Starting from 2005, the responsibilities for funding primary and secondary professional training are now at the regional level, rather than at the federal level. What are the possible consequences of this measure? The authors analyze the experience of 16 federal regions that financed primary professional training (PPT) for approximately 10 years. This analysis has made it possible to arrive at certain conclusions about this process and to arrive at a preliminary estimate of how such a change may affect primary and secondary professional training. The article presents a comparative analysis of the situation in primary professional training in regions where PPT institutions were funded out of the federal or regional budgets. The analysis uses 10 parameters that characterize the scale of the PPT system, its results, its human and material resources, the fulfillment of social functions.