Q: When you think about the strategic use of federal funds, what does that mean in day‑to‑day district decision making—and how is it different from a compliance‑only approach?
Sharie Lewis, Parkrose School District: Compliance is the baseline—it’s something you think about every day once you’ve been doing this long enough. Strategic use goes further. It’s about asking whether your funding decisions actually align with your district’s mission, goals, and the needs of your students. For us, those needs change every year as enrollment and demographics change. I could technically meet every Title I requirement, but if I’m not asking whether those funds are helping me achieve my goals—especially as staffing, class size, or enrollment shifts—then I’m not being strategic.
Karen Smith, Cypress‑Fairbanks ISD: For us, strategy means allocating federal funds based on data-driven needs rather than simply spending dollars on allowable activities. With Title I, we rank campuses by economically disadvantaged percentage and allocate more per pupil where need is higher. We do this across programs—IDEA, Title II, and others—by looking at where the need is greatest and using funds accordingly. That’s very different from a compliance mindset, which focuses only on whether spending is technically allowable.
Q: How do your districts approach coordinating funds across federal programs? What drives those decisions?
Karen Smith: We braid funds rather than blend them. That means we keep each funding stream separate for accounting and reporting, but we coordinate them toward a shared goal. For example, a campus struggling academically might receive Title I support first, but we may also bring in Title II–funded instructional coaches or Title III bilingual support if those needs overlap. The key is coordination without losing clarity about which dollars are funding what.
Sharie Lewis: I’m cautious about blending funds. Once funds are blended, they essentially take on the rules of whichever program they’re placed into, and that reduces flexibility and creates compliance risk. Instead, I focus on alignment—making sure different funding sources are working toward the same outcomes while still maintaining their individual requirements. That distinction is critical, especially when you’re working with private schools or navigating audit obligations.
Q: How do you balance flexibility and innovation with the need to remain compliant across multiple federal programs?
Sharie Lewis: Sometimes that means saying no—and explaining why. Saying no without context creates tension, but explaining the regulatory boundaries helps people understand that compliance isn’t about blocking innovation; it’s about protecting the district. My role is often to translate regulations in a way that still allows staff to do meaningful, creative work without crossing lines that could create audit findings later.
Karen Smith: In a large district, balance requires clear, documented processes and collaboration. Program staff work with campus teams to develop grant plans beginning with a comprehensive needs assessment. Then, both teams collaborate to monitor budgets, approve expenditures, and complete compliance reporting. Campuses propose how they’ll use funds based on their needs, but every decision goes through multiple layers of review to ensure allowability and alignment. That structure gives campuses flexibility while keeping the district compliant.
Q: What lessons have you learned from managing temporary funds—like ESSER or disaster funding—alongside more permanent federal programs?
Karen Smith: One of the biggest lessons is planning early and mapping allowable uses across funding sources. During Hurricane Harvey and later with ESSER, we created matrices to track restrictions, timelines, and eligible costs. That made it easier to use the most restrictive funds first and preserve more flexible dollars for later needs. Coordination across departments—especially HR, federal programs, campuses and finance—was essential to avoid mis‑coding positions, maximizing federal funds or losing track of obligations.
Sharie Lewis: Temporary funds are risky if you use them for ongoing staffing. I’ve always tried to focus those dollars on long‑term investments—curriculum, technology, infrastructure—rather than short‑term fixes. ESSER created pressure to backfill general fund gaps, but if you don’t plan carefully, you end up with sustainability problems and trust issues later. Documentation and internal controls matter even more when the rules are changing in real time.
Q: What strategies have helped you plan for sustainability and avoid funding cliffs as temporary funds expire?
Karen Smith: We were cautious with staffing and made sure any ESSER‑funded positions were clearly temporary. We also used allowable supplanting strategically to preserve general fund balance, while being transparent with our board about what our budget would look like without stimulus funds. That clarity helped us plan for the future instead of being surprised when the funding ended.
Sharie Lewis: Flexibility evolved over the life of ESSER, and districts had to adjust as rules changed. Planning with sustainability in mind from the beginning—rather than reacting year to year—made a big difference. Some programs, like IDEA, remained rigid, so understanding which funding streams allowed flexibility and which didn’t was critical.
Q: Can you share an example where coordinating federal funds led to better outcomes for students?
Sharie Lewis: Early in my tenure, we had an elementary school in long‑term improvement status and a rapidly changing student population, including many new English learners. By aligning Title I and school improvement funds, we were able to support staff, leadership, and students more effectively—and the school exited improvement status faster than expected. It took coordination and additional investment, but the results were worth it.
Karen Smith: We’ve seen strong outcomes by coordinating Title I, II, III, and Title IV supports—particularly around learning loss and student mental health following COVID. Our mental health intervention team, funded through Title IV, works alongside instructional supports funded through other programs. That coordination has allowed us to respond quickly and provide more comprehensive support to students.
Q: Looking back, what advice would you give to educators or school business officials who are just starting to move beyond compliance toward more strategic federal funding?
Sharie Lewis: Read your grant agreements. Understand the rules. Ask questions. You don’t have to know everything, but you do need to know where to look and who to ask. Grants change constantly, and no one ever knows it all. If you don’t ask questions, you’re the one taking the risk.
Karen Smith: Coordination is everything. Strategic use of federal funds isn’t one department’s responsibility—it requires collaboration across finance, academics, HR, campuses, and leadership. Ground decisions in data, align spending with district and campus plans, and never assume compliance will take care of itself.
Thank you to ASBO International, our partner on the Strategic Funding and Finance Center, for connecting us to Karen and Sharie, and other school finance leaders. Their support has been instrumental in facilitating these important conversations and sharing valuable insights.