evidence: Given the importance of local funding, it is not surprising that capital spending has been highest in the districts with the highest property wealth for most of the past two decades (Technical Appendix Figure B3). In most other states, state funding for capital reduces spending gaps between the most and least affluent districts (Biasi, Lafortune, and Schönholzer 2021). However, SFP’s first-come, first-served funding tends to favor large and affluent districts, which are better able to apply quickly for grants (Legislative Analyst’s Office 2015; California State Auditor 2022). [...] Since 1998, the state has allocated more than $42 billion in statewide general obligation bonds to construct and renovate school facilities. The previous school bond (Proposition 51 of 2016) is expected to be exhausted by 2022–23; the governor’s 2022–23 budget proposes $1.3 billion in 2022-23 and $925 million in 2023-24 in one-time funding to support school facility projects through the SFP. The data make clear that since its inception, the SFP has allocated higher levels of funding to wealthier districts with fewer high-need students. Funding gaps among student groups—whether by income, race/ethnicity, or EL status—are apparent, primarily resulting from the modernization program. Most districts that never received SFP funding were rural, while suburban districts received greater funding amounts across SFP programs and were disproportionately represented among the districts receiving the most funding since 1998.