Engaged (2004)
The term “strong democracy” was coined by political philosopher Benjamin Barber to describe “politics in the participatory mode, where conflict is resolved in the absence of an independent ground through a participatory process of ongoing, proximate self-legislation and the creation of a political community capable of transforming dependent, private individuals into free citizens, and partial and private interests into public goods.” According to Barber, our political life can find its fullest expression at the local or community level. He argues that our political concerns should be broad-based, extending well beyond the narrow focus on taxes and spending that has eviscerated our contemporary understanding of citizenship. Like other social critics, Barber believes that today’s citizen is too often conceptualized as little more than a taxpayer or consumer. Indeed, a more complete understanding of citizenship needs to be reclaimed, one that features all of its attendant rights and obligations.
This section of the report adopts Barber’s understanding of “strong democracy.” It thus rejects the more extreme versions of pluralism in which individuals and groups are portrayed as “utility-maximizers” who aggressively pursue their own short-term interests. Further, it rejects the libertarian view that government is inherently wasteful and that it cannot help but undermine liberty. At the same time, this perspective recognizes that government – especially local government – can be wasteful or even corrupt and that it can fail to engage citizens in the full exercise of their liberties and obligations.
Four sections follow. The first examines the tax burden that local government imposes on citizens. The second focuses on the functions of government; in doing so, it provides a baseline against which local budgets can be examined. In sub-section three, we turn to the nonprofit sector, a key element of Benjamin Barber’s conception of strong democracy. Finally, we focus on citizenship and the concept of civility.
12.1 Tax Burden
Historically, Indiana is not a “high tax” state. According to a report published by the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute in December 2002, “Indiana’s per capita state and local taxes of $2,621 [in 1999] were more than $500 below the average for the [eight industrial states included in its study] and $369 less than the U.S. average ($2,990). The Midwestern states’ average, $2,956, was $335 higher. Indiana’s [relative status] shifted only slightly when income was factored in. Its national rank of 32nd highest per person [with respect to tax burden] dropped to 37th. Indiana’s tax of $104.70 for every $1,000 of income earned is well below the averages for the industrial states ($113.53), the Midwest ($110.77) and the U.S. ($110.42).”
The tax system in Indiana has been significantly overhauled over the course of the last three years. In 1998, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the state’s old property tax system was unconstitutional. This led to the development and implementation of the kind of market-based system that has long been in place in most other states. All properties in the state have now been reassessed under new market-based guidelines that engendered dramatic shifts in the relative property tax burdens borne by various sectors of the community. (In 2002, the General Assembly directed that the reassessment in Lake County be conducted by an external contractor due to perceived irregularities over the course of many years.)
Further, in 2002, the General Assembly also adopted measures designed to improve the competitive position of manufacturing concerns in the state, generally, and Northwest Indiana, more specifically. The state’s corporate gross receipts tax was abolished. The property tax on business inventory was substantially reduced and will be fazed out entirely by 2007. The depreciation floor on certain machinery and equipment was dramatically reduced, which will, in turn, reduce the property tax liabilities of certain manufacturers. To cushion the impacts of these various changes on individual taxpayers, some school expenses were shifted from the property tax to other taxes, most notably the sales tax.
In Northwest Indiana, the property tax has been of particular concern. The local property tax is used to finance a wide variety of services provided by local government, including public education, police and fire protection, libraries, some welfare costs and parks. It consists of three distinct components: the tax levy; the tax base; and the tax rate. The property tax levy represents the amount of funds to be raised. The property tax base represents the assessed value of all real and personal property minus the value of all tax exempt property (e.g., all property used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes). The property tax rate is calculated by dividing the levy by the tax base for all taxable property within the unit. Tax rates are expressed as dollars per $100 of assessed value.
Historically, Northwest Indiana has imposed a high property tax burden on industry. In Lake County, in particular, this has manifested itself in the form of deflated assessments of residential properties and high municipal budgets. This twofold strategy made sense when the steel industry was booming. In fact, this formula was employed in other “rustbelt” communities as well. However, as competitive pressures have increased over the course of the last 20 years, the tax burden on industry has become overwhelming. Indeed, it contributed to the recent bankruptcies of LTV Steel, Bethlehem Steel, and Midwest Steel.
And this, of course, is the rationale for the several tax reforms, both statewide and locally, that have been enacted over the course of the last 3 years. The elimination of the state’s corporate gross receipts tax, a dramatic reduction in the state inventory tax, and a drop in the depreciation floor for some equipment and machinery are all designed to reduce the tax burden on business and industry. Further, the market-based reassessment of residential properties implemented in response to ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court has reestablished a balance that has long been absent in Lake County’s property tax structure.
Dramatic shifts in the relative tax burdens of the commercial and industrial, residential, agricultural and utility sectors of our local economy have resulted from these several changes. The shifts have been most dramatic in Lake County. According to the Indiana State Department of Local Government Finance, the share of the property tax base comprised of residential property owners increased from 32% to 48%. The property tax burden on commercial property owners decreased from 32% to 28%. Industry’s share decreased from 31% to 18%. The property tax burden on utility properties decreased from 6% to 5%. And at 1%, the agriculture sector’s share remained the same. Significantly smaller shifts occurred in LaPorte and Porter Counties.
Although some homeowners – particularly those who live in older homes in Lake County’s urban core – have been hit hard by higher property tax bills, the several reforms described above should contribute to the economic revitalization of the region. Artificially low property tax rates are of limited value in a community in which young adults cannot find work. Additionally, the inter-sector rebalancing of the property tax burden – even in the context of a tax structure that relies less now than in the past on the property tax – is consistent with an economy that is based as much on the Chicago housing market as it is on local and regional business concerns. Finally, the fact that homeowners in Lake County will now be required to bear a greater share of the costs of local government should contribute to greater accountability in local government.
To provide a measure of relief to homeowners, Governor Joe Kernan has proposed a “circuit breaker,” which would ensure that no property tax bill exceeds 2% of the value of an owner-occupied home. (If adopted, units of local government would have to repay a first-year loan from the state over a five-year period. For 2004 tax bills payable in 2005 and in all future years, the amount of relief provided by the 2% cap would have to be absorbed by other taxpayers in the various taxing units in which the recipients of the relief reside.)
12.2 Government Services
This leads to the second element of the twofold strategy that is noted above (i.e., high municipal budgets). It is widely if not universally believed that local government
– particularly local government in Northwest Indiana – is profligate in its spending. This was clearly evident in the debate over the county-option income tax in Lake County in 2001 and, again, in Porter County in 2003. During both of these protracted discussions, it was also clear, however, that few citizens have a solid grasp on the realities of local government finances. A review is thus in order, most importantly to aid individual citizens in analyzing county and municipal budgets and hence the services that local government provides.
Local government is made up of four distinct kinds of entities.
Counties are general purpose governments that provide a wide array of services. The most costly categories of service provided by counties include welfare, highways, police and corrections, financial management and the administration of various courts.
Municipalities are general purpose governments as well. The biggest single expense that cities and towns incur is for sewers. Other important functions include police and fire protection, hospitals, highways and airports.
Township governments are now limited to poor relief, fire protection and property assessment functions.
Finally, school corporations and special districts of various kinds are “single purpose” governments that are charged with delivering a particular service.
In Indiana, these various units of local government provide a broad range of services.
Education. The Census includes elementary and secondary education and libraries in this spending category, with school corporations accounting for 94% of the entities included in this category. Education is the most expensive function of local government. Special districts, including library districts, are significant in this category as well.
Welfare. Local welfare is primarily a county function, with counties accountable for three-quarters of all welfare costs, most notably, “children in need of services.” Townships administer poor relief programs, which account for about 10% of local welfare spending. The remaining services in this category are provided by cities and towns.
Hospitals/Health. Hospitals and health programs are primarily a function of county government. Almost three-quarters of all public spending on hospitals and health is controlled by counties, with hospitals accounting for 95% of this total. Cities and towns also provide some hospital services as do some special districts created to operate hospitals.
Transportation. Most of the spending in this category is dedicated to roads, streets and highways. In Indiana, this function is performed by counties and municipalities. Transportation spending is almost evenly divided between counties and municipalities. Non-highway transportation spending is dedicated primarily to airports.
Public Safety. This category includes police, fire protection, and corrections. Cities and towns spend almost two-thirds of the public money spent in this category. Counties spend a considerable amount as well. They provide police protection through sheriffs departments and corrections services are housed in county jails. Townships provide fire protection to people who live outside of cities or towns, and a few special districts provide fire protection as well.
Environment and Housing. This category includes parks and recreation, environmental protection, natural resource management, community development, and housing programs. Municipalities provide three-quarters of these services. The highest cost is for sewers. Cities and towns also spend more on parks and recreation than do counties. Townships provide some park and recreation services as well. Solid waste management is a county, municipal and special district function in Indiana. Cities are responsible for most housing programs. Special districts are responsible for many of the community development initiatives that are undertaken by local government, primarily through the work of development, planning and zoning agencies.
Administration. This category includes financial management. In counties, these services are provided by the treasurer, the auditor, and the county assessor. Cities and towns also have clerks and budget agencies. Township assessors and trustee-assessors provide services in this category as well. Judicial and legal services are also included in this category. Counties operate courts and pay for the costs of prosecutors and public defenders. Some municipalities have courts as well. Building maintenance is also included in this category.
Other. This category includes interest payments on debt. Bonds are often sold to finance the construction of buildings and other infrastructure.
How then to assess whether local government is spending too much or too little? This question is a proxy – albeit an imperfect one – for a second question: How do we assess whether local government is doing too much or too little?
One can, of course, look at property tax rates. The rates for all units of local government in Lake, LaPorte and Porter Counties follow. In the case of LaPorte County and Porter County, tax rates are displayed on a tax unit by tax unit basis. It is important to note that many of these units of local government overlap, creating distinct tax districts. Because of heightened concerns about the cost of local government in Lake County, the data is combined into tax districts, thus making side-by-side comparisons possible.
| Table 134: Property Tax Rates (2004) | |
|---|---|
| Lake County | % |
| Gary - Calumet Twp - Gary Community Schools | 9.8412 |
| Gary - Calumet Twp - Lake Ridge Schools | 8.8518 |
| Gary - Hobart Twp - River Forest Schools | 7.7651 |
| East Chicago | 7.0866 |
| Whiting | 6.4902 |
| Hammond | 5.2430 |
| Calumet-Gary Sanitary | 4.7537 |
| Hobart - Hobart City Schools - Gary Sanitary | 4.2551 |
| Calumet Twp Balance | 4.2182 |
| Lake Station -Calumet Twp | 4.1910 |
| Griffith - Calumet Twp | 4.1474 |
| Lake Station - Hobart Twp - River Forest Schools | 3.9515 |
| Hobart - Ross Twp | 3.9354 |
| Merrillville - Gary Sanitary | 3.8109 |
| Hobart - Hobart Twp - Hobart City Schools | 3.7196 |
| Hobart-Hobart Twp - River Forest Schools | 3.6966 |
| Crown Point - Ross Twp | 3.6894 |
| Lake Station - Hobart Twp - Lake Station Schools | 3.5668 |
| Lowell - Cedar Creek Twp | 3.4615 |
| Lowell - West Creek Twp | 3.4424 |
| Crown Point - Center Twp | 3.4080 |
| New Chicago | 3.2989 |
| Munster | 3.2898 |
| Merrillville | 3.2754 |
| Griffith - St. John Twp | 3.2063 |
| Schneider | 3.1980 |
| St. John - St. John Twp | 3.1800 |
| Cedar Lake - Center Twp | 3.1621 |
| St. John - Hanover Twp | 3.0742 |
| Dyer | 3.0142 |
| Highland | 3.0142 |
| Schererville | 2.9501 |
| Cedar Lake - Hanover Twp | 2.9122 |
| Ross Twp Balance | 2.8440 |
| Winfield - Winfield Water | 2.8307 |
| Winfield | 2.7214 |
| Cedar Creek | 2.7191 |
| Eagle Creek Twp Balance | 2.6974 |
| West Creek Twp Balance | 2.6674 |
| Center Twp Balance | 2.6486 |
| Winfield Twp Balance | 2.6484 |
| Hobart Twp Balance | 2.6116 |
| St. John - Schererville Water | 2.4944 |
| St. John Twp Balance | 2.4801 |
| Hanover Twp Balance | 2.3740 |
| LaPorte County | % |
Porter County % Valparaiso - Washington Twp 2.9797 Portage City - Westchester Twp 2.7264 Valparaiso (Center) 2.6989 Burns Harbor (Westchester) 2.5683 Portage City Portage Twp 2.5554 Kouts (Pleasant) 2.5518 Porter Town (Westchester) 2.4994 Chesterton - Westchester Twp 2.4396 Chesterton - Liberty Twp 2.3662
Galena Twp
Hudson Twp
Johnson Twp
Kankakee Twp
LaPorte - Kankakee Twp 1
Wills Twp
Michigan City - Coolspring Twp
Michigan City - Michigan Twp
LaPorte - Center Twp
LaPorte - Scipio Twp
LaPorte- Pleasant Twp
LaPorte - Kankakee Twp 2
Kingsford Heights (Union)
LaCrosse Twp
Pottawattamie Park - (Michigan) - MC Sanitary
Trail Creek Corp - Michigan Twp - MC Sanitary
Trail Creek Corp - Coolspring Twp - MC Sanitary
Long Beach Corp (Michigan) - MC Sanitary
Wanatah Corp - Clinton Twp
Pottawattamie Park Corp (Michigan)
Trail Creek Corp - Michigan Twp
Trail Creek Corp - Coolspring Twp
Kingsbury Corp (Washington)
Hanna Twp
New Durham Twp
Coolspring Twp 1 Michigan City Sanitary
Long Beach (Michigan)
Noble Twp
Lincoln Twp
Clinton Twp
Union Twp
Pleasant Twp
Washington Twp
Scipio Twp
Dewey Twp
Michiana Shores Corp Michigan Twp
Center Twp
Michiana Shores Corp Springfield Twp
Coolspring Twp 2
Wanatah - Cass Twp
Coolspring Twp 1
Michigan Twp
Cass Twp
Prairie Twp
NA Chesterton - Jackson Twp 2.3621 NA Hebron (Boone) 2.3248 NA Porter Twp 2.2478 Pleasant Twp 2.2463
NA Beverly Shores (Pines) 2.237
NA Porter Twp West Porter Fire 2.228
NA Washington Twp 2.2018
3.5641
Dune Acres (Westchester) 2.1962
3.5641
Morgan Twp 2.1859
3.1369
Ogden Dunes (Portage) 2.1072
3.1354
Center Twp 1.9853
3.1333
Pines Town (Pines Twp) 1.9669
3.1239
Union Twp 1.9471
2.9383
Westchester Twp 1.8965
2.9217
Boone Twp 1.8705
2.9116
Pine Twp - Duneland Schools 1.8599
2.8305
Liberty Twp 1.8573
2.8303
Jackson Twp 1.8215
2.6399
Pine Twp Michigan City Schools 1.8012
2.6331
Portage Twp 1.7967
2.5828
Source: Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
2.5017 2.5017 2.4789
Comparisons of this type can be misleading since the
2.3589
tax rate is only one of three variables used to calculate
2.3468
property taxes. Again, the levy – or the cost of all services
2.3202
provided in a taxing district which are underwritten by
2.3111
property taxes – and the net assessed value of all property
2.2948
in the taxing district are equally important. In effect, the
2.2852
tax rate is determined by dividing the cost of all property
2.2442
tax-supported services by the taxing district’s net assessed
2.2406
value. Additionally, municipal, township and county
2.2396
governments do not have control over certain expenditures,
2.2148
most notably welfare and education. Finally, cities and
2.1799
larger towns provide some services (e.g., water, sewers,
2.1657
and professional fire fighting) not provided in smaller
2.1613
towns and rural communities. As a result, their rates will
2.1594
be higher simply because they do more things.
2.1563 2.1368
In fact, an analysis that goes beyond tax rates is required
2.1229
to assess government efficiency and effectiveness. A
1.9914
study of this kind is now being conducted by the Center
1.9883
for Sustainable Regional Vitality at Indiana University
1.5922
Northwest, the Indiana Business Research Center and
1.1927
the Local Government Academy. Although the study will
95
not be completed until January 2005, preliminary results pertaining to libraries and schools in Lake County are instructive. They illustrate certain difficulties encountered in assessing government efficiency and effectiveness in the public sector. At the same time, they clearly demonstrate the need for improvement in these categories in some units of local government.
Library Services. A relatively small share – between 2 and 4.3% – of the total property tax bill in Lake County is spent on Library services. Nevertheless, library costs can tell us a lot about the nature of inefficiency and waste in local government. They can also point out some of the difficulties we face in comparing the performances of various units of local government. There are seven independent library systems in Lake County: Crown Point, East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, Lowell, Whiting and the Lake County Library, which provides services to citizens not served by one of the other six districts. Our libraries serve populations with very different needs. Some are poor; others are not. Some have high levels of educational attainment, some low. Some libraries serve large geographical areas; others are relatively compact.
So how should we assess the efficiency and effectiveness of our seven library systems? We can begin by dividing the cost of library services by the number of residents in the library district. That gives us a “per capita cost.” But that is not enough. Per capita cost alone ignores demand for service, community need, service satisfaction and other important measures of performance. A library with ten books that opened for just two hours each week would have a very low “per capita cost,” but few would argue that it can meet the needs of the community.
The International City/County Management Association recommends that we also consider circulation (i.e., the number of books loaned) per visitor and circulation per capita (i.e., the number of books loaned divided by the library district’s population). It is hard to use circulation per visitor in Lake County because some libraries are located in community centers, where all visitors are counted, not just those who use library services. Circulation per capita is a more useful measure, even though data from some libraries may be more valid than data reported by others.
In Lake County, circulation per capita ranges widely, from a low of 2.18 in East Chicago – 237th among the state’s 239 libraries – to a high of 28.05 in Whiting, which ranks third in the Hoosier state. Lowell scored 18th and Gary, Crown Point and Lake County are among the top 100 libraries in the state with respect to per capita circulation.
When we consider just operating expenses (i.e., personnel, materials, supplies, and some equipment), the Whiting Library is the most expensive in the state. On a per capita basis, the East Chicago Library is the second most expensive, and operations in the Gary Library are the 11th most costly in the state. On a per capita basis, operational costs in our four other library systems rank between the 101st and the 172nd most expensive.
Table 135: Tax District Rate by County (2004)
| Operating | ||
|---|---|---|
| Expenditures per | ||
| Capita & Rank in State | Circulation Per Capita | |
| Lake County Libraries | (2002) | & Rank in State (2002) |
| Crown Point | 29.10 (172) | 10.42 (92) |
| East Chicago | 125.22 (2) | 2.18 (237) |
| Gary | 75.30 (11) | 12.58 (63) |
| Hammond | 41.44 (107) | 4.16 (214) |
| Lake County | 35.46 (134) | 10.16 (99) |
| Lowell | 42.04 (101) | 19.87 (18) |
| Whiting | 157.68 (1) | 28.05 (3) |
Source: Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
Personnel costs are particularly interesting. In East Chicago, Whiting and Gary, personnel expenditures account for a significant proportion of these high operating costs. On a per capita basis, the East Chicago Library has the highest personnel costs in the state, Whiting has the second highest and Gary has the 29th highest personnel costs in the state.
These data raise certain questions. The East Chicago Library has the third lowest circulation rate in the state; at the same time, its operating expenditures are the second highest in the state, and its personnel costs are the highest. It may be difficult to justify spending so much
– particularly on personnel – when so few books are checked out to patrons. Further, Whiting enjoys the highest circulation rate in Lake County, but its operating costs are very high as well. Significantly, however, the Whiting Library serves only 5,137 citizens. So, it seems reasonable to ask: Can Whiting continue to support an independent library system when taxes on residential properties have risen so dramatically?
As we noted at the outset, library services make up only a small part of the property tax equation, ranging from a high of 4.32% of the property tax in East Chicago, to 4.12% in Whiting, to 4.10% in Gary, down to a low of 1.96% in Crown Point. But small savings add up. Controlling library costs – particularly personnel costs is important. And savings in operating costs, together with some targeted consolidations, could point the way for other units of local government as well.
Public Schools. Schools account for a significant share of our property tax bill, as much as 50% in some taxing districts. Judging whether or not these dollars are well spent can be challenging. Four sets of data are revealing, however: cost per student, ISTEP scores, student-teacher ratio and overhead expenditures.
On average, school districts statewide spent $8,550 per child over the course of the 2003-2004 school year. Six of the sixteen school districts in Lake County exceeded this average by more than 5 percent: the East Chicago Schools by 32.1% ($11,300), the Lake Ridge Schools by 28% ($11,000), the Whiting Schools by 20.5% ($10,300), the Gary Schools by 19.3% ($10,200), the Hammond Schools by 19.3% ($10,200), and the Griffith Schools by 17.1% ($10,000).
| Table 136: Cost Per Student (2004) | |
|---|---|
| School District | $ |
| East Chicago | 11,300 |
| Lake Ridge | 11,000 |
| Whiting | 10,300 |
| Gary | 10,200 |
| Hammond | 10,200 |
| Griffith | 10,000 |
| Lake Station | 8,700 |
| Merrillville | 8,600 |
| State Average | 8,550 |
| River Forest | 8,500 |
| Munster | 8,500 |
| Crown Point | 8,000 |
| Tri-Creek | 7,900 |
| Highland | 7,800 |
| Lake Central | 7,600 |
| Hanover | 7,300 |
| Hobart | 7,300 |
| Source: Indiana Department of Local Government Finance |
|
“Efficiency” in the classroom means little, however, if students are not learning. In fact, education should be viewed as an investment. We should assess the return on our investment– i.e., our tax dollars – in terms of learning. ISTEP scores – Indiana’s approach to standardized testing
– provide a useful, albeit incomplete, measure of learning. During the 2002-2003 school year, 63.4% of sophomores statewide exceeded the state’s math and English standards. With a pass rate of 78%, Munster led all school districts in the county, followed closely by Lake Central at 76 percent. Five school districts fell well short of the mark, with Gary at 30 percent, East Chicago and Hammond at 37%, the Lake Ridge Schools at 40%, and the Lake Station Schools at 45%.
It is important to note that assessing performance solely on the basis of test scores can be misleading. As is noted in chapter 6, in general, students living in our urban core have fewer family and community resources upon which to draw and greater needs than do their counterparts in mid-and south-Lake County. In Munster, only 75% of adults lack a high school diploma, compared to 39.4% in East Chicago. Only 2.1% of families in the Lake Central Schools live below the federal poverty level; in Gary, 32.1% of all families are poor. Only 14.5% of students in the Crown Point Schools come from single parent households; in Gary, 64.2% of students live in single parent homes. For these reasons, ISTEP scores, alone, are a poor barometer of “education efficiency.”
For this reason, education is best assessed on a school-by-school basis. We can, however, go a bit further than cost per student and ISTEP scores by examining student/ teacher ratios and the amount of money dedicated to classroom instruction versus support and administrative functions (i.e., overhead). All things being equal, low overhead costs tend to indicate “lean” budgets.
During the 2003-2004 school year, school districts statewide reported an average student/teacher ratio of
18.9 to 1. Led by the Crown Point Schools at 23.4 students per teacher, nine school districts in Lake County exceeded this average. Four fell well short, however, including Gary at 17.3 to 1, East Chicago at 17.2 to 1, Lake Station at
17.1 to 1, and Whiting at 16.3 to 1. Further, we found that student/teacher ratios differ little from district to district in the elementary schools. A much higher level of variability was found in the middle and high schools.
| Table 137: Student Per Teacher (2004) | |
|---|---|
| School District | # |
| Crown Point | 23.4 |
| Tri-Creek | 22.9 |
| Highland | 22.3 |
| Hanover | 20.3 |
| Merrillville | 20.3 |
| Hobart | 20.3 |
| Griffith | 19.7 |
| Lake Central | 19.2 |
| River Forest | 18.9 |
| State Average | 18.9 |
| Lake Ridge | 18.8 |
| Hammond | 18.2 |
| Munster | 17.9 |
| Gary | 17.3 |
| East Chicago | 17.2 |
| Lake Station | 17.1 |
| Whiting | 16.3 |
| Source: Indiana Department of Local Government Finance |
|
Administrative Overhead. Finally, it is useful to consider administrative overhead. In general, it is easier to justify low student/teacher ratios in urban schools. Again, education needs are greater in the urban core. It is harder to explain high percentages of overhead costs. Statewide, 87% of all public school employees – calculated as FTE’s – work in the classroom. During the 2003-2004 school year, eight school districts in Lake County exceeded this average, and eight reported lower values. Three school districts assigned significantly lower percentages of their staff resources to the classroom: East Chicago (82.9%), Hammond (82.5%) and Gary (73.9%).
Table 138: Teacher FTE’s as Percent of Total FTE’s (2004)
School District %
| River Forest | 97.4 |
| Hanover | 90.7 |
| Crown Point | 90.1 |
| Lake Central | 89.3 |
| Tri-Creek | 88.6 |
| Griffith | 88.4 |
| Merrillville | 87.5 |
| Highland | 87.3 |
| State Average | 87.0 |
| Munster | 86.7 |
| Whiting | 86.7 |
| Lake Station | 86.6 |
| Hobart | 86.4 |
| Lake Ridge | 85.2 |
| East Chicago | 82.9 |
| Hammond | 82.5 |
| Gary | 73.9 |
Source: Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
So what should we make of these numbers? Although overall costs are higher in some school districts than in others, this alone cannot be used to assess “education efficiency.” A broad range of performance measures, including ISTEP scores, should be considered as well. Additionally, it is important to consider the demographics of the student body. Some students need more attention than others.
Having said this, the data point to needed efficiencies in some school districts. Despite having low student/teacher ratios, overhead costs are high in the Gary, East Chicago and Hammond School Districts. In Gary, in particular, declining enrollment – 30.8% since 1988 – does not appear to have been matched by reductions in overhead costs. Additionally, Whiting is a special case. High costs there appear to be attributable to the School District’s small size rather than to high overhead costs.
Again, examples pertaining to libraries and public schools are presented here to illustrate the kinds of detailed analyses that will be required if we are to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of local government on an ongoing basis. In the long term, three actions will be required: (1) analyses pertaining to other units of local government will need to be developed; (2) data pertaining to LaPorte and Porter County will need to be assessed; and (3) data will need to be gathered and shared on an ongoing basis.
12.3 Philanthropy
Benjamin Barber’s conception of strong democracy focuses on the civil side of life as well as local government. This third sector includes nonprofit entities, community-based organizations of various kinds, and the religious community. Unfortunately, we have very little data that testifies to the strength of this civil sector. However, Lake Area United Way has sponsored a comprehensive study called the “State of Giving Report.” Released in September 2004, it sheds some light on a broad range of issues pertaining to philanthropy and volunteerism Northwest Indiana. The report provides valuable information both to donors and the nonprofit community, and its usefulness will extend beyond Lake County. Key findings include the following: (1) Lake County’s nonprofit sector significantly contributes to quality of life within the community;
(2) local non-profits are experiencing great stress in meeting the needs of the community; (3) resources are needed to increase capacity internally through operational mechanisms and externally through charitable contributions; and, (4) the report recommends a community strategic plan for charitable giving and the establishment of a grantsmanship center to channel additional resources to the non-profit community.
Some broad measures of performance in this regard are now available to us. In 2001, the average charitable deduction claimed on tax returns filed by LaPorte County residents exceeded the averages claimed in either Lake County or Porter County. Calculated as a percentage of discretionary income, however, Lake County residents proved far more generous than their counterparts in LaPorte County or Porter County. On average, households in Lake County dedicated 7.1% of their discretionary income to charity, which includes support for churches, synagogues, and mosques as well as the United Way campaign and other nonprofit causes.
Table 139: Average Charitable Donation in Dollars (2001)
| Lake | LaPorte | Porter | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 2,291 | 2,339 | 2,291 |
| Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy |
|
|
|
Table 140: Percent of Discretionary Income Donated
| to Charity (2001) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Lake | LaPorte | Porter | |
| 2001 | 17.1 | 4.9 | 5.9 |
| Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy |
|
|
|
Funds raised in United Way campaigns can serve as another measure of philanthropy. It must be remembered, however, that not all nonprofit organizations – even among a full listing of human service providers – are served in United Way campaigns. At $12 per capita, giving in Porter County exceeds per capita giving to the United Way in Lake County and LaPorte County.
Table 141: Total Dollars Raised in United Way Campaigns
| (2001) 2001 2000 1990 | Lake 5,100,000 6,000,000 5,600,00 | LaPorte 1,600,000 1,246,019 NA | Porter 1,850,000 2,500,000 1,650,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source: United Way |
|
|
|
Table 142: Per Capital Dollars Raised in United Way
| Campaigns (2002) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Lake | LaPorte | Porter | |
| 2002 | 11 | 10 | 12 |
| Source: United Way |
|
|
|
Again, however, this data is quite limited in scope. We have, for instance, no data pertaining to volunteerism. Yet we know that many individuals are as generous with their time as they are with their discretionary income. The study that has been undertaken by Lake Area United Way should provide a baseline against which the region’s future performance in this regard can be assessed.
12.4 Citizenship and Civility
Citizenship is another social good that is notoriously difficult to measure. It is conceptualized by different individuals and, indeed, by different generations in different ways. However, the turnout of registered voters and – more importantly – the percentage of eligible citizens who bother to vote seem to confirm the widespread belief that our concept of citizenship has become somewhat attenuated, as does the high level of misunderstanding about the functions of local government that was evident in recent debates about the enactment of a county option income tax in Lake County and, again, in Porter County.
To a certain extent, this state of affairs is part of a national trend in which the term “citizenship” has evolved into a synonym for the much narrower terms “taxpayer” and “customer.” However, our abandonment of a more robust conception of citizenship has been accelerated by a disconcerting history of corruption in Lake County. Those who work closely with elected officials and other public employees know that the vast majority of them are unfairly tainted by the illegal and unethical acts of a few. Having said this, it is clear that bold steps will need to be taken to retrieve the confidence of a skeptical and disengaged public.
Table 143: Percent of Turnout of Registered Voters (2002)
| Election | Lake | LaPorte | Porter | Indiana |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 71 | 74 | 85 | 74 |
| 2000 | 55 | 54 | 68 | 55 |
| 1998 | 37 | 45 | 42 | 44 |
| Source: Indiana Secretary of State |
|
|
|
|
Table 144: Percent of Voter Turnout of Citizens Over Age 18
| (2000) | Lake | LaPorte | Porter | Indiana |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 27.2 | 27.2 | 30.1 | 26.4 |
| Source: U.S. Census |
|
|
|
|
Table 145: Number of Ethics Policy Adopted by Local Governments (2004)
Ordinances Sense of Council Resolution
2004 94 Source: Local Government Academy
A reinvigorated concept of citizenship is also part and parcel of broader concept, civility, which political philosopher David Klingwell defines as a basic virtue that is “focused on political conversation. It is a feature of our talk about justice, not our attitude about the results of that conversation. In that sense, [he has] in mind the idea of a vibrant and politically engaged set of conversational practices, all of them governed by a commitment to self-restraint and sensitivity.”
The data suggest that greater civility is required in many of our political discussions in Northwest Indiana, particularly as they pertain to the question of race. Valparaiso University has tracked bias-motivated incidences in Lake and Porter County over the course of several years. (We do not have similar data pertaining to LaPorte County.)
The data are alarming both in terms of the number of reported incidences and in terms of their severity. These kinds of crimes and acts of “in-civility” can no longer be tolerated in a community that aspires to a higher quality of life.
Table 146: Types of Reported Bias Incidents (1990-2003)
| Incident | # |
| Vandalism | 18 |
| Public Demonstrations | 8 |
| Cross Burnings | 12 |
| Harassment | 20 |
| Murder or Attempted Murder | 5 |
| Swastika Graffiti | 19 |
| Source: Valparaiso University |
|
Table 147: Types of Reported Bias Motivated Crimes
| (1990-2003) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Lake | Porter | |
| 2001 | 46 | 26 |
| Source: Valparaiso University |
|
|
Fortunately, several organizations have dedicated themselves to this issue, including the Unity Council of Healthy Communities of LaPorte County, United for a Purpose in Porter County, Valparaiso University, the Race Relations Council of Northwest Indiana and the Catholic Diocese of Gary. With respect to the broader question of civility, we believe that Valparaiso University’s Project on Civic Reflection can play an important role as well.
Grade: B-Trend: Emerging
A grade of “B-” is assigned to this policy domain to recognize the significant progress demonstrated in reengineering the region’s property tax burden over the course of the last 2 years. This follows action at both the state and local levels of government. Additional work is needed to bring the cost of government down. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that our tax burden will not in and of itself preclude the achievement of a higher quality of life that is sustainable over the long term. Our grade of “B-“ also recognizes the potential value of the “State of Giving Report,” as well as the efforts of several organizations to tackle the challenge of race relations in Northwest Indiana. Although a great deal remains to be accomplished in this regard, the very fact that this most critical of concerns is being addressed in so forthright a manner must be viewed as progress.
Goal: We recommend that all units of local government in Northwest Indiana commit themselves to a broad range of public engagement strategies that collectively hold promise both to restore the public’s confidence in the public sector and to expand its capacity to serve.
Actions:The full pursuit of this goal will contribute to the achievement of all three of the Quality of Life Council’s three organizing principles: sustainable economic development; environmental well-being; and social equity. Seven action steps are recommended.
1) We remain somewhat skeptical of calls for government consolidation across a broad range of jurisdictions or services. Consolidation can be helpful if it contributes to reduced costs or improved service. A great deal can be accomplished, however, with inter-local agreements of various kinds and other forms of collaboration. Tax base sharing, for instance, has been suggested in the context of economic development.
2) We recognize that units of government that tax and spend at levels far in excess of the median for their respective counterparts in the region will have to reduce and control their costs to a much greater extent if improved cooperation and, indeed, the consolidation of some services are to be pursued. At the same time, we should keep in mind that units of government that serve the urban core have different cost structures than do units of government that serve suburban and rural populations.
3) Greater transparency in local government will be required if the public’s confidence is to be restored. We recommended that all units of local government that have yet to do so create web pages. Further, budgets should be posted to these web sites together with background information that can aid citizens in conducting various kinds of analyses.
4) All units of local government should develop and adopt robust ethics guidelines. At a minimum, these ordinances or administrative policies should prohibit nepotism, proscribe the solicitation of political contributions from employees, restrict the provision of contractor gratuities, and provide for the appointment of ethics officers at the unit or departmental levels of government. With the encouragement of the Local Government Academy of Northwest Indiana, positive steps have been taken in this regard. Over the course of the last year, nine municipalities in Lake, LaPorte, and Porter Counties have adopted ethics ordinances or “sense of council” motions reflecting commitments to do so.
5) We recognize that ethics ordinances and administrative policies may do little to deter public officials who are intent on defrauding the public. However, this issue has much more to do with public confidence in local government than it does fraud per se. We encourage the newly-established Local Government Academy to continue its work in this regard. Further, we encourage all candidates for public office to adopt this recommendation as a key theme in their election campaigns.
6) Innovative approaches are needed to supplement traditional kinds of public input processes, most notably the public hearing. Few citizens now attend public hearings and most tend not to take notice until they are personally affected. We recommend that other methods be employed as well, including interactive web sites, surveys, and focus groups. Again, the Local Government Academy many be able to make a contribution in this regard.
7) We encourage elected officials at the state and local levels of government to recognize that local and county-level units of government no longer represent the best vehicle for addressing some kinds of public challenges, most notably, economic development, the environment and transportation. Local efforts across these three broad fronts need to be supplemented by a financially independent regional governance structure. We believe that a Council of Governments is required for this purpose. We encourage all public officials to support the evolution of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission into a true Council of Governments.
8) We encourage the state to reorganize the various regional planning entities that now play such an important role in the governance of the region in a geographically consistent fashion. Collaboration is hampered and, at times, crippled by the overlapping jurisdictions that now characterize these various planning bodies. Further, based on their shared interests, we believe that Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties should constitute a coherent region for most purposes.
In the preceding pages, several priorities are identified that could benefit from philanthropy. They include: (1) programs that focus on teenage pregnancy; (2) programs that provide social support to single parents; (3) environmental education; (4) early childhood development; (5) programs that support and encourage the development of healthy families; (6) initiatives designed to help students develop skills in mathematics and the language arts; (7) substance abuse prevention and treatment programs; (8) programs that promise to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect; (9) initiatives that promote the construction of affordable housing; and (10) arts education for children and adolescents. We present these various programs as priorities for giving in Northwest Indiana.
Comments