No skincrease here

Another Funds for Learning infogram, delightfully short on text and long on graphs.  The second graph shows the troubling increase in Priority One demand, which reached $2 billion this year.  But I noticed something else: a steady decrease in the share paid by the applicant.  In 2000, the applicant share was 33% of the total; in 2012, it was around 25%.

Why?  I can think of a few possible reasons:

1. Climbing poverty rates: in 2000, 11.3% of U.S. families lived in poverty; in 2011, it was 15.7%.  I've mentioned this before.
2. Applicant sophistication: more applicants are using consultants, some of whom know how to maximize discounts.
3. Applicant abandonment: 20% applicants have thrown up their hands at the ridiculous complexity and secrecy to get a few thousand dollars, and left the program.
4. Entry attractiveness:  Among applicants not participating in the E-Rate in 2000, the higher the discount, the more attractive the program.
5. Incentive inequalities: Let's face it, 90% applicants increase their spending at a much faster clip than 40% applicants, because it costs them next to nothing to upgrade to ridiculous bandwidth.

But I guess we'll never know what really caused the decrease in applicant skin in the game.  Unless FFL can turn it into a graph for us.