relative expenditures were unchanged.

In the remaining cases, the gap between central city and outside central city educational resources widened. In five such instances, an initial though small central city advantage was eliminated. The amounts by which the central city relative position deteriorated varied considerably, as can be derived from Table A-11. In some cases, the movement against the central city was small--less than $9 per capita. In others, the deterioration was startling; the most dramatic example being Indianapolis, where the 1957 differential of $13 per capita in favor of the outside areas grew to $122 per capita by 1965--a net change of $109 per capita against the central city.

In part, these movements may reflect the erratic pattern of capital construction projects for the base years 1957 and 1965. This element of uncertainty, however, cannot erase the unmistakable impression of the general deterioration of the central city educational position relative to the suburbs.

Noneducational Expenditures

Unlike the educational "package," the content of local noneducational expenditures varies from State to State and also within States. Although some functions are common to all local governments (for example, overhead and financial administration) and other functions such as fire protection are local by definition, the provision of certain critical functions, particularly public welfare and highways, depends on the State-local system for assigning expenditure responsibilities. In addition the distinction between functions is not always clear. It is often difficult to determine, for example, where hospital costs end and welfare costs begin. These problems are compounded when the outlying portions of a metropolitan area fall into more than one State, while the entire area must be analyzed as a single unit.

Of the forces that determine the level of local non educational expenditures, none is more important than the decision of State policymakers concerning the allocation of responsibility for the underwriting of public welfare expenditures. This function may be assigned to the State, the locality, or some combination peculiar to the individual area.3/ Where welfare is a local function, the level of total expenditures for that area is higher. There are also differences within a State. Thus, New York City (which performs both city and county functions) assumes responsibility for public welfare in each of its boroughs (counties), whereas the cities of Buffalo and Rochester share the local cost of

public welfare with their counties of Erie and Monroe. Similarly, San Francisco (which like New York, provides both city and county services) assumes the entire local welfare burden, while in neighboring Oakland the responsibility for public welfare rests with Alameda County. Similar patterns exist for other functions which are assumed by localities because of some combination of legal, physical and socioeconomic characteristics.

The central cities of the 36 large metropolitan areas spent, on the average, $232 per capita for noneducation purposes in 1964-65 (Table A-12; Fig. 5). Outside those cities, local governments spent only $132 per capita, 75.9 percent less than was expended in the central cities. These statistics are all the more remarkable because the outside areas represent the Nation's great concentration of high income residents, a concentration expected to be associated with a high level of expenditure. And, local government noneducational expenditure in the remainder of the Nation was even smaller--$96 per capita.

The growing disparity.--Not only is there a gap in noneducational spending inside and outside the city, but the gap has grown in absolute dollar amounts. The difference was $61 per capita in 1957 and had risen to $81 by 1964-65. A reduction of the disparity occurred only in those areas where the

tax base was very small."

*

The size of the noneducational disparity in any particular SMSA is the result of a combination of factors. Public assistance case loads are concentrated in the central city. Therefore, the way the responsibility for administering and financing public welfare is divided between the State and the localities is an extremely important determinant.

Table A-13 makes clear the extreme differences that arise among local governments in welfare expenditures, reflecting differing State-local policies for administering and financing that function. Per capita local public welfare expenditure in the Seattle metropolitan area was only 8¢ in 1964-65, while it was $62.37 in the San Bernardino area. The table further indicates the diverse expenditures which arise when the central city does not share the costs of public welfare with an overlying county. Within the New York SMSA the central city (which is also the central county) spent $58.39 per capita, while Nassau County spent only $15.70 and no other surrounding county exceeded $24.01. The noneducational disparity between the central city and outside central city areas is notably accentuated when the central city bears the total welfare responsibility itself. The policy implications of this assignment of the public welfare function can assume immense importance, as is indicated by the finding of the Commission's case study of the Cleveland SMSA:

Most of the welfare load in Cuyahoga County occurs in the City

of Cleveland. Levies are voted on, however, in the county at large.
Up to the present, welfare levies are reported to have received general
support throughout the county in referenda. Some officials, however,
are concerned at the decline in support evident in some suburban areas,
attributing it to preoccupation of suburbanites over the fiscal

*

Comparison of weighted and unweighted averages indicates that the gap is understated for the largest areas. It should be noted also that these figures exclude expenditures for utilities and mass transit, which bear most heavily on the largest cities.