articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/200623-new-jersey-s-335-million-state-aid-revisions-could-weaken-school-districts-credit-quality-11542307 content
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform


Looking for more?

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

If your company has a current subscription with S&P Global Market Intelligence, you can register as a new user for access to the platform(s) covered by your license at Market Intelligence platform or S&P Capital IQ.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *
  • We generated a verification code for you

  • Enter verification Code here*

* Required

Thank you for your interest in S&P Global Market Intelligence! We noticed you've identified yourself as a student. Through existing partnerships with academic institutions around the globe, it's likely you already have access to our resources. Please contact your professors, library, or administrative staff to receive your student login.

At this time we are unable to offer free trials or product demonstrations directly to students. If you discover that our solutions are not available to you, we encourage you to advocate at your university for a best-in-class learning experience that will help you long after you've completed your degree. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

In This List

New Jersey's $335 Million State Aid Revisions Could Weaken School Districts' Credit Quality


COVID-19 Battered Global Consumer Discretionary Sectors But Lifted Staples; Recovery Varies By Subsector


History Of U.S. State Ratings


U.S. State Ratings And Outlooks: Current List


COVID-19 Impact: Key Takeaways From Our Articles

New Jersey's $335 Million State Aid Revisions Could Weaken School Districts' Credit Quality

New Jersey's governor released revised fiscal 2021 school aid proposals on May 28, 2020, in response to budgetary pressure at the state level. The revised total for direct aid to K-12 districts is approximately $335 million (or 3.7%) lower than the original budget proposal. Even though the new proposal still marginally increases overall school aid year over year by approximately 0.04%, S&P Global Ratings believes this revision could weaken school districts' credit quality due to the requirement that districts' revenue budgets and tax levies reflect the governor's higher, original March budget proposal. For districts facing negative aid revisions, the likely effect on credit quality will depend on each district's plan to offset the revenue shortfall.

New Jersey school districts are already required under state statute to operate with lower reserves as compared to national peers, and we believe the downward revision could lead to weakened budgetary performance in fiscal 2021 for districts with lower revised aid distributions. Whether districts with lower revised funding have flexibility to reduce or delay spending during fiscal 2021 will differentiate budgetary performance for the year, and this factor is a key rating consideration. As an example, we believe delaying capital projects may be easier to implement midyear than personnel changes. In fiscal 2019, districts in New Jersey experienced similar aid reductions following the budget adoption process. During that fiscal year, we observed that rated districts were generally able to use dedicated reserves, reduce pay-as-you-go capital, and make other in-year adjustments to maintain stable operations and reserves. For fiscal 2019, 44% of negatively affected districts we rate had negative operating results, compared with 37% in the previous fiscal year.

Chart 1


Another factor that mitigates the overall negative effect of the revisions is that most of the districts with lower revised aid for fiscal 2021 will still receive year-over-year aid increases as a result of a change in the funding formula for fiscal 2019. Under the May revised proposal, 97% of the districts that will receive lower revised fiscal 2021 aid will still see an increase from fiscal 2020 of about 3.1% on average. Conversely, among school districts that were already expecting lower year-over-year state aid amounts for fiscal 2021, only 6% had their aid numbers revised even lower. However, even if districts are receiving year-over-year aid increases, they will likely now receive less than what was included in their adopted budgets, and they may face overall revenue shortfalls.

In some instances, we expect net negative operating results could pressure liquidity, which will already be lower than normal because of delayed state aid payments distributed following a district's June 30 fiscal year-end. Uncertainty around when districts will receive upcoming state aid payments due to the state's budgetary pressures and the extension of its fiscal year-end to Sept. 30 further complicate cash-flow planning. The governor's proposal for the extended three-month period also includes deferring school aid payments to October from September. For more information, see "New Jersey’s Revised Fiscal 2021 Budget: A Work In Progress" (published June 15, 2020, on RatingsDirect). Expenditure uncertainty for fiscal 2021 further exacerbates these revenue challenges. Requirements to safely open facilities in the fall in light of COVID-19 have still not been finalized, although up to $400 million of federal CARES Act money may be available for additional COVID-19-related expenditures.

We rate 217 districts with lower revised proposed funding for fiscal 2021. Of those, 24 have revised numbers that are more than 10% below the original proposal. Those issuers are listed below in Table 1.

Rated New Jersey School Districts With Revised State Aid 10% Lower Than Initially Proposed
School district March proposal ($) May revision ($) Difference ($) Difference (%)

Atlantic City, Atlantic County

58,241,381 46,004,321 (12,237,060) (21)

Woodbridge Twp, Middlesex County

53,236,803 45,120,821 (8,115,982) (15)

North Brunswick Twp, Middlesex County

28,417,994 24,346,185 (4,071,809) (14)

Lyndhurst Twp, Bergen County

2,854,691 2,495,595 (359,096) (13)

West Long Branch Boro, Monmouth County

476,540 419,692 (56,848) (12)

Merchantville Boro, Camden County

3,961,048 3,507,011 (454,037) (11)

Northvale Boro, Bergen County

399,714 354,486 (45,228) (11)

North Caldwell Boro, Essex County

543,656 482,683 (60,973) (11)

Clifton City, Passaic County

47,942,561 42,623,995 (5,318,566) (11)

Edison Twp, Middlesex County

27,319,478 24,352,536 (2,966,942) (11)

Verona Boro, Essex County

1,709,112 1,527,455 (181,657) (11)

Carlstadt Boro, Bergen County

434,113 388,297 (45,816) (11)

Madison Boro, Morris County

2,009,002 1,797,085 (211,917) (11)

Bound Brook Boro, Somerset County

18,334,869 16,405,506 (1,929,363) (11)

Maple Shade Twp, Burlington County

13,539,313 12,126,140 (1,413,173) (10)

Secaucus Town, Hudson County

$ 2,190,233 $1,962,869 $ (227,364) (10)

Edgewater Boro, Bergen County

$ 1,585,769 $1,422,903 $ (162,866) (10)

Caldwell-West Caldwell, Essex County

$ 2,149,345 $1,929,030 $ (220,315) (10)

Tenafly Boro, Bergen County

$ 2,895,627 $2,599,146 $ (296,481) (10)

North Arlington Boro, Bergen County

$ 4,413,747 $3,965,101 $ (448,646) (10)

Oradell Boro, Bergen County

$ 560,348 $ 503,537 $ (56,811) (10)

Glen Rock Boro, Bergen County

$ 1,938,760 $1,744,154 $ (194,606) (10)

Livingston Twp, Essex County

$ 5,406,315 $4,864,704 $ (541,611) (10)

Monroe Twp, Middlesex County

$ 6,932,427 $6,238,704 $ (693,723) (10)

We maintain generally high ratings on New Jersey school districts, with credit quality supported by strong economic indicators, an economy that had gradually improved during the last decade, and low district pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) cost requirements due to support by the state for these contributions.

Chart 2


We will examine the likely effects of the school aid revision on our portfolio of rated New Jersey school districts and monitor the following:

  • The level of funding in the state's adopted fiscal 2021 budget,
  • How school districts with revised funding are able to adjust expenditures to maintain budgetary balance, and
  • To what extent the state is able to continue its planned school aid increases in the future.

More broadly, we believe that credit conditions are currently pressured for all U.S. public finance issuers, including school districts nationwide. (See "All U.S. Public Finance Sector Outlooks Are Now Negative," published April 1, 2020). This view partly reflects our expectation that an ongoing economic contraction could increase demand for some public services while also presenting a challenging funding environment. (See "An Already Historic U.S. Downturn Now Looks Even Worse," published April 16, 2020.) New Jersey school districts' strong reliance on municipality-guaranteed property taxes lends some stability, although we believe challenges with state aid will continue to weigh on the sector's credit quality.

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analysts:John Kennedy, New York + 1 (212) 438 2128;
Danielle L Leonardis, New York (1) 212-438-2053;
Secondary Contact:Felix Winnekens, New York + 1 (212) 438 0313;
Research Contributor:Tyler Fitman, Research Contributor, Boston + 657-530-8021;

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, (free of charge), and and (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at

Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: