School District Referenda in Indiana

1. School District Referenda in Indiana Terry Spradlin Associate Director for Education Policy September 9, 2010 Indiana Public Schools/University Partnership Mini-Symposium

2. School Referenda • In lieu or in addition to budget cuts, some school corporations are pursuing General Fund or construction referenda. • 50% of referenda in the Indianapolis metropolitan area have passed while only 38% outside the metro area have passed.

3. General Fund Referenda • 2/3 of General Fund referenda occurred in the Indianapolis metro area. • 60% of General Fund referenda have passed regardless of being in or out of the metro area.

4. Construction Referenda • 2/3 of construction referenda occurred outside the Indianapolis metro area. • 38% and 32% of construction referenda passed inside and outside of the metro area, respectively.

5. Analysis of All Referenda • As schools deal with budgetary issues, General Fund referenda have increased in occurrence to prevent laying off teachers and maintain programs. • Passage rates and input from superintendents who oversaw referenda on May 4, 2010 indicate that voters were less likely to approve referenda seen as “wants” instead “needs.” • Construction projects are commonly seen as “wants” by voters, explaining their lower passage rates.

6. Analysis of May 4, 2010 Referenda • On average, construction referenda requested a higher tax rate increase per $100 assessed valuation than General Fund referenda ($0.31 vs. $0.26). • The total amount requested was $179.7 million for construction referenda and $33.6 million annually ($235.2 for seven years) for General Fund referenda. • Of all May 4, 2010 referenda, approved referenda had an average tax rate increase of $0.27 compared to $0.30 for defeated referenda. • Despite these trends, other factors likely supersede the cost and requested tax increase.

7. Factors in May 4, 2010 Referenda • Construction referenda seen as “wants” saw less approval than General Fund referenda seen as “needs.” • Opposition from farmers who have a greater property tax burden than homeowners (2% vs. 1%) observed as 7 of 8 referenda in rural areas were defeated. • Cost and rate increase appear to be less of a factor considering that the difference in tax rate increases requested between urban/suburban and rural school corporations was minor ($0.27 vs. $0.29).

8. Factors in May 4, 2010 Referenda • The most common factor cited by superintendents was community support and clear communication with the community. • One superintendent cited attending numerous large-group and small-group community forums and meetings to communicate the need for a referendum. • Another superintendent cited hiring a political strategist to help with a campaign.

9. Superintendent Input on May 4, 2010 Referenda • The following table summarizes input on approved referenda, noting common responses on the purpose of referenda funds and to what their success was attributed (Of 7 superintendents overseeing 8 approved referenda, only 6 provided input):

10. Superintendent Input on May 4, 2010 Referenda • The following table summarizes input on defeated referenda, noting common responses on the purpose of referenda funds and to what their success was attributed (From 7 superintendents overseeing 8 defeated referenda):

11. Superintendent Input on May 4, 2010 Referenda • The following table summarizes input on defeated referenda, noting common responses on what superintendents would change if they pursued another referendum (Of 7 superintendents overseeing 8 defeated referenda, 5 responded):

12. Superintendent Input on Campaigning • In July/August 2010, the superintendents of the May 4, 2010 referenda we again contacted regarding aspects of campaigning for a referendum. • Of the 14 superintendents, 7 have responded (5 of approved referenda, 2 of defeated referenda). • Of the approved referenda, 4 of 5 had assistance from a PR specialist or consultant and all 5 had a campaign plan. • Of defeated referenda, neither had the involvement of a PR firm or specialist and only 1 had a formal campaign plan.

13. Superintendent Input on Campaigning

14. Superintendent Input on Campaigning • 6 of 7 superintendents said that the formal campaign plan was a significant factor in their referendum’s outcome. • These superintendents cited personal communication campaign strategies (community meetings, phone calls, door-to-door meetings, social networking, etc.) as the most important. • In the one corporation without a formal plan, the superintendent cited the need for more meetings and communication to get the facts out.

15. Superintendent Input on Fundraising for Campaign Activities • Only 3 corporations conducted formal fundraising to fund campaign activities. Fundraising activities consisted of soliciting donations from the community, teachers, and staff. • In the remaining corporations, funds for campaign activities came from anonymous donations and fundraising from parents’ groups.

16. Superintendent Comments on Campaigning • "Be constantly visible, transparent, and go into the community, do not expect the community to come to you.” • "The referendum campaign became the most important purpose (job) of the superintendent. This was a new, and somewhat uncomfortable, role.” • "Using data to get supporters to the polls is the most important aspect of our referendum campaign.” • "Communication and open discussion was most effective."

17. 2010 Superintendent Survey • In the summer of 2010, CEEP, in conjunction with IAPSS and ISBA conducted a survey of superintendents on school corporation financial management issues. • Questions 4 and 5 of the survey asked about the intentions of school corporations in pursuing a referendum in the general election. • Of respondents, 9 replied they were pursuing a General Fund referendum (Q4, n=204) • Only 2 respondents said they were pursuing a construction referendum (Q5, n=204)

18. General Fund Referenda, Fall 2010 • School corporations pursuing a General Fund referendum in the fall 2010 General Election include: • North Adams Community Schools • East Allen County Schools • Brown County School Corporation • Westfield-Washington Schools • Mt. Vernon Community School Corporation • Whitko Community School Corporation • Monroe County Community School Corporation • Cannelton City Schools • Duneland School Corporation

19. General Fund Referenda, Fall 2010 • The requested property tax increase per $100 assessed valuation ranged from $0.01 to $0.41. Proposed Increase in Property Tax Rate/$100 of Corporations Pursuing November 2010 General Referendum Number of School Corporations

20. General Fund Referenda, Fall 2010 • The expected amount of funds generated (per year) ranged from $114,000 to $7.5 million.

21. Construction Referenda, Fall 2010 • The two school corporations pursuing a construction referendum this fall include: • Randolph Central School Corporation • Tell City-Troy Township School Corporation

22. Other Fall 2010 Referenda • In addition to those referenda mentioned, 4 more school corporations will be pursuing a referendum in the 2010 General Election. • For General Fund referenda: • Center Grove Community School Corporation • Community School Corporation of Southern Hancock County • For construction referenda: • Lebanon Schools • Hamilton Southeastern

23. Legal Citations Indiana Code pertaining to school construction referenda: IND CODE § 6-1.1-20 (particularly § 6-1.1-20-3.5 and § 6-1.1-20-3.6) Indiana Code pertaining to General Fund referenda: IND CODE § 20-46-1

24. CEEP Contact Information Terry E. Spradlin, MPA Associate Director for Education Policy 1900 East Tenth Street Bloomington, Indiana 47406-7512 812-855-4438 Fax: 812-856-5890 http://ceep.indiana.edu