Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T

8/8/2019 Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/claremont-usd-survey-report-10-draft-1t 1/72



THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



i Claremont Unified School District True North Research, Inc. © 2010

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiList of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Testing Two Alternatives: Parcel Tax & Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Initial Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Alternative Parcel Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Question 1: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Initial Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Question 2: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Question 2: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Support by Measure Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Question 3: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Tax Threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Price Sensitivity by Initial Support for Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Quality of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Question 5: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Need for Renovated & Upgraded Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Question 6: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Question 7: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Item Ratings by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Question 8: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



ii Claremont Unified School District True North Research, Inc. © 2010

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Question 10: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Question 11: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Question 11: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Alternative Parcel Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Question 12: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Split-Sample Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Questionnaires & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57



iii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Claremont Unified School District True North Research, Inc. © 2010

L I S T O F T A B L E S

Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Table 2 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . 14Table 3 Top Programs & Projects by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Table 4 Top Programs & Projects by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . 25Table 5 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 6 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 28Table 7 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Table 8 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . 31Table 9 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Table 10 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . 34Table 11 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Table 12 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 38Table 13 Movement Between Initial and Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Table 14 Movement Between Initial and Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Table 15 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42



g

iv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Claremont Unified School District True North Research, Inc. © 2010

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1 Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Figure 2 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Figure 3 Reasons for Not Supporting Bond Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 4 Reason for Not Supporting Parcel Tax Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Figure 5 Tax Threshold: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 6 Tax Threshold: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Figure 7 Tax Threshold by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 8 Quality of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 9 Quality of Education by District Child in Hsld, Family Member Employed in

Education & Years in Claremont Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 10 Quality of Education by Position at Initial Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 11 District’s Need for Additional Money. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 12 District’s Need for Additional Money by District Child in Hsld, Family Member

Employed in Education & Years in Claremont Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Figure 13 District’s Need for Additional Money by Position at Initial Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 14 Programs & Projects: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 15 Programs & Projects: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 16 Positive Arguments: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 17 Positive Arguments: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 18 Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Figure 19 Negative Arguments: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Figure 20 Negative Arguments: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Figure 21 Final Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 22 Final Ballot Test at $99 Per Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Figure 23 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45



True North Research, Inc. © 2010 1

Claremont Unified School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Located in Los Angeles County, the Claremont Unified School District serves approximately

6,820 students in its K-12 program and additional students in its extensive Adult School pro-

gram. The District currently operates seven elementary schools, an intermediate school, a com-

prehensive high school, as well as a community day school, continuation school, and a school

for the orthopedically handicapped. The District’s mission is to provide an educational climatethat promotes high academic achievement, fosters responsibility, self reliance and creativity, and

enhances the personal, ethical, civic and cultural development of all students.

Although the District has performed exceptionally well to date given the limited funding it

receives from the State, the economic recession and draconian State budget cuts threaten to

undermine the District’s ability to maintain an outstanding educational environment. The loss of

millions of dollars in State funding will force teacher layoffs, class size increases, and deep cuts

to educational programs.

The District also has extensive needs with respect to school facilities. In 2000, the District asked

voters for assistance in funding needed repairs and renovations to school facilities by passing ageneral obligation bond, Measure Y. In addition to the $48 million raised by Measure Y, the Dis-

trict has been able to leverage additional state matching funds and make use of other District

resources. Despite these substantial investments, however, facility renovations and improve-

ments remain for which the District does not have a funding source.

To help close the funding gaps noted above, the District will need the financial support of the

communities it serves through the passage of a local revenue measure.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an

unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters’ interest in supporting a local revenue mea-

sure to partially close the funding gaps noted above. Additionally, should the District decide tomove forward with a revenue measure, the survey data provides guidance as to how to structure

a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs.

Specifically, the study was designed to:

• Gauge current, baseline support for a local revenue measure to fund school programs and/or facility needs

• Identify the tax rate that the community is willing to support

• Identify the types of services and facility improvements that voters are most interested infunding, should the measure pass

• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed tax measure to gaugehow information affects support for the measure, and

• Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of informationthey will likely be exposed to during the election cycle.

It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often some-

what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim-

ited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and

feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the elec-





North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of

areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational develop-

ment, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public

information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 500 survey

research studies for public agencies, including more than 200 revenue measure feasibility stud-ies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, more

than 90% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to

over $19 billion in successful local revenue measures.





J U S T T H E F A C T S

The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the surveys. For the reader’s

convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of

this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the

appropriate report section.

IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES

• When presented with a list of specific issues and asked to rate the importance of each, main-taining the quality of education in our local schools received the highest percentage of respondents indicating that the issue was either extremely or very important (90%), followedby maintaining local property values (72%), and protecting the environment (70%). Prevent-ing local tax increases was rated much lower in importance than maintaining the quality of education (50% compared with 90%).

INITIAL BALLOT TESTS

• Bond Version: With only the information provided in the ballot language, 59% of respon-dents indicated they would definitely or probably support the proposed $145 million bondmeasure. Approximately 33% said they would oppose the bond measure at this point in thesurvey, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.

• Those who opposed the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to cite taxesalready being too high (21%), perceived mismanagement of funds/wasteful spending by theDistrict (19%), or a reference to a past measure that was ineffective (13%) as the reason fortheir opposition.

• Parcel Tax Version: With only the information provided in the ballot language, 66% of vot-ers indicated they would support a parcel tax of up to $139 per year. Approximately 30%stated that they would oppose the parcel tax measure at this point in the survey, whereas 4%were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.

• Those who opposed the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to citetaxes already being too high (24%), followed by a belief that the District should live within itsmeans (16%), has issues other than money to address (15%), or has mismanaged/wastedfunds (13%) as the reason for their opposition.

TAX THRESHOLD

• Bond Version: Support for the bond measure varied substantially according to the proposedtax rate. At the highest tax rate tested ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation) 54% of likelyNovember 2010 voters surveyed indicated they would vote in favor of the measure. Incre-mental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea-

sure, with 63% of those surveyed indicating they would support the proposed bond measureat an annual tax rate of $25 per $100,000 assessed valuation.

• Parcel Tax Version: Support for the parcel tax also varied by the proposed rate. Whenfocused on the tax rate, support at the highest tax rate tested ($139 per parcel per year) wasfound among 60% of likely November 2010 voters. Incremental reductions in the tax rateresulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 66% of those surveyedindicating they would support the parcel tax measure at an annual tax rate of $79 per parcelper year.





RELATED ATTITUDES

• When asked to rate the overall quality of education provided in the Claremont Unified SchoolDistrict, more than three-quarters (78%) rated the quality of education as excellent (39%) orgood (39%), 9% indicated it is fair, and less than 2% described it as poor or very poor. Anadditional 11% were unsure or declined to provide their opinion.

• Overall, 39% of voters perceived that the District has a great need for additional money, anda similar percentage (36%) felt that the District’s need for additional money was moderate.Approximately 15% perceived that the District has little (8%) or no need (7%) for additionalmoney, and 10% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.

PROGRAMS & PROJECTS

• Bond Version: Overall, the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondentsfor the bond measure was removing hazardous materials from school sites like lead andasbestos (80% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by upgrading classroom computersand technology (78%), and repairing or replacing old, worn-out roofs, plumbing, lighting,and electrical systems (77%).

• Parcel Tax Version: The item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents forthe parcel tax measure was providing advanced programs in math, science and technology(90% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by attracting and retaining the best qualifiedteachers (89%), keeping school libraries open (88%), and maintaining school safety and secu-rity personnel (87%).

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

When presented with arguments in favor of the measures, voters found the following arguments

to be the most persuasive:

Bond Version

• Good schools help protect and improve local property values.

• All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.

• This measure will ensure that students have access to the education and technologies they need to be prepared for the jobs of the future.

Parcel Tax Version

• Good schools help protect and improve local property values.

• If we want our kids to be prepared to succeed in the new global economy, they need to havea high quality education—including advanced courses in math, science and technology.

• All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.





INTERIM BALLOT TESTS

• Bond Version: After being presented with programs and projects that could be funded aswell as arguments in favor of the bond measure, overall support for the measure amonglikely November 2010 voters climbed by 4% to 63%, with 32% of respondents opposed to themeasure and an additional 6% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

• Parcel Tax Version: After being presented with programs and projects that could be fundedas well as arguments in favor of the parcel tax measure, overall support for the parcel taxincreased by 2% to 68%, with 27% of respondents opposed to the measure, and 5% unsure orunwilling to state their vote choice.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

Of the arguments in opposition to the measures, voters found the following arguments to be the

most persuasive:

Bond Version

• People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes.

• The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised.

• Experts say that raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more.

Parcel Tax Version

• People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes.

• The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised.

• The District needs to live within its means—just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they would not have to raise taxes.

FINAL BALLOT TESTS

• Bond Version: After being presented with projects that could be funded by the measure,possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for thebond measure was found among 60% of voters, with 35% opposed to the measure and 5%unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

• Parcel Tax Version: After being presented with projects that could be funded by the mea-sure, possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for

the parcel tax cooled down to 64%, with 31% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure orunwilling to state their vote choice.

ALTERNATIVE PARCEL TAX RATE

• In addition to the 64% of voters who said they would support the $139 parcel tax at the FinalBallot Test, 4% indicated they would support the measure if the tax increase were instead$99 per parcel, which brings the overall support for the measure at $96 per parcel toapproximately 68%.





C O N C L U S I O N S

The bulk of this report is devoted to conveying the details of the study findings. In this section,

however, we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of

the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are

based on True North’s and TBWB’s interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective

experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.

Should the Claremont Unified School District proceed with plans to place a revenue measure before voters inNovember 2010?

Yes. The vast majority of voters in the District consider maintaining the

quality of education in public schools to be the most important issue fac-

ing residents—even more important than improving public safety, pro-

tecting the environment, reducing traffic congestion, and preventing

local tax increases. The results of this feasibility study suggest that, if

packaged appropriately and combined with a broad-based and well-

orchestrated public education effort, a revenue measure to help fund

school services, programs and facilities has a good chance of being sup-

ported by the necessary proportion of voters.

Having recommended that the District move forward, it is important to

note that this recommendation to take the next steps toward placing a

measure on the ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions.

Indeed, although the results are promising, all tax measures must over-

come challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no

exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and

the next steps that True North and TBWB recommend.

Which funding mechanism should be selected

for the revenue measure?

One of the objectives of the study was to determine how support for a

local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial

mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obligation bond. Althoughthe research suggests that both types of measures are potentially feasi-

ble, the results clearly indicate that a bond is a less risky option for the

November 2010 ballot.

The natural level of support among likely November voters for a $145

million bond measure was 59%, which is 4% above the 55% threshold

required for passage of a Prop 39 bond. Moreover, once voters were

exposed to positive messages about the bond support increased to 63%

and was relatively resistant to negative messages.

Although the natural level of support for a parcel tax was somewhathigher at 66%, the required threshold for passing a parcel tax is also

higher (two-thirds supermajority). In contrast to the patterns found with

the bond, voters did not respond as strongly to positive messages about

the parcel tax (increasing their support by just 2%), and the negative

messages had a larger impact. The result was that support for a $139

parcel tax declined somewhat over the course of the interview and at 64%





How might a public information campaignaffect support for theproposed measure?

As noted in the body of this report, individuals’ opinions about revenue

measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information

presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition

to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this

study was to explore how the introduction of additional information

about the measure may affect voters’ opinions about the measure.

It is clear from the survey results that voters’ opinions about the pro-

posed measures are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of

information that they have about the measures. Information about the

specific services and facilities that could be funded by the measures, as

well as arguments in favor of the measures, were found by many voters

to be compelling reasons to support the measures. Moreover, this infor-

mation played an important role in preventing a substantial erosion of

support for the measures once respondents were exposed to the types

of opposition arguments they will likely encounter during an election

cycle.

Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the

measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized campaign to

that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits

that it will bring.

How might the economic or political climate alter support for the measure?

An important component of any ballot measure’s potential for success is

the economic and political climate surrounding the election. Concerns

about the housing market, an unstable stock market, job losses, and the

recession have done little to raise consumer confidence—which has yet

to rebound substantially from all-time lows reached last year. Together

with the state of the economy, lingering concerns about the ongoing war

in Iraq and the State budget crisis combine to create an economic and

political climate that is not as favorable to revenue measures as it has

been in prior years.

The results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be

viewed in light of the current times. Indeed, the results for the proposed

measures are reasonably strong despite the general economic malaise,

which speaks volumes about the value that Claremont residents place on

maintaining the quality of local schools. Nevertheless, it is important to

keep in mind that this poll is a snapshot in time. Should the economyand/or political climate change in ways that would be more favorable,

support for the measure—and the potential effectiveness of a positive

education campaign—could increase considerably. Conversely, negative

economic and/or political developments, especially at the local level,

could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this

study.



p



I M P O R T A N C E O F I S S U E S

The first substantive question of the survey presented respondents with several issues facing

residents in the District and asked them to rate the importance of each issue. Because the same

response scale was used for each issue, the results provide an insight into how important each

issue is on a scale of importance as well as how each issue ranks in importance relative to the

other issues tested. To avoid a systematic position bias, the order in which the issues were readto respondents was randomized for each respondent.

Figure 1 presents each issue tested, as well as the importance assigned to each issue by survey

participants, sorted by order of importance.2 Overall, the most important issue was maintaining

the quality of education in our local schools (90% extremely or very important), followed by

maintaining local property values (72%), and protecting the environment (70%). Given the pur-

pose of this study, it is instructive to note that preventing local tax increases was rated much

lower in importance than maintaining the quality of education (50% compared with 90%).

Question 1: Both Versions To begin, I'm going to read a list of issues facing your community

and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.

FIGURE 1 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES

2. Issues were ranked based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the issue was either

extremely important or very important.

8.2

20.7

20.7

20.2

12.9

29.5

25.4

50.1

24.3

29.4

37.3

42.6

55.2

40.5

46.6

39.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Reducing traffic congestion

Preventing local tax increases

Making Claremont a green, sustainable co mmunity

Improving public safety

Maintaining local streets and roads

Protecting t he environment

Maintaining local property values

Maintaining quality of education in our local public schools

Q 1 a

Q 1 d

Q 1 h

Q 1 f

Q 1 c

Q 1 g

Q 1 e

Q 1 b

% Respondents

Extre me ly important Very important





FIGURE 2 INITIAL BALLOT TEST

SUPPORT BY MEASURE TYPE Figure 2 presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test for

both the bond and parcel tax measures. Overall, 59% of respondents indicated that they would

definitely or probably support a $145 million bond measure that would repair and renovate out-dated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings, improve fire, safety and security systems,

remove hazardous materials like lead and asbestos, upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, comput-

ers and instructional technology, and provide general fund relief to attract and retain qualified

teachers. Approximately 33% stated that they would oppose the bond measure at this point in

the survey, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The level of support

recorded for the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 4% above the 55%

threshold required for passage of a Prop 39 bond in California.

Support for the parcel tax measure was somewhat stronger, although the required threshold for

passing a parcel tax measure is also higher. Overall, 66% of voters initially indicated they would

support a parcel tax of up to $139 per year to protect the quality of education and reduce theimpact of State budget cuts at our local schools, attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-

selors and school security personnel, maintain small class sizes, and continue funding advanced

academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement.

Approximately 30% stated that they would oppose the parcel tax measure at this point in the sur-

vey, whereas 4% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The level of support

recorded for the parcel tax at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 1% below the two-thirds

threshold required for passage of a special tax in California.

43.4

22.5

22.2

12.2

9.2

20.7

7.84.4

36.0

20.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bond Parcel Tax

Initial Ballot Test Version

% R e s p o n d e n t s

Refused

Not sure

Definitely no

Probably no

Probably yes

Definitely yes





SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Tables 1 and 2 show how support at

the Initial Ballot Test for the bond and parcel tax measures, respectively, varied by key demo-

graphic traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the

likely November 2010 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. When compared with

their respective counterparts, those who have lived in Claremont less than five years, voters who

have a family connection to a career in education, females, Democrats, and those who are likely

to participate in a vote-by-mail special election were consistently the most likely to support a

local revenue measure—be it a bond or a parcel tax.

TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

Approx mate %

of Voter

Universe

% Probably or

Definitely Yes % Not sure

Overall 100 58.5 7.8

Less than 5 10 73.8 3.3

5 to 9 19 56.4 9.7

10 to 14 15 62.3 7.4

15 or more 56 55.6 8.1

Current 28 54.5 19.8Past 38 56.4 5.2

Future 8 65.7 0.0

Never 26 63.4 3.1

Yes 45 66.9 5.8

No 55 51.0 9.6

Male 45 52.4 5.6

Female 55 63.7 9.7

18 to 29 9 73.5 7.330 to 39 8 47.1 0.040 to 49 19 46.8 14.050 to 64 35 56.8 5.6

65 or older 30 66.8 8.6

Democrat 49 74.8 3.8

Republican 33 35.1 11.8

Other / DTS 18 60.7 10.6

Single dem 20 74.5 1.3

Dual dem 20 73.4 7.7

Single rep 9 27.7 13.3Dual rep 15 36.3 12.6Other 15 59.1 10.8

Mixed 22 56.7 6.4

2010 to 2005 32 68.5 7.5

2004 to 2001 22 54.9 9.7

2000 to 1997 16 61.7 5.4

1996 to 1990 12 41.9 6.4

Before 1990 19 54.9 8.8

Yes 76 54.8 8.1

No 24 71.3 6.8

Yes 25 59.0 9.3No 75 58.4 7.4

Yes 63 58.9 7.2

No 37 57.9 8.8

Yes 45 62.7 7.4

No 55 55.2 8.1

Yes 83 58.4 7.6

No 17 59.0 9.0Likely Nov 2010 Voter

Registration Year

Homeowner on Voter File

Likely to Vote by Mail

Likely June 2010 Voter

Age

Party

Household Party Type

Likely 2010 Special Mail

Voter

Years in Claremont Area

(QD1)

District Child in Hsld

(QD3,4,5)

Family Member Employed

in Education (QD6)

Gender





TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure at Ques-

tion 2 were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 3

was asked in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any reason thatcame to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North

later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3

for the bond, Figure 4 for the parcel tax. The most frequently-mentioned reasons for opposing

the bond were taxes already being too high (21%), perceived mismanagement of funds/wasteful

spending by the District (19%), or a reference to a past measure that was ineffective (13%). The

most frequently-mentioned reason for opposing the parcel tax was also the concern that taxes

are already too high (24%), followed by a belief that the District should live within its means

(16%), has issues other than money to address (15%), or has mismanaged/wasted funds (13%).

Approx mate %

of Voter

Universe

% Probably or

Definitely Yes % Not sure

Overall 100 65.6 4.4

Less than 5 10 82.8 0.0

5 to 9 19 64.9 5.4

10 to 14 15 60.5 3.115 or more 56 64.9 4.7Current 28 73.1 5.7Past 38 63.6 1.7

Future 8 49.6 2.4

Never 26 65.7 5.6

Yes 45 76.0 2.7

No 55 58.8 5.2

Male 45 62.9 2.6

Female 55 67.9 5.8

18 to 29 9 31.2 18.230 to 39 8 69.2 0.040 to 49 19 71.9 2.850 to 64 35 61.3 3.4

65 or older 30 74.9 4.0

Democrat 49 77.3 1.7

Republican 33 49.8 8.4

Other / DTS 18 61.8 4.6

Single dem 20 84.0 4.0

Dual dem 20 80.1 0.0

Single rep 9 54.2 13.5Dual rep 15 45.7 4.4Other 15 67.0 5.7

Mixed 22 51.9 2.8

2010 to 2005 32 67.6 7.6

2004 to 2001 22 63.2 1.4

2000 to 1997 16 67.5 0.0

1996 to 1990 12 72.5 4.8

Before 1990 19 58.2 5.2

Yes 76 65.3 2.7No 24 66.7 9.1Yes 25 64.8 2.9No 75 66.0 4.9

Yes 63 65.9 3.7

No 37 65.2 5.4

Yes 45 69.7 1.9

No 55 62.2 6.5

Yes 83 63.8 4.2

No 17 75.0 5.3Likely Nov 2010 Voter





Voter

Age

Party


Registration Year


(QD1)


(QD3,4,5)


in Education (QD6)

Gender





Question 3: Both Versions Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school

measure I just described?

FIGURE 3 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING BOND MEASURE

FIGURE 4 REASON FOR NOT SUPPORTING PARCEL TAX MEASURE

1.5

1.8

2.0

2.5

3.3

3.7

6.3

7.9

8.7

10.1

12.8

19.4

21.0

9.4

13.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Should find other funding sources

Maintain schools as they are now

District has issues other than lack of money

Teacher, administrator salaries too high

District already has sufficient money

No particular reason

District should live within budget

Do not support bonds

Local tax dollars should be spent elsewhere

Do not have children in District

Cost of measure is too high

Need more information

Ineffective similar measures in pastMismanagement o f funds / Wasteful spending

Taxes already too high

% Respondents Who Do Not Support Bond Measure

0.6

1.7

2.0

3.0

3.3

4.9

5.5

5.8

6.6

7.9

13.2

15.8

24.2

14.7

7.2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Refused

Maintain schools as they are now

Poor quality of teaching, staff

Cost of measure is too high

No particular reason

Teacher, administrator salaries too high

Should find other funding sources

District already has sufficient money

Ineffective similar measures in past

Do not have children in District

Need more information

Mismanagement o f funds / Wasteful spending

District has issues other than lack of money

District should live within budget

Taxes already too high

% Respondents Who Do Not Support Parcel Tax Measure





T A X T H R E S H O L D

Naturally, voter support for a revenue measure is often contingent on the cost of the measure.

The higher the tax rate, all other things being equal, the less likely a voter is to support the mea-

sure. One of the goals of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the tax rate

can be expected to have on voter support for the proposed revenue measures.

Question 4 was designed to do just that. Respondents were first instructed that the measure

would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property

owners in the school district, but that the amount to be charged had not yet been determined.

They were then presented with the highest tax rate ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation for the

bond; $139 per year per property for the parcel tax) and asked if they would support the pro-

posed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked

whether they would support the measure at the next lowest tax rate. The three tax rates tested

and the percentage of respondents who indicated they would vote in favor of the measure at

each rate are shown in Figure 5 for the bond, Figure 6 for the parcel tax.

Question 4: Bond Version The amount each home owner will pay if the school bond passes depends on the assessed value of their home, not the current market value of the home. If you

heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 dollars of

assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the school bond measure?

FIGURE 5 TAX THRESHOLD: BOND

The most obvious pattern revealed in both figures is that voters are somewhat price sensitive

when it comes to their support for the proposed measure. When their attention is focused on the

tax rate, at the highest tax rate tested for the bond ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation) 54%

of likely November 2010 voters surveyed indicated they would vote in favor of the measure.

Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea-

18.8

21.5

22.6

6.4

8.3

11.0

25.4

29.0

29.0

3.9

4.5

4.631.5

44.5

35.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

$25 per $100K

$35 per $100K

$45 per $100K

% Bond Version Respondents

Definitely y es Pro bably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure Refused

54%

57%

40%

32%63%

37%





sure, with 63% of those surveyed indicating they would support the proposed bond measure at

an annual tax rate of $25 per $100,000 assessed valuation.

The parcel tax results showed similar sensitivity. The ballot language tested in Question 2 men-

tioned that the tax rate would be up to $139 per year, thus leaving open the possibility of it

being a lower amount. When Question 4 focused the respondent’s attention on the tax rate and

clarified that the rate would be a specific amount, support at the highest tax rate tested ($139per parcel per year) was found among 60% of likely November 2010 voters. Incremental reduc-

tions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 66% of

those surveyed indicating they would support the parcel tax measure at an annual tax rate of

$79 per parcel per year.

Question 4: Parcel Tax Version The measure I just described would raise money through

annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners in the school district.

However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard

that your household would pay ______ per year for each property that you own in the district,

would you vote yes or no on the measure?

FIGURE 6 TAX THRESHOLD: PARCEL TAX

13.5

17.1

19.1

7.4

7.9

9.4

23.7

23.5

25.4

2.8

3.1

4.3

47.8

52.3

40.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

$79 per year

$99 per year

$139 per year

% Parcel Tax Version Respondents

Definite ly y es Probably yes Probably no Defin itely no Not sure Re fused

60%

65%

35%

31%66%

31%





PRICE SENSITIVITY BY INITIAL SUPPORT FOR BOND Because general obligation

bond ballot language references the aggregate bond amount, but not the individual tax rate, it is

useful to examine how the additional tax rate information presented in Question 4 affected sup-

port for the bond measure according to respondents’ positions at the Initial Ballot Test. What

Figure 7 makes clear is that initial supporters, initial opponents, and those who were unsure at

the Initial Ballot Test were all price sensitive with respect to the proposed bond measure. At a

rate of $45 per $100,000 assessed valuation, for example, just 80% of those who were initially

supportive of the bond indicated that they would continue to support the measure. Conversely,

at the lowest tax rate tested ($25 per $100,000 assessed valuation), 22% of those initially

opposed to the measure and 41% of those who were unsure switched to a supportive position.

FIGURE 7 TAX THRESHOLD BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

34

22

41

80

13

38

84

16

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Defintely or probably yes Definite ly or probably no Not sure

Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2)

% U U T V

e r s i o n R e s p o n d e n t s T h a t S a i d D e

f i n i t e l

o r P r o b a b l y Y e s a t I n i t i a l B a l l o t T e s

t

$45 per $100K $35 per $100K $25 per $100K





R E L A T E D A T T I T U D E S

To understand why voters take the positions they do with respect to a revenue measure, it is

often instructive to look beyond the specifics of the measure itself. With respect to the proposed

measure, how do residents perceive the quality of education being provided by the District? And

do voters sense that the District needs additional money?

QUALITY OF EDUCATION The first question in this series asked voters to rate the overall

quality of education provided in the Claremont Unified School District. As shown in Figure 8,

opinions were very positive overall. More than three-quarters (78%) rated the quality of education

as excellent (39%) or good (39%), 9% indicated it is fair, and less than 2% described it as poor or

very poor. An additional 11% were unsure or declined to provide their opinion.

Question 5: Both Versions In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in

the Claremont Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very

poor?

FIGURE 8 Q UALITY OF EDUCATION

Figures 9 and 10 on the next page display how perceptions of the quality of education provided

in the Claremont Unified School District varied across a host of voter subgroups. Although there

were some differences in opinion (e.g., those who have never had children in the District were

less likely to rate the quality of education as excellent), the most striking pattern in the figures is

the relative consistency of opinion. Regardless of subgroup category, voters in Claremont have a

high opinion of the District’s performance in educating students.

Refused

0.7

Good

39.1

Excellent

38.8

Fair

8.7

Poor

0.9

Not sure

10.8

Very poor

0.9





FIGURE 9 Q UALITY OF EDUCATION BY DISTRICT CHILD IN HSLD, FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION & YEARS IN CLAREMONT AREA

FIGURE 10 Q UALITY OF EDUCATION BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TESTS

NEED FOR RENOVATED & UPGRADED FACILITIES All voters were next queried

about the District’s need for additional money. Overall, 39% of voters perceived that the District

has a great need for additional money, and a similar percentage (36%) felt that the District’s need

for additional money was moderate (see Figure 11). Approximately 15% perceived that the Dis-

trict has little (8%) or no need (7%) for additional money, whereas 10% were unsure or unwillingto answer the question. When compared to their respective counterparts, voters who currently

have children attending a District school, those with a family connection to a career in education,

voters who have lived in the District less than 10 years, and those who were definitely supportive

of the revenue measure at the Initial Ballot Test were the most likely to rate the District’s need

for additional money as great (see Figures 12 & 13).

46.3 41.946.9 50.4

40.2 42.2

44.9

43.8

46.1 36.7

49.6 45.2

37.941.842.8

Excellent

49.5

44.5

53.2

45.9

Good

41.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C urrent Past Future Nev er Yes No Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more

D ist ric t Child in Hs ld (QD3 ,4,5 ) Family Me mbe r Employe d in

Education (QD6)

Years in C laremont Area (QD1)

% R e s p o n d e n t s W h o P r o v i d

e d O p i n i o n

58.446.9

39.3 29.3

35.748.4

51.3

43.2

Excellent

40.2

44.6 48.1

31.6

Good48.8

47.0

40.245.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Defin ite ly yes Probably yes Probably no Definite ly no Definite ly yes Probably yes Probably no Definite ly no

Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2) Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax (Q2)

% R e s

p o n d e n t s W h o P r o v i d e d O p i n i o n





Question 6: Both Versions How would you rate the school district's need for additional money?

Would you say it has a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?

FIGURE 11 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY

FIGURE 12 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY BY DISTRICT CHILD IN HSLD, FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION & YEARS IN CLAREMONT AREA

Not sure

9.7

Refused

0.2

None

6.8

Little

8.0

Great

38.9

Moderate

36.4

50.237.5

46.0 46.1 42.3 42.0

37.1

43.8

43.8 41.342.1 39.2

37.336.737.3

Great

56.6

41.150.6 44.1

Moderate34.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C urre nt Past Future Nev er Yes No Le ss than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more

D is tric t C hild in Hs ld (QD3,4 ,5) Family Memb er Emp loyed in

Educ ation (QD6)

Years in Claremont Area (QD1)

% R e s p o n d e n t s W h o P r o v i d e d O p i n i o n





FIGURE 13 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TESTS

68.9

43.4

0.012.4

29.9

51.8

60.7 40.4Great62.3

42.0

15.3 17.7

Moderate35.8

36.5

59.5

49.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Definite ly yes Probably yes Probably no Definite ly no Definite ly yes Probably yes Probably no Definite ly no

Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2) Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax (Q2)

% R e s p o n d e n t s W h o P r o v

i d e d O p i n i o n



g

j



P R O G R A M S & P R O J E C T S

The ballot language presented in Question 2 indicated that the proposed bond would repair and

renovate classrooms and school buildings, improve safety and security systems, remove hazard-

ous materials like lead and asbestos, upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and instruc-

tional technology, and provide general fund relief to attract and retain qualified teachers. The

ballot language for the parcel tax was similarly succinct, stating that the measure would attractand retain high quality teachers, counselors and school security personnel, maintain small class

sizes, and continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science, technology and arts

that enhance student achievement. The purpose of Question 7 was to provide respondents with

the full range of services and facility improvements that may be funded by the proposed mea-

sures, as well as identify which of these improvements voters most favored funding with mea-

sure proceeds.

After reading each service or project that may be funded by the measure, respondents were

asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assum-

ing that the measure passes. Truncated descriptions of the improvements tested, as well as vot-

ers’ responses, are shown in Figure 14 for the bond, Figure 15 for the parcel tax.3

Question 7: Both Versions The measure we've been discussing could fund a variety of

improvements to local schools. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of

the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?

FIGURE 14 PROGRAMS & PROJECTS: BOND

3. For the full text of the items tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaires & Toplines on page 47

20.8

27.0

24.5

32.0

35.0

44.2

39.6

47.9

45.5

45.8

41.4

41.5

44.7

42.8

58.6

34.4

30.4

38.0

33.6

31.9

24.3

29.4

25.2

28.2

28.3

32.9

34.4

31.9

35.8

21.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Renovate the Claremont High School Theater

Improve pick-up and drop-off zones at school sites

Renovate old, worn-out athletic facilities

Renovate or replace outdated classrooms and school buildings

Improving technology to c reate science, engineering magnet school

Retrofit cla ssrooms for special purposes such as art , music, language

Replace deteriorating temporary trailers with permanent c lassrooms

Make energy-efficient improvements and refinance District de bt

Upgrade and improve school libraries

Install sola r panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements

Upgrade safety, security systems

Upgrade library technology, Internet access and research tools

Repair or replace roofs, plumbing, lighting, and electrical systems

Upgrade classroom computers and technology

Remove hazardous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos

B Q 7 o

B Q 7 i B Q 7 k B Q 7 b B Q 7 n B Q 7 m

B Q 7 a

B Q 7 j B Q 7 g B Q 7 l B Q 7 c B Q 7 h B Q 7

d

B Q 7 f B Q 7 e

% Respondents: Bond Version

Strongly fav or Somewhat favor



g

j



opposed the measure or were unsure of their position were generally less likely to favor spend-

ing money on a given project or service when compared to supporters. Nevertheless, initial sup-

porters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on several of the top priorities for funding.

TABLE 3 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

TABLE 4 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

Position at

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2) Item Pro ject o r Program Summary

% Strongly

Favor

BQ7e Remove hazardous mater ials from school s ites like lead and asbestos 77

BQ7j M ak e energy-efficient improvements and refina nce District debt 67

BQ7l Install solar panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements 63

BQ7g Upgrade and improve school libraries 62

BQ7m Retrofit classrooms for special purposes such as art , music, language 61

BQ7e Remove hazardous materials from school si tes like lead and asbestos 29

BQ7d Repair or replace roofs, plumbing, light ing, and electrical systems 25

BQ7n Improving techno logy to create sc ience, engineering magnet schoo l 23

BQ7c Upgrade safety, security systems 22

BQ7g Upgrade and improve school libraries 20

BQ7e Remove hazardous mater ials from school s ites like lead and asbestos 48

BQ7j M ak e energy-efficient improvements and refina nce District debt 33

BQ7f Upgrade classroom computers and technology 33BQ7g Upgrade and improve school libraries 30

BQ7l Install solar panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements 29

Probably or

Definitely Yes

(n = 177)

Probably or

Definitely No

(n = 99)

Not Sure

(n = 24)

Position at

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2) Item Pro ject o r Program Summary

% Strongly

Favor

PQ7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 88

PQ7d Provide advanced academic programs in math, science, and technology 82

PQ7p Continue providing college prep programs 81

PQ7c Maintain small class sizes 74

PQ7g Continue funding for art and music programs 71

PQ7d Provide advanced academic programs in math, science, and technology 46



PQ7n Keep school libraries open 35

PQ7e Keep textbooks and instructional materials up-to-date 34

PQ7g Continue funding for art and music programs 74


PQ7n Keep school libraries open 69

PQ7l Keep school facilities clean and we ll maintained 67


Probably or

Definitely No

(n = 89)

Not Sure

(n = 13)

Probably or

Definitely Yes

(n = 194)



g



P O S I T I V E A R G U M E N T S

Ballot measures do not succeed or fail in a political vacuum. During an election cycle, propo-

nents of a measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just

as opponents will present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. The objective of Question 8

was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify

whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in oppositionto the measure were also presented and will be discussed later in this report (see Negative Argu-

ments on page 32). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to

avoid a systematic position bias.

Question 8: Both Versions What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying

about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think

this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the

measure?

FIGURE 16 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS: BOND

Figure 16 above presents the truncated positive arguments tested in the bond survey, as well as

voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convincing to least

convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either

a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this method-

ology, the most compelling positive argument was: Good schools help protect and improve local

property values (80%), followed by All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to

17.3

19.5

27.3

27.9

29.6

36.0

35.5

44.9

31.2

36.1

37.1

53.2

48.6

39.6

41.8

40.6

40.4

39.4

35.1

36.0

28.0

42.1

38.8

39.5

25.4

31.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measure will strengthen local economy, create good-paying jobs

Measure will complete projects begun with school measure 10 yrs ago

Measure will improve fac ilit ies at some schools for magnet programs

Many of the school buildings and facilit ies are up to 50 years old

There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability

The longer we wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost

This bond will free-up money to help save teachers’ jobs

No money w ill be used for administrators’ salaries

District may qualify for state grants, matching funds, federal stimulus

Claremont schools are among the best in the region

Measure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs

All money raised by the measure will stay in the District

Good schools help protect and improve local property values

B Q 8 m

B Q 8 k

B Q 8 l B Q 8 d

B Q 8 f B Q 8 j B Q 8 e B Q 8 h B Q 8 c

B Q 8 i B Q 8 g

B Q 8 a B Q 8 b


Very convinc ing S omewhat c onvinc ing



g



support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for other purposes (79%), and

This measure will ensure that students have access to the education and technologies they need

to be prepared for the jobs of the future (77%).

For the parcel tax survey (see Figure 17), the most compelling positive arguments were: Good

schools help protect and improve local property values (86%), If we want our kids to be prepared

to succeed in the new global economy, they need to have a high quality education—including advanced courses in math, science and technology (86%), and All money raised by the measure

will stay in the District to support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for

other purposes (82%).

FIGURE 17 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS: PARCEL TAX

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT For the interested reader, Tables 5 and

6 list the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondentswho cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test

for the bond and parcel tax surveys, respectively. The most striking pattern in the tables is that

the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially

inclined to support the measure or were unsure when compared to voters who initially opposed

the measure. Nevertheless, all three groups ranked several of the same arguments as being

among the most compelling.

26.5

40.0

38.8

53.1

40.3

48.8

45.6

44.2

47.9

58.9

54.9

53.5

32.2

30.3

33.6

21.9

38.5

30.1

34.2

35.9

33.1

22.6

31.0

32.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measure will allow the District to provide an early college program

This measure lasts for six years only

There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability

No money from the measure w ill be used for administrators’ salaries

Measure provides college prep, tech training for job out of high school

Measure provides an exemption for property owners who are 65+

State budget cuts are going to hurt the quality of our schools

Claremont schools are among the best in the region

With smaller class sizes, measure provides individualized instruct ion

All money raised by the measure will stay in the District

Kids need high quality education to succeed in global economy

Good schools help protect and improve loca l property values

P Q 8 k

P Q 8 d

P Q 8 f

P Q

8 c

P Q 8 l

P Q 8 h

P Q 8 e

P Q 8 i

P Q 8 j

P Q 8 a

P Q 8 g

P Q 8 b

% Respondents: Parcel Tax Version

Very convincing S omewhat c onvinc ing



g



TABLE 5 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

TABLE 6 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

Position at

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2) Item Positive Argument Summary

% Very

Convincing

BQ8a All money raised by the measure will stay in the District 72

BQ8h No money will be used for administrators’ salaries 64

BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 58

BQ8g Measure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 53BQ8j The longer we wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 51



BQ8h No money will be used for administrators’ salaries 19

BQ8g Measure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 14

BQ8l Measure wi ll improve fac il it ies at some schools for magnet programs 13


BQ8i Claremont schools are among the best in the region 34


BQ8e This bond will free-up money to help save teachers’ jobs 33

BQ8j The longer we wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 32

Probably or

Definitely Yes

(n = 177)

Probably or

Definitely No

(n = 99)

Not Sure

(n = 24)

Position at

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2) Item Positive Argument Summary

% Very

Convincing

PQ8a All money raised by the measure will stay in the District 76

PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 67

PQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 66

PQ8c No money from the measure wi ll be used for administrators ’ salaries 64

PQ8e State budget cuts are going to hurt the quality of our schools 62

PQ8g Kids need high quality education to succeed in global economy 30

PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 30

PQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 28

PQ 8h Me asure provides a n e xemption for prope rty owners who are 65+ 27

PQ8a All money raised by the measure will stay in the District 26

PQ8f There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability 51PQ 8h Me asure provides a n e xemption for prope rty owners who are 65+ 51

PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 50

PQ8j With smaller class sizes, measure provides individualized instruction 50

PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 46

Probably or

Definitely No

(n = 89)

Not Sure

(n = 13)

Probably or

Definitely Yes

(n = 194)





I N T E R I M B A L L O T T E S T S

After exposing respondents to the types of positive arguments they may encounter during an

election cycle, the survey again presented voters with the ballot language used previously to

gauge how their support for the proposed bond or parcel tax measure may have changed. As

shown in Figure 18, overall support for the bond measure at this point climbed by 4% to 63%,

with 32% of respondents opposed to the measure and an additional 6% unsure or unwilling tostate their vote choice. Overall support for the parcel tax increased by 2% to 68%, with 27% of

respondents opposed to the measure, and 5% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Question 9: Bond Version In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-

dents; attract and retain quality teachers; and qualify for millions in State matching money,

shall the Claremont Unified School District repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating class-

rooms and school buildings; improve fire, safety and security systems; remove hazardous mate-

rials like lead and asbestos; and upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and

instructional technology by issuing 145 million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates, with man-

datory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were

held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

Question 9: Parcel Tax Version In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the

impact of State budget cuts at our local schools; attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-

selors and school security personnel; maintain small class sizes; and continue funding advanced

academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement

shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139 per parcel

for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all funds staying local to

benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

FIGURE 18 INTERIM BALLOT TESTS

45.5

22.7

22.2

9.25.9

21.0

5.7 5.4

40.0

22.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bond Parcel Tax

Interim Ballot Test Version


Not sure

Definitely no

Probably no

Probably yes

Definitely yes





SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested readers, Tables 7 and 8 display how support

for the bond and parcel tax measures at this point in the survey varied by key demographic sub-

groups, as well as the percentage change in subgroup support when compared to the Initial Bal-

lot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red.

TABLE 7 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: BOND

Approx mate %

of Voter

Universe

% Probably or

Definitely Yes

C ange From

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2)

Overall 100 62.7 +4.2

Less than 5 10 81.3 +7.5

5 to 9 19 53.0 -3.4

10 to 14 15 67.5 +5.2

15 or more 56 62.1 +6.5Current 28 58.4 +3.9Past 38 61.1 +4.7

Future 8 65.7 No change

Never 26 68.1 +4.6

Yes 45 69.5 +2.6

No 55 56.6 +5.6

Male 45 57.7 +5.3

Female 55 66.9 +3.2

18 to 29 9 80.8 +7.330 to 39 8 61.8 +14.640 to 49 19 55.1 +8.350 to 64 35 57.5 +0.6

65 or older 30 68.9 +2.1

Democrat 49 77.7 +2.9

Republican 33 40.4 +5.4

Other / DTS 18 65.8 +5.2

Single dem 20 78.5 +4.1

Dual dem 20 76.2 +2.8

Single rep 9 32.6 +4.9Dual rep 15 46.5 +10.3

Other 15 65.5 +6.3Mixed 22 55.7 -1.0

2010 to 2005 32 69.6 +1.1

2004 to 2001 22 54.8 -0.1

2000 to 1997 16 73.0 +11.4

1996 to 1990 12 49.2 +7.3

Before 1990 19 60.9 +6.0

Yes 76 62.3 +7.5

No 24 64.0 -7.3Yes 25 60.9 +1.9No 75 63.2 +4.8

Yes 63 60.7 +1.7

No 37 66.2 +8.3

Yes 45 63.4 +0.8

No 55 62.1 +6.9Yes 83 62.8 +4.4

No 17 62.1 +3.1Likely Nov 2010 Voter





Voter

Age

Party


Registration Year


(QD1)


(QD3,4,5)


in Education (QD6)

Gender





TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

Approximate %

of Voter

Universe

% Probably or

Definitely Yes

Change From

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2)

Overall 100 67.7 +2.1

Less than 5 10 88.0 +5.2

5 to 9 19 67.5 +2.5

10 to 14 15 62.9 +2.415 or more 56 66.3 +1.4Current 28 73.5 +0.3Past 38 64.3 +0.7

Future 8 61.9 +12.4

Never 26 68.3 +2.5

Yes 45 79.3 +3.3

No 55 60.0 +1.3

Male 45 61.8 -1.1

Female 55 72.6 +4.7

18 to 29 9 49.4 +18.230 to 39 8 70.9 +1.840 to 49 19 74.1 +2.250 to 64 35 64.6 +3.3

65 or older 30 72.1 -2.8Democrat 49 78.9 +1.6

Republican 33 50.8 +1.1

Other / DTS 18 67.1 +5.3

Single dem 20 91.0 +7.0

Dual dem 20 79.4 -0.7

Single rep 9 56.6 +2.4Dual rep 15 41.2 -4.5Other 15 71.3 +4.3

Mixed 22 53.9 +2.0

2010 to 2005 32 71.5 +3.9

2004 to 2001 22 70.0 +6.7

2000 to 1997 16 63.3 -4.3

1996 to 1990 12 72.5 -0.0

Before 1990 19 58.5 +0.3

Yes 76 66.1 +0.8

No 24 72.7 +6.0Yes 25 69.1 +4.4No 75 67.2 +1.3

Yes 63 68.3 +2.3

No 37 66.9 +1.7

Yes 45 67.7 -1.9

No 55 67.7 +5.6

Yes 83 66.7 +3.0

No 17 72.8 -2.2


Voter

Likely Nov 2010 Voter

Registration Year




Gender

Age

Party



(QD1)


(QD3,4,5)


in Education (QD6)



g

g



N E G A T I V E A R G U M E N T S

Whereas Question 8 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measure, Question

10 presented arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question

10, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing,

somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments

tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented in Figure 19 for the bond,Figure 20 for the parcel tax.

Question 10: Both Versions Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are say-

ing.Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat con-

vincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?

FIGURE 19 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS: BOND

In general, the negative arguments resonated with fewer respondents than did the positive argu-

ments. Among the negative arguments tested in the bond survey, the three most compelling

were: People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-

ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (68%), followed by

The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money

raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised (61%), and Experts say that

raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more (54%).

Among the negative arguments tested in the parcel tax survey, the three most compelling were:

People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment,

and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (64%), followed by The

District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money raised

during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised (59%), and The District needs to

live within its means—just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they would not have to raise

taxes (57%).

24.3

27.7

27.3

27.3

27.5

39.5

20.5

23.4

26.8

26.8

33.4

28.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Teachers not willing to take furlough days

More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District

District needs to live within its means, just like everyone else

Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more

The District c an’t be trusted with this tax

With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes

B Q 1 0 f B Q 1 0 d

B Q 1 0 e B Q 1 0 c

B Q 1 0 b B

Q 1 0 a


Very c onv incing Somewhat convincing



g

g



FIGURE 20 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS: PARCEL TAX

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT For the interested reader, Tables 9

and 10 list the top five most convincing negative arguments (showing the percentage of respon-

dents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot

Test for the bond and parcel tax surveys, respectively.

TABLE 9 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

19.9

26.3

29.2

29.6

30.6

34.9

24.6

24.8

27.2

27.6

28.5

29.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Teachers not willing to take furlough days

Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more

More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District

District needs to live within its means, just like everyone else

The District can’t be trusted with this tax

With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes

P Q 1 0 f P Q 1 0 c P Q 1 0 d

P Q 1 0 e P Q

1 0 b

P Q 1 0 a

% Respondents: Parcel Tax Version

Very c onvinc ing Somewhat conv incing

Position at

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2) Item Negative Argument Summary

% Very

Convincing

BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 21BQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 16

BQ10f Teachers not willing to take furlough days 15

BQ10c Raising t axes during a recession will hurt t he economy even more 14

BQ10d More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District 20

BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 70

BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 50

BQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 49

BQ10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 45

BQ10d More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outs ide the Distr ic t 40

BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 51

BQ10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 41

BQ10c Raising t axes during a recession will hurt t he economy even more 37

BQ10f Teachers not willing to take furlough days 35

BQ10d More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District 31

Probably or

Definitely Yes

(n = 177)

Probably or

Definitely No

(n = 99)

Not Sure

(n = 24)



g

g



TABLE 10 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

Position at

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2) Item Negative Argument Summary

% Very

Convincing

PQ10d More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outs ide the Distr ic t 17

PQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 17

PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 16

PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 14PQ10f Teachers not willing to take furlough days 14


PQ10b The District can’t be t rusted with this tax 62

PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 61

PQ10d More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outs ide the Distr ic t 54

PQ10c Raising t axes during a recession will hurt t he economy even more 52


PQ10c Raising t axes during a recession will hurt t he economy even more 67

PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 40

PQ10e District needs to live within its means, just like everyone else 40

PQ10d More than 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District 35

Probably or

Definitely No

(n = 89)

Not Sure

(n = 13)

Probably or

Definitely Yes

(n = 194)





F I N A L B A L L O T T E S T S

Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor-

mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. An important goal of the survey

was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measures may be affected by the

information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respon-

dents with the wording of the proposed measures, possible tax rates, programs and servicesthat could be funded by the measures, as well as arguments in favor and against the proposals,

respondents were again asked whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed bond and

parcel tax measures.

Question 11: Bond Version In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-

dents; attract and retain quality teachers; and qualify for millions in State matching money,

shall the Claremont Unified School District repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating class-

rooms and school buildings; improve fire, safety and security systems; remove hazardous mate-

rials like lead and asbestos; and upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and

instructional technology by issuing 145 million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates, with man-

datory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were

held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

Question 11: Parcel Tax Version In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the

impact of State budget cuts at our local schools; attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-

selors and school security personnel; maintain small class sizes; and continue funding advanced

academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement

shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139 per parcel

for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all funds staying local to

benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

FIGURE 21 FINAL BALLOT TESTS

43.8

21.7

20.1

11.78.5

22.5

5.2 4.7

38.1

23.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bond Parcel Tax

Final Ballot Test Version


Refused

Not sure

Definitely no

Probably no

Probably yes

Definitely yes





At this point in the survey, support for the bond measure was found among 60% of voters, with

35% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Support for

the parcel tax was slightly higher at 64%, with 31% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure or

unwilling to state their vote choice.



g

p p



C H A N G E I N S U P P O R T

Tables 11 and 12 provide a closer look at how support for the proposed bond and parcel tax

measures changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support

between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within various subgroups of voters. The per-

centage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the head-

ing % Probably or Definitely Yes . The columns to the right show the difference between the Finaland the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, nega-

tive differences in red.

TABLE 11 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

Approximate %

of Voter

Universe

% Probably or

Definitely Yes

Change From

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2)

Change from

Interim Ballot

Test (Q9)

Overall 100 59.8 +1.3 -2.9

Less than 5 10 81.3 +7.5 No change

5 to 9 19 48.6 -7.8 -4.4

10 to 14 15 64.8 +2.6 -2.7

15 or more 56 59.1 +3.5 -3.0Current 28 56.9 +2.4 -1.5Past 38 56.6 +0.2 -4.5

Future 8 60.7 -5.1 -5.1

Never 26 66.9 +3.5 -1.2

Yes 45 67.3 +0.4 -2.2

No 55 53.1 +2.0 -3.6

Male 45 57.2 +4.8 -0.5

Female 55 62.0 -1.7 -5.0

18 to 29 9 75.8 +2.3 -5.030 to 39 8 61.8 +14.6 No change40 to 49 19 54.1 +7.3 -1.150 to 64 35 54.1 -2.8 -3.4

65 or older 30 66.2 -0.6 -2.8

Democrat 49 76.0 +1.1 -1.8

Republican 33 36.7 +1.6 -3.7

Other / DTS 18 61.6 +0.9 -4.3

Single dem 20 76.0 +1.5 -2.6

Dual dem 20 77.0 +3.6 +0.8

Single rep 9 22.8 -4.9 -9.7Dual rep 15 44.6 +8.3 -2.0Other 15 63.6 +4.5 -1.8

Mixed 22 49.7 -7.0 -6.0

2010 to 2005 32 68.7 +0.1 -1.0

2004 to 2001 22 46.5 -8.5 -8.3

2000 to 1997 16 69.3 +7.6 -3.8

1996 to 1990 12 49.2 +7.3 No change

Before 1990 19 60.1 +5.2 -0.8

Yes 76 59.3 +4.5 -3.0

No 24 61.5 -9.8 -2.5Yes 25 56.4 -2.7 -4.6No 75 60.8 +2.4 -2.4

Yes 63 56.9 -2.0 -3.8

No 37 64.7 +6.9 -1.4

Yes 45 58.1 -4.6 -5.3

No 55 61.2 +6.0 -1.0

Yes 83 59.1 +0.6 -3.7

No 17 63.5 +4.5 +1.3Likely Nov 2010 Voter





Voter

Age

Party


Registration Year


(QD1)


(QD3,4,5)

Family Member

Employed in Education

Gender



g

p p



As expected, most groups responded to the negative arguments with a modest reduction in their

support for the bond and parcel tax measures when compared with the levels recorded at the

Interim Ballot Test. However, the general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to

Final Ballot Test) was one of slightly increasing support for the bond (+1%) and slightly decreas-

ing support for the parcel tax (-2%).

TABLE 12 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

Whereas Tables 11 and 12 display change in support for the measure over the course of the

interview at the group level, Tables 13 and 14 display the individual-level changes that occurred

between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the respective measures. On the left side of the

tables is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of

respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the tables depict movement within each

Approx mate %

of Voter

Universe

% Probably or

Definitely Yes

C ange From

Initial Ballot

Test (Q2)

C ange rom

Interim Ballot

Test (Q9)

Overall 100 63.9 -1.8 -3.9

Less than 5 10 88.0 +5.2 No change

5 to 9 19 59.8 -5.1 -7.7

10 to 14 15 60.8 +0.3 -2.1

15 or more 56 63.0 -2.0 -3.3Current 28 70.7 -2.4 -2.8Past 38 62.5 -1.1 -1.8

Future 8 56.9 +7.3 -5.1

Never 26 62.0 -3.8 -6.3

Yes 45 74.5 -1.5 -4.8No 55 57.4 -1.4 -2.7

Male 45 59.1 -3.7 -2.6

Female 55 67.7 -0.2 -4.9

18 to 29 9 49.4 +18.2 No change30 to 39 8 68.3 -0.9 -2.640 to 49 19 69.9 -2.0 -4.150 to 64 35 60.3 -1.0 -4.2

65 or older 30 66.9 -8.0 -5.2

Democrat 49 76.8 -0.5 -2.1

Republican 33 45.4 -4.4 -5.4

Other / DTS 18 61.0 -0.8 -6.1

Single dem 20 86.2 +2.2 -4.7

Dual dem 20 80.8 +0.7 +1.4

Single rep 9 45.5 -8.7 -11.1

Dual rep 15 43.5 -2.1 +2.3Other 15 65.6 -1.4 -5.7

Mixed 22 47.8 -4.1 -6.1

2010 to 2005 32 67.9 +0.4 -3.5

2004 to 2001 22 63.9 +0.7 -6.1

2000 to 1997 16 60.3 -7.2 -2.9

1996 to 1990 12 69.9 -2.7 -2.7

Before 1990 19 54.8 -3.4 -3.7

Yes 76 63.5 -1.8 -2.6

No 24 64.9 -1.7 -7.8Yes 25 64.9 +0.1 -4.3No 75 63.5 -2.5 -3.7

Yes 63 63.0 -2.9 -5.3

No 37 65.3 +0.1 -1.6

Yes 45 66.4 -3.3 -1.4No 55 61.7 -0.5 -6.0

Yes 83 63.5 -0.3 -3.3

No 17 65.8 -9.2 -7.0

Likely 2010 Special MailVoter


Registration Year




Gender

Age

Party



(QD1)


(QD3,4,5)

Family MemberEmployed in Education



g

p p



response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as

recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row of Table 13 we see that of the

36.0% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the bond measure at the

Initial Ballot Test, 30.1% also indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the

Final Ballot Test. Approximately 3.3% moved to the probably support group, 1.0% moved to the

probably oppose group, 0.7% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 1.0% percent stated

they were now unsure of their vote choice.

To ease interpretation of the tables, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining

support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move-

ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from

yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.

TABLE 13 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND

TABLE 14 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX

As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ-

uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative

in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Tables 13 and 14 make clear that

although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all

respondents. Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the inter-

view to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a similar percentage

found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive.

Despite 19% of respondents making a fundamental 4 shift in their opinion about the bond mea-

sure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the bond measure at the

Final Ballot Test (60%) was just over 1% higher than support at the Initial Ballot Test. Similarly,

although 12% of respondents made a fundamental shift in their opinion about the parcel tax

4. That is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ-

ent position at the Final Ballot Test.

Definitely

support

Probably

support

Probably

oppose

Definitely

oppose Not sure

Definitely support 36.0% 30.1% 3.3% 1.0% 0.7% 1.0%

Probably support 22.5% 6.4% 12.4% 2.7% 0.2% 0.8%

Probably oppose 12.2% 0.0% 3.3% 4.7% 3.8% 0.5%

Definitely oppose 20.5% 0.2% 0.7% 1.8% 16.9% 0.9%

Not sure 8.7% 1.3% 2.1% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5%

Initial Ballot Test:

Bond (Q2)

Final Ballot Test: Bond (Q11)

Definitely

support

Probably

support

Probably

oppose

Definitely

oppose Not sure

Definitely support 43.4% 36.7% 4.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.8%

Probably support 22.2% 5.1% 13.6% 1.4% 0.0% 2.0%Probably oppose 9.2% 1.0% 1.6% 4.5% 1.9% 0.3%

Definitely oppose 20.7% 0.5% 0.3% 1.2% 18.8% 0.0%

Not sure 4.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6% 1.9%

Initial Ballot Test:

Parcel Tax (Q2)

Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax (Q11)



g

p p



measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the parcel tax at the

Final Ballot Test (64%) was 2% lower than support at the Initial Ballot Test.





A L T E R N A T I V E P A R C E L T A X R A T E

The ballot language for the parcel tax measure used in Questions 2, 9, and 11 indicated that the

measure would increase annual property taxes by up to $139 per parcel. Respondents who

opposed the measure at the Final Ballot Test (or were unsure of their position) were subse-

quently asked how they would vote if the tax increase were instead $99 per parcel.

Figure 22 displays the responses to this question and also includes those respondents who pre-

viously indicated they would support the measure at $139 (and thus did not receive this ques-

tion). An additional 4% of voters indicated they would support the measure at the lower rate,

which brings the overall support for the measure at $96 per parcel to approximately 68% at this

point in the survey.

Question 12: Parcel Tax Version How about if instead of $139 per parcel, the tax were $99

per parcel. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?

FIGURE 22 FINAL BALLOT TEST AT $99 PER PARCEL

Definite ly no

21.5

Not sure

4.3

Probably no

5.6Probably yes

2.6

Supported

measure

at $139 (Q11)

63.9

Definitely yes

1.8

Refused

0.4



g

g p



B A C K G R O U N D & D E M O G R A P H I C S

TABLE 15 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE

In addition to questions directly

related to the tax measures, the

study collected basic demographic

information about respondents andtheir households. Some of this

information was gathered during

the interview, although much of it

was collected from the voter file.

The profile of the likely voter sam-

ples used for this study are shown

in Table 15. It is important to note

that by chance, the sample used for

the parcel tax survey had a some-

what more tax-friendly profile than

the bond sample, including more

parents of current students, and

slightly higher percentages of Dem-

ocrats and renters.

Bond P arcel TaxTotal Respondents 600 300 300

Years in Claremont Area (QD1)Less than 5 9.5 9.6 9.5

5 to 9 19.0 20.1 17.8

10 to 14 14.7 12.3 17.1

15 or more 55.9 57.5 54.3

Refused 0.9 0.5 1.3

District Child in Hsld (QD3,4,5)

Current 28.0 24.0 32.1

Past 37.6 42.6 32.6Future 7.7 6.5 9.0Never 26.0 26.7 25.3

Refused 0.6 0.2 1.0

Family Member Employed in Education (QD6)

Yes 44.7 46.4 43.0

No 54.4 53.4 55.4

Refused 0.9 0.2 1.5Gender

Male 45.4 46.0 44.9Female 54.6 54.0 55.1

Age

18 to 29 8.6 10.1 7.0

30 to 39 7.2 5.4 9.1

40 to 49 18.1 18.1 18.1

50 to 64 32.9 32.8 32.9

65 or older 28.3 27.7 28.9

Refused 5.0 5.9 4.0

Party

Democrat 48.5 47.3 49.8Republican 33.3 34.5 32.2

Other / DTS 18.1 18.2 18.1Household Party Type

Single dem 20.1 19.6 20.7

Dual dem 19.7 20.3 19.2

Single rep 9.2 6.7 11.6

Dual rep 14.5 16.9 12.1

Other 14.6 14.8 14.5

Mixed 21.8 21.7 22.0Homeowner on Voter File

Yes 76.0 77.4 74.5No 24.0 22.6 25.5


Yes 24.6 22.4 26.8

No 75.4 77.6 73.2


Yes 62.6 62.9 62.3

No 37.4 37.1 37.7

Likely 2010 Special M ail Voter

Yes 45.5 44.6 46.3No 54.5 55.4 53.7


Yes 83.4 83.6 83.2

No 16.6 16.4 16.8

Survey VersionOverall



g

y



M E T H O D O L O G Y

The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for

using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely

with the Claremont Unified School District and TBWB to develop questionnaires that covered thetopics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error,

including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects and

priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking the items in a set

order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random

order for each respondent.

Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For

example, only respondents who opposed the measure (or were undecided) at the Initial Ballot

Test (Question 2) were asked a follow-up question (Question 3) regarding the reason they did not

support the measure. The questionnaires included with this report (see Questionnaires &

Toplines on page 47) identify the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensurethat each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI

(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist the live interviewers when

conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip pat-

terns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of

keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The integrity of the question-

naire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the District

prior to formally beginning the survey.

SPLIT-SAMPLE METHOD The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered ran-

dom sample of registered voters in the Claremont Unified School District who are likely to partic-

ipate in the November 2010 election under natural (normal) and high turnout (enhanced)

scenarios. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters,

each representing a particular combination of age, gender, household party-type, and voting

propensity. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate

cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate in the

study, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.

One of the key objectives of the study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure

may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obliga-

tion bond. To reliably estimate support for both types of measures, a split-sample methodology

was employed such that 300 respondents received questions pertaining to a parcel tax, and 300

respondents received questions pertaining to a bond. All 600 respondents received generic

questions that applied to both types of measures.

The split-sample approach is used because it is the most reliable method of estimating voter

support for alternative tax measures. Prior research (and actual election results) have consis-

tently shown that attempting to estimate support for multiple tax measures (e.g., parcel tax and



g

y



bond) with the same respondent during the course of an interview will lead to an artificially low

estimate of support for whichever measure is introduced second—and it also has a tendency to

cause confusion. To avoid these sources of measurement error, it is important that each respon-

dent be asked their opinions regarding one of the alternatives, not both.

Voters were assigned to a particular version of the survey (parcel tax or bond) on a random

basis, thus ensuring that both alternatives had a representative sample of likely November 2010voters and that the survey results would indicate the level of support in the community for each

alternative. It is important to keep in mind that should the Board choose to place a measure on

the ballot, voters will have the opportunity to support or oppose a particular measure. They will

not be provided the option of choosing their preferred option (e.g., parcel tax or bond). The sur-

vey methodology was appropriately structured to simulate this type of scenario. Moreover, allow-

ing respondents to choose which version of the survey they preferred to take (rather than

assigning individuals to a version on a random basis) is a form of methodological error known as

selecting on the dependent variable. It would have biased the samples and led to a gross overes-

timation of support for each version.5 Accordingly, voters were randomly assigned to one ver-

sion or the other.

STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design

noted above, True North ensured that the final samples were representative of voters in the Dis-

trict who are likely to participate in the November 2010 election. The results of the surveys can

thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in the November 2010

election. Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is

known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the differ-

ence between what was found in the survey for a particular question and what would have been

found if all 13,707 likely November voters identified in the District had been surveyed for the

study.

For example, in estimating the percentage of likely voters that would definitely support the par-

cel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 2 in the survey), the margin of error can be

calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a confidence level, and

the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the mar-

gin of error, in this case, is shown below.

Where is the proportion of voters who said definitely yes (0.43 for 43% in this example), is

the population size of likely voters (13,707), is the sample size that received the question(300) and is the upper point for the t-distribution with degrees of freedom (1.96

for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error

of ± 5.5%. This means that with 43% of survey respondents indicating they would definitely sup-

5. To illustrate this point, imagine that 50% of likely voters in Claremont preferred the parcel tax, and 50% pre-

ferred the bond. If respondents were allowed to choose which version of the questionnaire they preferred

based on their preference for a parcel tax or bond, the samples for each version would consist solely of sup-

porters and the results would yield 100% support for a parcel tax and a bond—which obviously does not

accurately reflect actual opinions in the community.

p̂ t N n–

N -------------

⎝ ⎠⎛ ⎞ p̂ 1 p̂–( )

n 1–

--------------------±

N

nt α 2 ⁄ n 1–



g

y



port the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test, we can be 95% confident that the actual per-

centage of all likely voters that would definitely support the measure is between 37% and 49%.

Figure 23 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum

margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split

such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this study,

the maximum margin of error is ± 5.6% for questions asked only of respondents in a particularsubsample (parcel tax or bond version). For questions asked of all 600 respondents, the maxi-

mum margin of error is ± 3.9%.

FIGURE 23 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING

Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by sub-

groups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 23 is thus useful for understanding

how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ-

uals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows

exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing

and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

DATA COLLECTION The method of data collection was telephone interviewing. Interviews

were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM)

between April 23 and May 4, 2010. It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays

because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the

sample. The interviews averaged 16 minutes in length.

Sample of 600

Combined Samples± 3.9%Sample of 300

Vot ers per Version

± 5.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Sample Size (Number of Respondents)

M a r g i n o f E r r o



g

y



DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis-

tencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing fre-

quency analyses and crosstabulations.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num-

ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include adecimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to

small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given

question.



p



Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S & T O P L I N E S

BOND VERSION

True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 1

Claremont USD Bond Survey

Final Toplines May 2010

Section 1: Introduction to Study

Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, anindependent public opinion research firm. We’re conducting a survey of voters aboutimportant issues in Claremont and I’d like to get your opinions.If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sellanything and I won’t ask for a donation.If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can callback?

If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participateinstead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed bythis particular individual.

If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey,politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.

Section 2: Importance of Issues

Q1 To begin, I’m going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one,please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremelyimportant, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.

Here is the (first/next) issue: _____. Do you think this issue is extremely important, veryimportant, somewhat important, or not at all important?

Randomize

E x t r e m e l y

I m p o r t a n t

V e r y

I m p o r t a n t

S o m e w h a t

I m p o r t a n t

N o t a t a l l

I m p o r t a n t

N o t s u r e

R e f u s e d

A Reducing traffic congestion 8% 23% 48% 20% 0% 0%

BMaintaining the quality of education in ourlocal public schools

51% 39% 7% 2% 0% 0%

C Maintaining local streets and roads 12% 57% 29% 2% 0% 0%

D Preventing local tax increases 22% 28% 30% 18% 1% 0%

E Maintaining local property values 21% 47% 27% 4% 1% 0%

F Improving public safety 19% 46% 30% 5% 1% 0%

G Protecting the environment 28% 41% 23% 7% 0% 0%

HMaking Claremont a green, sustainablecommunity

19% 40% 30% 9% 1% 0%



p



Claremont USD Bond Survey May 2010


Section 3: Initial Ballot Test Your household is within the Claremont Unified School District. Later this year, voters in theDistrict may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of themeasure:

Q2

In order to:

x Provide safe and modern school facilities for all studentsx Attract and retain quality teachersx And qualify for millions in State matching money

Shall the Claremont Unified School District

x Repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildingsx Improve fire, safety and security systemsx Remove hazardous materials like lead and asbestosx And upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and instructional technology

By issuing 145 (one-hundred-forty-five) million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates,with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the

election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, thenask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?

1 Definitely yes 36% Skip to Q4

2 Probably yes 22% Skip to Q4

3 Probably no 12% Ask Q3

4 Definitely no 21% Ask Q3

98 Not sure 8% Ask Q3

99 Refused 1% Skip to Q4

Q3 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school measure I justdescribed?

Taxes already too high 21%

Mismanagement of funds / Wastefulspending

19%

Need more information 13%

Ineffective similar measures in past 13%

Cost of measure is too high 10%

Do not have children in District 9%

Local tax dollars should be spent elsewhere 9%

Do not support bonds 8%

District should live within budget 6%

No particular reason 4%

District already has sufficient money 3%

Salaries too high 3%

District has issues other than lack of money 2%

Maintain schools as they are now 2%

Should find other funding sources 1%



p





Section 4: Tax Threshold

Q4

The amount each home owner will pay if the school bond passes depends on theassessed value of their home – not the current market value of the home.

If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per100,000 (one hundred thousand) dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes orno on the school bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) orprobably (yes/no)?

If needed: The assessed value of your home is listed on your property tax bill.Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and

go to Section 5.

Ask in Order

D

e f i n i t e l y

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

N o

D

e f i n i t e l y

N o

N o t s u r e

R e f u s e d

A $45 31% 23% 11% 29% 5% 1%

B $35 36% 22% 8% 29% 5% 1%

C $25 44% 19% 6% 25% 4% 1%

Section 5: Related Attitudes

Q5 In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in the ClaremontUnified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?

1 Excellent 36%

2 Good 42%

3 Fair 8%

4 Poor1%

5 Very Poor 2%

98 Not sure 11%

99 Refused 0%

Q6 How would you rate the school district’s need for additional money? Would you say ithas a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?

1 Great need 37%

2 Moderate need 37%

3 Little need 9%

4 No need 7%

98 Not sure 10%

99 Refused 0%



p





Section 6: Programs & Projects

Q7 The measure we’ve been discussing could fund a variety of improvements to localschools.

If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____,or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that bestrongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?

Randomize S t r o n g l y

F a v o r

S o m e w h a t

F a v o r

S o m e w h a t

O p p o s e

S t r o n g l y

O p p o s e

N o O p i n i o n

R e f u s e d

AReplace deteriorating temporary trailers withpermanent classrooms 40% 29% 8% 11% 11% 1%

BRenovate or replace outdated classrooms andschool buildings 32% 34% 11% 12% 10% 1%

C

Upgrade security lighting, fencing, smoke

detectors, fire alarms, sprinklers, andsecurity systems for improved safety andsecurity

41% 33% 11% 9% 6% 0%

DRepair or replace old, worn-out roofs,plumbing, lighting, and electrical systems 45% 32% 10% 7% 6% 1%

ERemove hazardous materials from schoolsites like lead and asbestos 59% 22% 7% 8% 4% 0%

FUpgrade classroom computers andtechnology 43% 36% 7% 9% 6% 0%

G Upgrade and improve school libraries 46% 28% 10% 8% 8% 0%

HUpgrade library technology, Internet accessand research tools 41% 34% 6% 10% 8% 0%

IImprove pick-up and drop-off zones at schoolsites for improved student safety

27% 30% 15% 13% 13% 1%

J

Make energy-efficient improvements andrefinance District debt to reduce the impactof State budget cuts and free up money tosave teachers and academic programs

48% 25% 3% 13% 11% 1%

K Renovate old, worn-out athletic facilities toimprove student health, fitness and safety

24% 38% 14% 16% 8% 0%

L

Install solar panels, replace outdated heatingand ventilation systems, and make otherenergy-efficiency improvements to savemoney and be environmentally sustainable

46% 28% 8% 12% 6% 0%

MRetrofit old classrooms to meet specialpurposes such as art, music, and languagelabs

44% 24% 12% 12% 8% 0%

NImproving wiring and technology to helpcreate a science, technology, engineering andmath magnet school

35% 32% 8% 14% 10% 1%

O Renovate the Claremont High School Theater 21% 34% 16% 13% 16% 0%



p





KThis measure will complete the school repairand improvement projects begun with thelast local school bond measure, approved byClaremont voters ten years ago.

19% 42% 31% 1% 7% 0%

L

This measure will improve facilities at a fewschool sites for magnet programs in math,science, language and arts. This is a cost-effective way to guide students withadvanced skills and interests to achieve atthe highest levels.

27% 41% 29% 1% 2% 0%

M

This measure will strengthen the localeconomy and create good-paying local jobs.Many local workers will be employed to makefacility improvements, and local stores andservice providers will receive much of themoney spent.

17% 40% 39% 2% 2% 0%

Section 8: Interim Ballot Test

Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more informationabout it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summaryof it again:

Q9

In order to:




By issuing 145 (one-hundred-forty-five) million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates,

with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local?If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?

1 Definitely yes 40%

2 Probably yes 23%

3 Probably no 9%

4 Definitely no 22%

98 Not sure 6%

99 Refused 0%



p





Section 9: Negative Arguments

Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.

Q10Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhatconvincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?

Randomize V e r y

C o n v i n c i n g

S o m e w h a t

C o n v i n c i n g

N o t A t A l l

C o n v i n c i n g

D o n ’ t B e l i e v e

D o n ’ t

K n o w / N o

O p i n i o n

R e f u s e d

A

People are having a hard time making endsmeet with the housing crisis, highunemployment, and the economy inrecession. Now is NOT the time to be raising

taxes.

39% 29% 30% 0% 1% 0%

B

The District can’t be trusted with this tax.Some feel the District mismanaged the bondmoney raised during the 2000 election anddidn’t build what they promised.

27% 33% 28% 0% 11% 0%

CExperts say that raising taxes during arecession will hurt the economy even more. 27% 27% 43% 1% 2% 0%

D

This measure is unfair to local propertyowners. More than 15 percent of the studentsin our schools transfer in from outside theDistrict. They will receive all the benefits of this measure without having to pay a dime.

28% 23% 46% 0% 2% 0%

EThe District needs to live within its means, just like everyone else. If they cut waste, theywould not have to raise taxes.

27% 27% 44% 0% 2% 0%

F

Teachers have not been willing tocompromise in these tough economic times.

It’s not fair to ask property owners to paymore taxes when teachers aren’t even willingto take a few furlough (fur-low) days to cutcosts.

24% 20% 51% 1% 3% 0%



p





Section 10: Final Ballot Tests

Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it onemore time:

Q11

In order to:




By issuing 145 (one-hundred-forty-five) million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates,with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?


2 Probably yes 22%

3 Probably no 12%

4 Definitely no 23%

98 Not sure 5%

99 Refused 0%

Section 11: Background & Demographics

Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for

statistical purposes.

D1 How long have you lived in the Claremont area?

1 Less than 1 year 1%

2 1 year to less than 5 years 9%

3 5 years to less than 10 years 20%

4 10 years to less than 15 12%

5 15 years or more 57%

99 Refused 0%



p



Claremont USD Bond Survey

D2 How many school-aged children under the age of 19 do you have living ihousehold?

0 None 71% Ski

1 One 15% As

2 Two 11% As

3 Three or more 4% As

99 Refused 0% Ski

D3 Do one or more of the children in your household attend a school in theUnified School District?

1 Yes 83% Ski

2 No 17% As

98 Not sure 0% Ski

99 Refused 0% Ski

D4 Do you have grown children who previously attended a school in the ClarSchool District when they were younger?

1 Yes 56% Ski

2 No 44% As

99 Refused 0% Ski

D5 Do you have, or expect to have, children who will attend a school in theUnified School District in the future?

1 Yes 20%

2 No 78%

99 Refused 2%

D6 Are you or any member of your family currently employed by a local scho

or retired from a career in education?

1 Yes 46%

2 No 53%

99 Refused 0%

Those are all of the uestions that I have for ou. Thanks so much for artici



Post-Interview & Sample Items

S1 Gender

1 Male 46%

2 Female 54%

S2 Party

1 Democrat 47%

2 Republican 35%

3 Other 4%

4 DTS 15%

S3 Age on Voter File

1 18 to 29 10%

2 30 to 39 5%

3 40 to 49 18%

4 50 to 64 33%

5 65 or older 28%

99 Not Coded 6%

S4 Registration Date

1 2010 to 2005 30%

2 2004 to 2001 22%3 2000 to 1997 16%

4 1996 to 1990 12%

5 Before 1990 21%



p





S5 Household Party Type

1 Single Dem 20%

2 Dual Dem 20%

3 Single Rep 7%

4 Dual Rep 17%

5 Single Other 11%

6 Dual Other 4%

7 Dem & Rep 8%

8 Dem & Other 5%

9 Rep & Other 7%

0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 1%

S6 Homeowner on Voter File

1 Yes 77%

2 No 23%

S7 Likely to Vote by Mail

1 Yes 22%

2 No 78%

S8 Likely June 2010 Voter

1 Yes 63%

2 No 37%

S9 Likely November 2010 Voter

1 Yes 84%

2 No 16%

S10 Likely Vote-by-Mail Special

1 Yes 45%

2 No 55%



p



PARCEL TAX VERSION


Claremont USD Parcel Tax Survey

Final Toplines May 2010

Section 1: Introduction to Study

Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, anindependent public opinion research firm. We’re conducting a survey of voters aboutimportant issues in Claremont and I’d like to get your opinions.If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sellanything and I won’t ask for a donation.If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can callback?

If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participateinstead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed bythis particular individual.

If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey,politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely

associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.

Section 2: Importance of Issues

Q1 To begin, I’m going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one,please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremelyimportant, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.

Here is the (first/next) issue: _____. Do you think this issue is extremely important, veryimportant, somewhat important, or not at all important?

Randomize

E x t r e m e l y

I m p o r t a n t

V e r y

I m p o r t a n t

S o m e w h a t

I m p o r t a n t

N o t a t a l l

I m p o r t a n t

N o t s u r e

R e f u s e d

A Reducing traffic congestion 8% 26% 47% 17% 2% 0%

BMaintaining the quality of education in ourlocal public schools 49% 40% 8% 1% 1% 0%

C Maintaining local streets and roads 14% 53% 30% 2% 1% 0%

D Preventing local tax increases 19% 31% 30% 17% 3% 0%

E Maintaining local property values 30% 46% 19% 3% 2% 0%

F Improving public safety 22% 39% 33% 5% 2% 0%

G Protecting the environment 31% 39% 26% 4% 0% 0%

HMaking Claremont a green, sustainablecommunity

22% 35% 31% 11% 0% 0%



p



Claremont USD Parcel Tax Survey May 2010


Section 3: Initial Ballot Test Your household is within the Claremont Unified School District. Later this year, voters in theDistrict may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of themeasure:

Q2

In order to:

¹ Protect the quality of education and reduce the impact of State budget cuts atour local schools

¹ Attract and retain high quality teachers, counselors and school securitypersonnel

¹ Maintain small class sizes¹ And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science, technology

and arts that enhance student achievement

Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all

funds staying local to benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would youvote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no)or probably (yes/no)?

1 Definitely yes 43% Skip to Q4

2 Probably yes 22% Skip to Q4




99 Refused 0% Skip to Q4

Q3 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school measure I justdescribed?

Taxes already too high 24%

District should live within budget 16%District has issues other than lack of money 15%

Mismanagement of funds / Wastefulspending

13%

Need more information 8%

Do not have children in District 7%

Ineffective similar measures in past 7%

Should find other funding sources 6%

District already has sufficient money 6%

Salaries too high 5%

Cost of measure is too high 3%

No particular reason 3%

Maintain schools as they are now 2%

Poor quality of teaching, staff 2%



p





Section 4: Tax Threshold

Q4

The measure I just described would raise money through annual property taxes paid byresidential and commercial property owners in the school district. However, theamount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet.

If you heard that your household would pay ______ per year for each property that youown in the district, would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Isthat definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?

Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and

go to next section.

Ask in Order

D e f i n i t e l y

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

Y e s

P r o b a b l y

N o

D e f i n i t e l y

N o

N o t s u r e

R e f u s e d

A $139 41% 19% 9% 25% 4% 1%

B $99 48% 17% 8% 23% 3% 1%

C $79 52% 14% 7% 24% 3% 0%

Section 5: Related Attitudes

Q5 In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in the ClaremontUnified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?

1 Excellent 41%

2 Good 36%

3 Fair 9%

4 Poor 1%

5 Very Poor 0%

98 Not sure 11%

99 Refused 1%

Q6 How would you rate the school district’s need for additional money? Would you say ithas a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?

1 Great need 41%

2 Moderate need 36%

3 Little need 7%

4 No need 7%

98 Not sure 10%

99 Refused 0%



p





Section 6: Programs & Projects

Q7 The measure we’ve been discussing would continue funding for a variety of schoolprograms and services.

If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____,or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that bestrongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?

Randomize S t r o n g l y

F a v o r

S o m e w h a t

F a v o r

S o m e w h a t

O p p o s e

S t r o n g l y

O p p o s e

N o O p i n i o n

R e f u s e d

A Attract and retain the best qualified teachers 74% 15% 2% 4% 5% 1%

BAvoid teacher lay-offs due to State budgetcuts

57% 22% 6% 9% 6% 0%

C Maintain small class sizes 59% 26% 4% 6% 6% 0%

DProvide advanced academic programs inmath, science, and technology

70% 20% 2% 3% 4% 1%

EKeep textbooks and instructional materialsup-to-date

55% 30% 5% 6% 4% 1%

FContinue funding for physical education andathletic programs

50% 34% 8% 4% 5% 0%

G Continue funding for art and music programs 57% 29% 3% 5% 6% 1%

HContinue providing advanced foreignlanguage instruction programs

44% 31% 7% 10% 8% 0%

I Maintain school safety and security personnel 48% 39% 4% 4% 5% 0%

J Maintain academic and career counselors 45% 37% 5% 6% 6% 0%

KKeep classroom computers and technologyup-to-date

57% 29% 3% 6% 6% 0%

LKeep school facilities clean and well

maintained

49% 36% 3% 5% 6% 0%

MMaintaintutorsandaidesforoneonone

instruction 35% 34% 13% 10% 7% 1%

N Keep school libraries open 60% 28% 3% 4% 5% 0%

O

Provide summer school programs that helpkeep at-risk kids on the right track, and helphigh-achieving students move more quicklytoward their goals of higher education

48% 34% 5% 6% 7% 0%

PContinue providing college prep programsthat help our students get into the bestcolleges

67% 19% 5% 6% 4% 0%

Q Prevent furlough (fur-low) days for teachersand other staff

35% 27% 11% 12% 13% 1%



p





Section 7: Positive Arguments

What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’vebeen discussing.

Q8 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhatconvincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure?

Randomize V e r y

C o n v i n c i n g

S o m e w h a t

C o n v i n c i n g

N o t A t A l l

C o n v i n c i n g

D o n ’ t B e l i e v e

D o n ’ t

K n o w / N o

O p i n i o n

R e f u s e d

A

All money raised by the measure will stay inthe District to support our children. It can notbe taken away by the State or used for otherpurposes.

59% 23% 15% 1% 2% 1%

B Good schools help protect and improve localproperty values.

54% 33% 12% 0% 1% 1%

CNo money from the measure will be used topay for administrators’ salaries. Every pennywill go into supporting classroom instruction.

53% 22% 20% 1% 3% 1%

DThis measure lasts for six years only. Thenvoters will get another chance to decide if it isstill needed.

40% 30% 27% 0% 2% 1%

E

State budget cuts are going to hurt thequality of our schools, forcing teacher lay-offs, larger class sizes, and deep cuts toeducational programs. This measure willprovide a stable source of locally-controlledfunding to reduce the impact of State budgetcuts.

46% 34% 16% 1% 2% 1%

FThere will be a clear system of accountabilityincluding a Citizen’s Oversight Committee toensure that the money is spent properly.

39% 34% 25% 1% 2% 1%

G

If we want our kids to be prepared to succeedin the new global economy, they need to havea high quality education—including advancedcourses in math, science and technology.

55% 31% 12% 0% 1% 1%

H

The measure will provide an optionalexemption for property owners who are 65 orolder. We do not want this measure tobecome a burden to seniors living on a fixedincome.

49% 30% 19% 0% 1% 1%

I

The Claremont schools are among the best inthe region. This measure is essential tomaintaining the quality of our outstandinglocal schools.

44% 36% 17% 0% 2% 1%

JBy keeping class sizes small, this measurewill provide more individualized instruction

for students and improve student learning

48% 33% 17% 0% 1% 1%



p





KThis measure will allow the District to providean early college program, so students canreceive a two-year college degree at the timethey graduate high school.

27% 32% 36% 1% 3% 1%

L

This measure will fund college prep coursesthat help students get into the best colleges,and technical training for students who don’tplan to go to college so they have the skillsthey need to compete for in-demand jobsright out of high school.

40% 39% 18% 1% 2% 1%

Section 8: Interim Ballot Test

Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more informationabout it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summaryof it again:

Q9

In order to:



¹ Maintain small class sizes¹ And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science,

technology and arts that enhance student achievement

Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and allfunds staying local to benefit our schools?



2 Probably yes 22%3 Probably no 6%

4 Definitely no 21%

98 Not sure 5%

99 Refused 0%



p





Section 10: Final Ballot Tests

Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it onemore time:

Q11

In order to:



¹ Maintain small class sizes¹ And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science,

technology and arts that enhance student achievement

Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all

funds staying local to benefit our schools?


1 Definitely yes 44% Skip to D1

2 Probably yes 20% Skip to D1




99 Refused 0% Ask Q12

Q12 How about if instead of $139 per parcel, the tax were $99 per parcel. Would you voteyes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) orprobably (yes/no)?

1 Definitely yes 5%

2 Probably yes 7%

3 Probably no 16%

4 Definitely no 60%

98 Not sure 12%

99 Refused 1%



p





D6 Are you or any member of your family currently employed by a local school or college,

or retired from a career in education?

1 Yes 43%

2 No 55%

99 Refused 2%

Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in thisimportant survey.

Post-Interview & Sample Items

S1 Gender

1 Male 45%

2 Female 55%

S2 Party

1 Democrat 50%

2 Republican 32%

3 Other 5%

4 DTS 13%

S3 Age on Voter File

1 18 to 29 7%

2 30 to 39 9%

340 to 49 18%

4 50 to 64 33%

5 65 or older 29%

99 Not Coded 4%

S4 Registration Date

1 2010 to 2005 34%

2 2004 to 2001 21%

3 2000 to 1997 16%

4 1996 to 1990 12%

5 Before 1990 17%



p


S5 Household Party Type

1 Single Dem 21%

2 Dual Dem 19%

3 Single Rep 12%

4 Dual Rep 12%

5 Single Other 11%

6 Dual Other 3%

7 Dem & Rep 7%

8 Dem & Other 6%

9 Rep & Other 6%

0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 3%

S6 Homeowner on Voter File

1 Yes 75%

2 No 25%

S7 Likely to Vote by Mail

1 Yes 27%

2 No 73%

S8 Likely June 2010 Voter

1 Yes 62%

2 No 38%

S9 Likely November 2010 Voter

1 Yes 83%

2 No 17%

S10 Likely Vote-by-Mail Special

1 Yes 46%

2 No 54%

Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T

Documents

Transcript of Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T