Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

R 1015MWR

Authors

R 1015MWR

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(13) "R_1015MWR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "556430" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(49790) "OCTOBER 2015 Margaret Weston with Kevin Cook, Patrick Murphy, and Iwunze Ugo Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools © 2015 Public Policy Institute of California PPIC is a public charity. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or board of directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 3 Introduction 4 Voluntary Contributions in California 5 How Districts Spend Voluntary Contributions 9 Looking Forward: Voluntary Contributions, LCFF, and Equity 11 Conclusion 13 References 14 A bout the A uthors 17 Acknowledgements 17 Table of A technical appendix to this report is available on the PPIC website: ppic.org/content/pubs/other /10 15MWR_appendix.pdf California has recently made a number of dramatic changes in the way it finances K–12 education. One of the most significant was pass ing the Local Controlled Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013. Under the LCFF, the state will provide more per -pupil funding for low -income and English L earner students, thus direct ing more revenue to districts with higher shares of l ow -income students and English L earners than it will to wealthier districts. What has not changed is that local school districts in California have little control over the level of funding available. M ost of the money comes from the state, and districts have few options for increasing their resources. P rivate fundraising is o ne alternative source of revenue—generating voluntary contributions that go directly to schools and districts. This report examines the role these volu ntary contributions play in California’s school finance picture. We found that the y have increased dramatically in recent years—both in dollars and in the number of organizations participating. This growth is impressive and represents an important source of school revenue. For example, we estimate that in 2011, private fundraising accounted for $547 million. However, that is still modest when compared with the year’s total funds for K–12— amounting to less than one percent. Not surprisingly, w ealthier school s and districts raise more money than their poorer counterparts . Could voluntary contributions offset the LCFF’s emphasis on directing more dollars to districts that serve more disadvantaged students ? It is possible, but unlikely at this time. The analysis here ends in 2011, before the start of LCFF. Parents may have stepped up their fundraising efforts subsequently, though offsetting the LCFF effect would require a steep jump in giving. In addition, the distribution of voluntary contributions within a dist rict could raise equity concerns in the future and bears watching , especially for larger districts comprising both wealthy and disadvantaged schools . CONTENTS SUMMARY PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 4 Introduction After years of budget cuts and flat spending following the Great Recession, California’s school finance system is now undergoing dramatic changes. Revenues from Proposition 30 (2012) and an improving state economy are leading to increases in per -pupil funding, which has returned to pre -recession levels. 1 The state is sp ending these additional revenues in two primary ways: pa ying down debts owed to schools and directing funds so that poorer districts have more money to meet their students’ needs. 2 This second initiative is the new school finance formula —the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Under the LCFF, the state will direct more revenue to districts with many low -income students and English Learners than it will to those with only a few. 3 Unlike in many other states, local California school districts have little co ntrol over their level of revenue. 4 The LCFF provides districts with more discretion over how they allocate their funds than they had before it was passed, but state sources still supply most of the dollars dedicated to K–12 education. Even so, districts a re not completely void of options for increasing their revenues. Historically they have used two vehicles: locally generated parcel taxes and private fundraising. A parcel tax is a flat fee per parcel of land approved by two- thirds of local voters. Overall , the contribution of parcel taxes is small. Moreover, the schools benefiting tend to be in wealthier districts. 5 Private fundraising may take many forms: contributions by parents to parent teacher associations (PTAs) or booster clubs, fundraising from var ious sources through a district education foundation, cash or equipment (e.g., used fax machines) from corporations, and grants from philanthropic foundations (e.g., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). This report focuses on this second method of gene rating local revenue. It takes a systematic look at the role voluntary contributions have played in funding California schools in the years leading up to the passage of the LCFF. It is an ambitious effort that identifies all nonprofits affiliated with spec ific schools or school districts between 1990 and 2011, and then tracks the revenue they raise. We find that the level of activity around voluntary contributions has grown dramatically over the period. And, as with parcel taxes, we find that though the sta tewide total revenue is small, wealthier schools and districts raise considerably more money. This dynamic in turn raises the question of equity issues arising within districts containing schools from diverse socioeconomic levels. The report first summariz es voluntary contributions in California and what has changed over time. After establishing that statewide picture, it breaks down voluntary contributions along regional and income dimensions and shows how districts have used those resources. It concludes with a discussion of voluntary contributions going forward under the LCFF, examining the potential for intra -district equity issues. Because so much of the decision making has now been shifted to the local level, we would expect some districts to take a cl oser look at their local revenue options, including private fundraising, and to consider ways to facilitate equitable distribution of those funds among schools. 1 The LAO reports that the recently passed 2015- 16 budget would yield a per-pupil spending level of $9,942 (California Legislative Analyst Office, 2015). This figure compares to an inflation- adjusted per pupil expenditure of $9,272 for the 2008 -09 year. 2 These debts were accrued primarily during the recession and include deferred payments to schools (commonly termed part of the “wall of debt”). At one point these deferred payments —revenue paid after the close of the fiscal year —totaled more than $10 billion. 3See Rose and Weston (2013) California Legislative Analyst ’s Office (2013), for a more detailed discussion of the LCFF. 4 Sonstelie, Brunner, and Ardon, 2000. 5 In the districts where parcel taxes did pass, they contributed an average of $584 per pupi l per year in 2010-11. During that period, per -pupil parcel tax revenue ranged from $25 to $4,500. See McGhee and Weston, 2013, Table 1. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 5 Voluntary Contributions in California This section presents an overview of the role voluntar y contributions play in California public education, describing how the number of organizations and the amount they contribute have grown considerably. It then disaggregates that information geographically and across socioeconomic status. 6 How many organiz ations contribute to schools? Voluntary contributions to California public schools generally flow through tax- exempt organizations such as education foundations , booster clubs, or PTAs. Organizations of this type must report their contributions to the IRS if those contributions exceed a threshold—initially $25,000 but raised to $50,000 in 2010. 7 We estimate the number of organizations that supported public schools over the period 1990 to 2011 to be 12,619.8 For our analysis, w e have partitioned those organ izations into the following six types. Education foundations typically are associated with school districts and seek to use fundraising as a way to supplement tax -generated revenues. Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) are dues -paying affiliates of their st ate and the national PTA structure. They are governed by specific requirements regarding their fundraising and how the funds may be used. Parent Teacher Organizations (P TOs) perform a similar function but are not part of a national network. Both seek to engage parents in the education of their children— with fundraising being one of their activities —and are commonly associated with a specific school. 9 Booster clubs support a particular school’s sports team or teams. Community organizations are non profits specifically focused on education a nd tied to a school or district but are organized by some other local entity. For example, a local chamber of commerce may establish its own education fund. The ”other” category represents the fund- raising nonprofits that we could match to schools or districts but were unable to neatly sort into one of the above categories. Consistent with other research, we report a dramatic growth in support organizations both in terms of their absolute numbers and of the dollars they rais e. 10 Overall, the number of supporting organizations increased by almost one -third, with most of the growth accounted for by entities other than PTAs (Table 1). 6 For a discussion of the methodological approach and associated challenges, please see the Technical Appendix. 7 We di d check to see if there was a significant drop- off in the number of organizations reporting in 2011 as a consequence of the change. If there was one, it does not appear to be significant. By our count, the number of support organizations actually grew from 2010 to 2011 (an additional 195 organizations ). This figure appears to be consistent with changes in the prior five years that averaged an additional 181 organizations a year . Brunner and Sonstelie (1996, 1997), estimated that about 40 percent of school s upport organizations did not meet the threshold and therefore did not file the IRS form. The absence of these organizations in our analysis introduces a downward bias in our estimates. If these organizations are concentrated in poorer districts, our estima tes in Tables 2 and 3 will understate the level of contributions for these schools. 8In addition to these organizations, the sample also included 453 charter schools. Charter schools, as nonprofits, must submit a 990. Some charter schools, like traditional public schools, establish other supporting nonprofits such as PTAs and education foundation and we found an additional 468 or ganizations affiliated with charters were identified. Others, however, report all revenues (including voluntary contributions) in the charter school’s 990. Therefore, it is quite difficult to distinguish voluntary contributions from other state and federal revenues. This report excludes all charter schools and organizations affiliated with charter schools, instead focusing on traditi onal public schools, to ensure that voluntary contributions are not misrepresented and incorrectly estimated in charter schools. Future research could examine voluntary contributions in charter schools. See Quinn, Tompkins -Stange, and Meyerson (2013) for a case study of foundation support for California charter schools, particularly those managed by charter management organizations. 9 The descriptions here are generalizations, of course. It is possible to have a foundation that is affiliated with a specifi c school while a PTA is organized to serve a district. And, in the case of some of California’s micro- districts, the school and the district are the same. 10 Addonizio (1998), Brunner and Sonstelie (1997) and Downes and Steinman (2007) examine voluntary contributions as a response to sweeping changes to state finance constraint policies and found that those most affected by the new state finance systems saw the largest increase in the reven ue raised. Estimates from these and Brent (2002) and Figlio & Kenny ( 2009) show revenues in the tens of thousands per s ite, roughly translating to $10–60 dollars per pupil for the median and mean district. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 6 TABLE 1 Number of support organizations by type, 1990 –2011 Year Education Foundation PTA PTO Booster Community Other Total 1990 278 7,391 445 640 39 479 9,272 2000 583 7,522 735 1,066 105 590 10,601 2011 920 7,288 1,181 2,075 148 690 12,302 SOURCE: Author’s calculations. NOTE: Because of the filing threshold, these numbers should be considered a conservative estimate. I t also is worth noting that an organization that existed in 1990 may not be operating in 2011. Support organizations come and go over the 20 -year period . Each year, then, represents a snapshot of those organizations who filed that year, with a clear upward trend in the total number. As impressive as that growth is, the value of contributions has grown at an even faster rate. Figure 1 presents our estimate of total voluntary contributions to public schools in California from 1990 to 2011, adjusted for inflation. Over the period, total dollars increased more than four -fold. And although the growth in the value of these contributions appeared to plateau around the 2001 dot -com recession, they have been growing steadily sinc e. Even the start of the Great Recession in 2008 appears to have put only a temporary damper on their expansion. In 2011, the final year for which we were able to calculate estimates, voluntary contributions represented $547 million of support to schools, or about $88 per student. FIGURE 1 Total revenue from all reporting nonprofits increased dramatically between 1990 and 2011 SOURCE: IRS Core 990 files 1989–2011 for private foundations and public charities and Master NTEE lookup file, National Center fo r Charitable Statistics; Public School Directory, California Department of Education. NOTES: Figure includes 167 organizations that report 218 instances of negative revenues, totaling $3 million over the time period (not adjusted for inflation). All revenu e is adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers to the annual 2013 value. Given the reporting and revisions deadlines extended by the IRS, revenue reported for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 is preliminary. Nonprofits affiliated with charter schools are excluded. Nonprofits categorized as community foundations (such as chambers of commerce education foundations) are included. There is no Core File for private foundations in 1993, which may affect observed revenue for the 31 organ izations that filed exclusively using the private found ation 990 for fiscal years 1991 –1995. There are 0 observations of private foundation revenue in 1993. In order to help put these figures in perspective, we must compare the total amount of reported vol untary contributions to total K –12 education revenues. For example, the 2011 contributions estimate of nea rly 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total observed revenue ($2013 million) Fiscal year Community Other Booster PTO PTA Education Foundation PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 7 $550 million is significant but needs to be examined in light of the $66.6 billion in total school spending that year.11 Voluntary contributions a ccounted for only 0.8 percent of K–12 dollars that year statewide. Even compared to funds raised by other sources, the overall share of voluntary contributions is modest. In 2011, the federal government provided nearly $10 billion to California 12 school dis tricts, contributing $18 in revenue for every $1 raised by voluntary contributions. The distribution of voluntary contributions As we have seen, statewide figures suggest that the overall share of K –12 spending that voluntary contribution supports is modest. We also know those funds are not raised —and therefore not distributed—equally. This section examines that distribution regionally and relative to school and district income levels. From a geographic perspective, voluntary contributions tend to be a function of larger and coastal school districts (Figure 2). With only a few exceptions, the districts raising more than $100 per pupil were found in the coastal metropolitan areas. Outside those areas, the districts with organizations reporting voluntary contributions tended to be the larger ones in the Central Valley. FIGURE 2 More voluntary contributions occur in larger, coastal school districts SOURCE: Authors’ calculations. To investigate how equitable the distribution of voluntary contributions is in California, we compared the value of the contributions to the share of students enrolled in the free and reduced -price lunch program (FRLP), using that measure as a proxy for wealth. It is not possible to disentangle the web of different school, district, and county support 11 U.S. Bureau of Census 2011 Annual Survey of School District Finances. 12 Ibid. Less than $100/pupil in aggregate at district level More than $100/pupil in aggregate at district level PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 8 organizations that could, in theory, benefit an individual student in a meaningful way. Therefore, we examined the relative distribution of voluntary contributions first across districts and then at the school level. In 2010, 251 districts and 2,311 schools had at least one active support organization that provided relatively complete fiscal information. At the district level, we find the distribution of voluntary contribution organizations skewed toward wealthier communities, with the greatest variation at the extreme ends of the income spectrum. Districts with relatively few students enrolled in FRLP (0–20%) are much more likely to have a voluntary organization raising money for them when compared to districts with more than 80 percent enrolled (Table 2). And, on a per-pupil basis, the wealthiest districts raise almost 15 times more money than the poorest. Table 2 includes only those organizations we matched at the district level and excludes school-based fundraisers. TABLE n The wealthiest districts raise much more than the poorest Students enrolled in FRPL Share with active organizations (%) Total students Dollars per pupil (H) l–nl% qm% rmt,ntu Hmnm.qo nl–pl% oo m,loo,qqm ms.nn pl–rl% nl m,orm,mpo np.un rl–tl% nl n,olr,rtp or.lq tl–mll% t tnn,nuo s.ul SOURCE: Authors’ calculations. NOTE: Only support organizations matched to a specific school district were included in the calculations. Individual schools were not included. A school-level analysis reveals a similar story. Schools with relatively low numbers of students qualifying for FRLP raise the largest sums, on both a per-school and a per-student basis. As Table 3 shows, a school with the fewest relative share of low-income students will raise more than 50 times as much through voluntary contributions as a school at the other end of the spectrum. 13 Table 3 excludes support organizations we matched at the district level that could be the source of additional funds for some of these schools. In addition, this analysis does not account for a school without an active organization raising funds to support it. Since we estimate that the wealthiest schools are far more likely to have a support organization working on their behalf, that disparity becomes greater. TABLE o The wealthiest schools raise much more than poorest Students enrolled in FRPL Share with active organizations (%) Total students Dollars per school (H) Dollars per pupil (H) l–nl% qu% usp,urm Hmlm,nnn Hmpp.pl nl–pl% pn utp,lpq oq,usu ql.ns pl–rl% nu m,mmn,usp nn,lpt op.po rl–tl% mo m,otu,qul q,qmt t.rp tl–mll% p m,rtl,oul m,qsu n.tn SOURCE: Authors’ calculations. NOTE: Only support organizations matched to a specific school were included in the calculations. School district support organizations schools were not included. 13 Brunner and Imazeki (2005) do observe something of a collective action problem where per-pupil dollars do decline as the size of the school grows. This relationship holds after accounting for differences in the socioeconomic status of the students. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 9 How Districts Spend Voluntary Contributions In an effort to determine how districts spent voluntary contributions, we collected board minutes for the entire 2011–12 fiscal year for 25 school districts.14 Based on the board minutes from these districts, we were able to identify 2,427 separate donations totaling $12.4 million and to categorize their intent. In per -pupi l terms, the donations averaged $32, with a range of less than 50 cents per pupil to $262 per pupil. 15 Districts designated these funds to be used for a number of different purposes (Figure 3). In dollar terms, most of the money went to technology and equi pment (e.g., computers, desks), to the district for general purposes, and to fund positions. 16 Relative to the number of donations, however, the most frequent recipients were technology and equipment, schools for general purposes, additional staff, and extr acurricular activities. Although donations to the district and for staff positions were large in magnitude, very few of them were made. And very few donations, both in terms of numbers and revenue, supported teacher stipends. 17 FIGURE 3 Most of the donated dollars were directed to equipment, general support, and added staff SOURCE: Author’s calculation from 2011 –12 board minutes from 25 school districts . NOTE: Extracurricular activities include field trips, athletics, and clubs. Enrichment includes arts a nd music programs and other activities that occur during the school day (e.g., science classes). General donations to schools did not list a purpose but did list the school’s name . 14 The IRS documents provide almost no insight into how school districts allocate these resources. In theory, one could use the state accounting database, SACS, to identify these expenditures, but that system does not provide enough detail. SACS revenue category 8699, “all other local revenue,” is something of a residual category that groups together different revenue such as donations, gifts, and library fines. And, it is not clear that all districts do in fact use this code for voluntary contributions. At t he suggestion of a chief business officer, we examined the board minutes for a sample of districts to try to identify how the district spends donations. State regulations require boards to formally accept gifts to the district. We began with a non- representative sample of 33 districts. Only 25 of the 33 districts’ board minutes were sufficiently detailed to tabulate the purpose of the donation. School districts were selected based on convenience with some effort to create a diverse sample in size, district type, and geographical location. The primary selection criteria, however, was the availabi lity of a full fiscal year 2011–12 of board minutes on their district website. Thus the estimates provided based on this sample should not be viewed as representing t he typical district in California, but rather provide an estimate of the upper and lower bounds of funds raised by PTAs, education foundations, and boosters that are donated to the school or distric t. 15 We did attempt to reconcile the voluntary contributio ns reported in the board minutes with the revenue estimates derived from IRS form 990.15 For this sample of districts, we identified 658 corresponding support organizations. For the 2010 fiscal year, 282 of these support organizations reported rev enues using the 990 totaling $40 million. Because of the mismatch of years and other factors, we did not expect to reconcile the amounts to the penny. However, this figure is mor e than three times the amount that appears in the board minutes. We had expected the boa rd estimates to be higher since they should include gifts from individuals and for -profit corporations. For this sample, individuals and corporations accounted for nearly 40 percent of the accepted contributions (Figure 4). The discrepancy, though, might r eveal more about how diligent boards are in recording gifts in their board minutes. The purpose of this reconciliation is twofold: first, to estimate the percent of 8699 funds that orig inated from PTAs, boosters, and education foundations to estimate the e xtent to which we may be double -counting such revenues using 8699 and revenues provided to the IRS through the 990 form. The second purpose is to get a sense of the funds channeled directly to school districts from organizations other than support organiza tions, such as large family foundations (such as Walton, Gates, or Broad), corporations (such as Apple, Target, and Chevron), and gifts that come directly from individuals. 16 The district donation category is highly skewed by $2.6 million to one district. If that is excluded, there are just 70 district general donations totaling $172,000 in 14 districts. 17 Teacher stipends were most often for coaching or athletics, though they also include small grants and awards. In contrast, th e funds for positions were explicit about FTEs and the type of position (e.g., consultant, counselor). 27.0% 22.3% 16.4% 11.8% 10.5% 8.6% 3.3% Technology & Equipment District, General Position School, General Extracurricular Enrichment Teacher Stipend Technology and equipment District —general Additional staff School —general Extracurricular Enrichment Teacher stipend PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 10 FIGURE 4 Nearly half of the donated dollars came from individuals and paren t associations SOURCE: Author’s calculation from 2011 –12 board minutes from 25 school districts . One interesting finding in the individual donations were those made for students’ absences. When a student is absent, the district loses average daily attendance (ADA). Except for in basic aid districts, funding is based on ADA. A loss in ADA, therefore, results in a loss of state aid. The average revenue limit (property taxes and general purpose state aid) for all districts in 2011 –12 was $5,555 per pupil (Education Data Partnership). For a 180- day school year, this amounts to a little more than $30 per pupil per day. We discovered that some districts send a fo rm letter home to parents of absent students explaining the connection between attendance and lost revenue. The letter also includes a solicitation to cover the lost state revenue. Suggested donations ranged between $20 and $40. In the final section, we w ill use our findings about voluntary contributions patterns prior to the LCFF, along with other recent PPIC research, to examine some questions of equity between and among districts and schools that could arise in future. 24% 23% 23% 15% 9% 6% Individual PTO/PTA Foundation Corporate Booster Other PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 11 Looking Forward: Voluntary Contri butions, LCFF, and Equity The findings we have discussed in the earlier sections of this report reveal that two equity questions may merit additional investigation as LCFF moves forward. The first is the distributional effects of combining locally raised resources from multiple sources. We noted that wealthy school districts were more likely than poor ones to have a voluntary contributions organization affiliated with them. Other PPIC research has found that school districts that passed parcel taxes also ha d fewer students enrolled in the free and reduced -priced lunch program and had higher average household incomes compared to districts where these taxes had not been passed (McGhee and Weston 2013). In the wealthiest districts, the parcel taxes generated $666 per student, on average. 18 Combining parcel tax revenue with voluntary contributions to a district could easily generate more than $800 per student, compared to a district that had neither. And, as already noted, a single school could benefit from a dist rict-level support organization as well as one or more school -based fundraising groups. It appears feasible, then, that motivated wealthy districts could offset some of the progressive distributional effects of LCFF. The second question is whether volunta ry contributions could further accentuate resource differences within a school district. As this analysis found, a large number of support organizations affiliate with specific schools. The school -level analysis found significant disparities among the fund raising capacities, and these differences could exist in a single district. Recent PPIC work describes how the distribution of low -income students and English Learners can vary considerably between schools within a district (Hill and Ugo 2015). The state, however, bases its LCFF calculations on the district level. Since districts now have much more discretion over the distribution of funds, there is no guarantee that the additional resources provided by the LCFF formula will “follow” the students that “gene rate” them. If districts do not direct significantly more resources to the schools with relatively more low -income students and school-based support organizations funnel more dollars to wealthier schools, a concern about intra -district resource equity emerges. We performed an initial analysis of school -affiliated voluntary organizations in the ten districts that had the largest d ifferences in their concentration of high- needs schools relative to the district average as identified in Hill and Ugo (2014). The pattern mimics the one observed in Table 3, but with a slightly larger gap in fundraising levels across the income levels. An d very few of the poorest schools raised any external funds at all. 19 Some districts have instituted equalization policies in an attempt to guard against voluntary contributions fueling within district funding disparities. In arguably the most public and contentious discussion of inequities in voluntary contributions, Santa Monica –Malibu has centralized fundraising operations and prohibits PTAs from direct contributions to schools, with a few exceptions. 20 The local board approved the centralized fundraising unanimously despite strong opposition from Malibu parents, who wanted to keep their donations local.21 Critics claimed that fundraising would decline following the move and even called for splitting the district back into two 18 See McGhee and Weston, 2013, Table 2, p. 4. 19 Eighty schools in these ten districts had more than two- thirds of their students enrolled in the free/reduced meals program. Of these, only eight, or 10 percent, registered voluntary contributions in 2010. 20 Islas (2011) reports that PTAs cannot fund teaching positions and other personnel and “premium programs” at certain schools. PTAs can still donate supplies and equipment and raise funds for field trips. The centralized district equity fund’s revenue comes primarily from the school PTAs who are to voluntarily contribute 15 percent of their revenues (Islas 2012). Stevens (2013) reports that the bans on certain PTA expenditures, pass ed in 2011, takes effect starting in 2014. 21 According to Stevens (2013), the median income in Malibu is twice that of Santa Monica and the city of Malibu has about 15% of Santa Monica’s population. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 12 separate districts.22 Islas (201 3) reports that donations fell by nearly $40,000 in the first fiscal year after the board adopted the policy, suggesting that parents responded to the policy even before full implementation. Albany Unified School District also enacted a central fundraisin g effort in 2011 for its three elementary schools. 23 As in Santa Monica –Malibu, many parents were unhappy and predicted a decline in donations. The new rules allow PTAs to continue fundraising for some projects, but they are prohibited from fundraising for enrichment activities that are supported by the central district fund. In light of our findings, and since the LCFF was designed to direct more resources toward the students of greatest need in California, it will be important to keep an eye on how these local dynamics develop moving forward. 22 Islas (2011, 2012), Stevens (2013) 23 All information o n Albany from Raguso (2014) PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 13 Conclusion We find that the number of organizations that support schools through donations continues to grow in California. The value of those contributions has been growing even faster. This growth has been relative ly steady even in the wake of the Great Recession. As dramatic as that has been, statewide voluntary contributions still represent a modest share of total K–12 spending. We estimate they account for less than one percent of total education revenue. Wealthi er schools and districts, however, are more likely to have fundraising organizations support them, and they generate far more dollars on a per -pupil basis than do poorer schools. This analysis updates our understanding of the role voluntary contributions played in the period before the state made dramatic changes to the way it funds its schools. When California created LCFF in 2013, it began to direct substantially more revenue to districts with many low -income students and English Learners. Could voluntary contributions offset the distributional effects of the new funding formula? At the level of fundraising we observed, it is possible, but unlikely. As reported above in Tables 2 and 3, school districts with very few low -income pupils raise considerably mo re money through voluntary contributions than districts with the highest concentration of poor students. It is a stark contrast. Under the LCFF formula, however, a district with the highest concentration of high -need students could receive as much as an ad ditional $3,000 per pupil over the base funding compared to the district with few high -need students. To match this, wealthy schools and districts would have to raise more than 20 times the $144 per student we estimate they were contributing before the LCF F was passed. What complicates this picture even more is that the extra LCFF funding is based on and managed at the district level. There is no way to ensure that the additional resources will follow the students they were meant for when they go to distri cts containing schools at both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. If districts do not direct significantly more resources to the schools with relatively more low -income students and school -based support organizations funnel more dollars to wealthier schoo ls, a concern about intra-district resource equity emerges. Our findings suggest that if such a concern emerges , it may be a local one. Those worried about equity may want to monitor the role voluntary contributions play in districts where the neediest students are concentrated in just a few schools. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 14 REFERENCES Addonizio, Michael F. 1999. “New Revenues for Public Schools: Alternatives to Broad-Based Taxes.” In Selected Papers in School Finance, 1997 -99, ed. William J. Fowler (U.S. Department of Education , Office of Educational Research and Improvement). Addonizio, Michael F. 2001. “New Revenues for Public Schools: Blurring the Line Between Public and Private Finance.” In Education Finance in the New Millennium, ed. Stephen Chaikind and William J. Fowler . Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education Arnsberger, Paul, Melissa Ludlum, Margaret Riley, and Mark Stanton. 2008. “A History of the Tax-Exempt Sector: An SOI Perspective.” Statistics of Income Bulletin Winter: 105 -135. Blasnik, Michael. 2007. “RECLINK: Stata Module to Probabilistically Match Records.” Born, Laurie and Dave Wilson. 2000. Philanthropic Support for Public Education in the Southwestern Region: An assay of philanthropy’ s potential to impact comprehensive school reform in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas . Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Brent, Brian O. 2002. “Expanding Support Through District Education Foundations: A Tale of Two States.” Leadership and Policy in Schools , 1 (1): 30 -51. Brunner, Eric J. and Jon Sonstelie. 1996. “Coping with Serrano : Voluntary Contributions to California’s Local Public Schools.” Aspen Institute. Brunner, Eric J. and Jon Sonstelie. 1997. “Coping with Serra no: Voluntary Contributions to California’s Local Public Schools.” Proceedings of the Eighty -Ninth Annul Conference on Taxation: 372-381 National Tax Association. Brunner, Eric J. and Jon Sonstelie. 2003. “School Finance Reform and Voluntary Fiscal Federa lism.” Journal of Public Economics , 87 (9-10): 2157- 2185. Brunner, Eric J. and Jennifer Imazeki. 2003. “Private Contributions and Public School Resources.” Discussion Paper 07-03, San Diego State University Center for Public Economics. Brunner, Eric J. and Jennifer Imazeki. 2005. “Fiscal Stress and Voluntary Contributions to Public Schools.” In Developments in School Finance , 2004: Fiscal Proceedings From the Annual State Data Conference of July 2004, ed. Fowler, W.J., Jr. (Government Pr inting Office). California Budget Project. 2014. “An Incomplete Vision: Putting the Governor’s Proposed 2014 –15 Budget in Context. ” California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2013. An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula. California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011. The 2011–12 Budget: To Defer or Not Defer? An Analysis of the Effects of K –12 Payment Deferral. California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2015. The 2015-16 Budget: Major Features of the Adopted Plan . Crawford, Susan and Peggy Levitt. 1999. “Social Change and Civic Engagement: The Case of the PTA.” In Civic Engagement in American Democracy, ed. Skocpol, Theda and Morris P. Fiorina (Brookings Institution Press). de Leon, Erwin, Katie L. Roeger, Carol J. de Vita, and Elizabeth T. Boris. 2010. “Who Helps Public Schools? Public Education Support Organizations in 2010.” Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. de Luna, P. 1998. “Local Education Foundation: Right for Many Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan 79 (5): 385 -9. Downes, Thomas and Jason Steinman. 2007. “Alternative Revenue Generation in Vermont Public Schools: Raising Funds Outside the Tax Base to Support Public Education.” Unpublished manuscript. Figlio, David N. and Lawrence W. Kenny. 2009. “Public Sector Performance Measurement and Stakeholder Support.” Journal of Public Economics 93 (9-10): 1069- 1077. Fischel, William. 2003. “Notes on the volun tary payment of taxes: How Vermont towns avoid the Act 60’s penalties for local school spending.” Unpublished manuscript. Golebiewski, Julie Anna and John Yinger. 2008. “Who Gives? The Determinants of Contributions to Education Foundations, Booster Clubs, and PTAs in California.” Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University. Greene, Jay P. 2005. “Buckets into the Sea: Why Philanthropy isn’t Changing Schools, and How it Could.” In With the Best of Intentions: How Philanthropy is Reshaping K–12 Education , ed. Hess, Frederick M. (Harvard Publishing Group). PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 15 Guzman -Lopez, Adolfo. April 3, 2014. “Report: Foundation funding widens the gap between California's 'rich' and 'poor' schools .” 89.3 KPCC radio. Islas, Jason. 2011. “Santa Monica-Malibu School Board Approves Controversial Gift Policy .” Santa Monica Lookout , December 1. Islas, Jason. 2012. “Equity Fund Slump Related to District -Wide Fundraising Effort, Say Malibu Parents .” Santa Moni ca Lookout, November 1. Islas, Jason. 2013. “Santa Monica -Malibu Ed Foundation Takes on New Fundraisers for Centralized Funding Program .” Santa Monica Lookout , February 26. Killeen, Kieran. 2007. “How the Media Misleads the Story of School Consumerism: A Perspective from School Finance.” Peabody Journal of Education 82 (1): 32 -62. Loeb, Susanna. 2001. “Local Revenue Options for K –12 Education.” In School Finance and California’s Master Plan for Education, ed. J. Sonstelie and P. Richardson (Public Policy Institute of California). Luttrell, Sharron Kahn . “What Should PTOs Pay For?” PTO Today . Meno, L.R. 1983. “Sources of Alternative Revenue.” In Managing Limited Resources: New Demands on Public School Management , ed. L.D. Webb and V.D. Mueller (Ballenger ). Merz, Carol and Sheldon S. Frankel. 1995. Private Funds for Public Schools: A Study of School Foundations . University of Puget Sound. Merz, Carol and Sheldon S. Frankel. 1997. “School Foundations: L ocal Control or Equity Circumvented?” The School Adminstrator, 54 (1): 28- 31. National Center for Charitable Statistics. Public Charities Core Files 1989 -2011. National Center for Charitable Statistics. Private Foundations Core Files 1989 -2011. National C enter for Charitable Statistics. Master File. Quinn, Rand, Megan Tompkins -Stange, and Debra Meyerson. 2013. “Beyond Grantmaking: Philanthropic Foundations as Agents of Change and Institutional Entrepreneurs.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX (X ): 1 -19. Raguso, Emilie. 2014. “Albany School District Levels Parent Fundraising Playing Field. ” San Francisco Public Press, February 13. Reckhow, Sarah and Jeffrey W. Snyder. 2014. “The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics.” Educational Researcher 43 (4): 186 -195. Rose, Heather and Margaret Weston. “California’s School Finance Reforms Target More Funding to Poor Students .” Center for Poverty Research Policy Brief 2 (8). U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. “Projections of Education Statistics to 2021. ” 2013. St. George, Donna. 2014. “Scoreboards and butterfly gardens: Is parent fundrai sing equitable in Montgomery?” Washington Post, May 10. Sattem, Jennifer L. “Publicly Funded, Privately Assisted: The Role of Giving in Oregon K –12 Education.” Unpublished manuscript. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University. Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Hella Bel Hadj Amor, and Norm Fruchter. 2002. “Private Money/Public Schools: Early Evidence on Private and Non -Traditional Support for New York City Public Schools." In Research in Education Fiscal Policy and Practice , ed. Christopher Roellke and Jennifer Rice (In formation Age Publishing). Smith, Jeremy Adam. 2014. “How Budget Cuts and PTA Fundraising Undermined Equity in San F rancisco Public Schools.” San Francisco Public Press , February 3. Sonstelie, Jon, 2015. Parcel Taxes as a Local Revenue Source in California. Public Policy Institute of California. Sonstelie, Jon, Eric Brunner, and Kenneth Ardon, 2000. For Better or For Worse? School Finance Reform in California . Public Policy Institute of California. Stevens, Matt. 2013. “A Split of Haves and Have Mores .” Los Angeles Times , April 28. Thorsby, Jeffrey, Jason Winshell, Tom Guffey, and Justin Slaughter. 2014. “Infographics: School Fundraising in S.F. by the Numbers .” San Francisco Public Press , February 6. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 16 Useem, Elizabeth L. 1999. From the Margins to the Center of School Reform: A Look at the W ork of Local Education Funds in Seventeen Communities . Public Education Network. Useem, Elizabeth L. and Ruth Curran Neild. 1995. “A Place at the Table: The Changing Role of Urban Public Education Funds.” Urban Education 30 (2): 175 -194. Zimmer, Ron, Cathy Krop, Tessa Kaganoff, Karen Ross, and Dominic Brewer. 2001. Private Giving to Public Schools and Districts in Los Angeles County: A Pilot Study . RAND Corporation. Zimmer, Ron W., Cathy Krop, and Dominic J. Brewer. “2003. Private Resourc es in Public Schools: Evidence from a Pilot Study.” Journal of Education Finance 28 (4): 485 -521. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 17 ABOUT THE AUTHOR S Margaret Weston worked as a PPIC research fellow specializing in K –12 school finance. Before joining PPIC, she taught high school English and drama in Baltimore City Public Schools through Tea ch For America. She earned an MA degree in teaching from Johns Hopkins University and an MPP from the University of Michigan. Before her untimely death in July 2014, s he was pursuing a PhD in school org anization and education policy at the University of California, Davis. Kevin Cook is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California. His research interests include education finance and policy for both K –12 and higher education, and his current work focuses on performance -based funding, online learning, and public pensions. Before joining PPIC, he worked as a research assistant in the investments division of the California State Teachers ’ Retirement System, where he conducted sustainabili ty risk analysis. He holds an MPPA from Sacramento State University and a BA in history from Occidental College. Patrick Murphy is director of research and a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he holds the Thomas C. Sutton C hair in Policy Research. At PPIC, Patrick coordinates and directs the policy work of over 25 researchers. His own research focuses on education financing and management in both K –12 and higher education. He is a professor of politics at the University of S an Francisco, where he served as the director of the McCarthy Center for Public Service. His work has been published by PPIC, the Center for American Progress, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Center on Reinventing Public Education, the Berkeley Cente r for Studies in Higher Education, and RAND. Previously, he worked for RAND and at the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, DC. He holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin –Madison and a master’s of public affairs from the University of Texas –Austin. Iwunze Ugo is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California. His work focuses on K –12 education. Previously, he studied adolescent health and changes in education spending following the passage of Proposition 13. He holds a BA in economics and mathematics, with a minor in statistical science, from the University of California, Santa Barbara. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Maggie Weston began this project in 2011 and had written a draft prior to her death. PPIC felt the contribution was too impor tant not to see it through to completion. Refinement of her draft and preparing it for release became an institutional effort. We f eel the final product is consistent with the direction and message of that first draft. T hanks to The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation for support of this research. We are also particularly grateful to Eric Brunner for sharing his dataset of matched organizations and his time discussing his methods as well as the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics. David Ezekiel and Chrysanthemum Mattison also deserve thanks for providing initial exploratory data wo rk. Maggie’s longtime colla borators Jon Sonstelie and Heather Rose help us make sure we remained true to her voice as well as offering their considerable expertise on the substance. Finally, we thank Kim Reuben, Eric Brunner, Jacob Jackson, and Lynette Ubois for their comments on a prior draft and Chansonette Buck for helping us tell the story in an accessible manner. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Donna Lucas, Chair Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Mark Baldassare President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Ruben Barrales President and CEO GROW Elect María Blanco Executive Director Undocumented Student Legal Services Center University of California Office of the President Louise Henry Bryson Chair Emerita, Board of Trustees J. Paul Getty Trust A. Marisa Chun Partner McDermott Will & Emery LLP Phil Isenberg Vice Chair Delta Stewardship Council Mas Masumoto Author and Farmer Steven A. Merksamer Senior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP Gerald L. Parsky Chairman Aurora Capital Group Kim Polese Chairman ClearStreet, Inc. Gaddi H. Vasquez Senior Vice President, Government Affairs Edison International Southern California Edison The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independ ent, objective, nonpartisan research. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: 415.291.4400 F: 415.291.4401 PPIC.ORG P PIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 T: 916.440.1120 F: 916.440.1121" } ["___content":protected]=> string(104) "

R 1015MWR

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(97) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/voluntary-contributions-to-californias-public-schools/r_1015mwr/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8975) ["ID"]=> int(8975) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:42:38" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4481) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(9) "R 1015MWR" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(9) "r_1015mwr" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(13) "R_1015MWR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "556430" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(49790) "OCTOBER 2015 Margaret Weston with Kevin Cook, Patrick Murphy, and Iwunze Ugo Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools © 2015 Public Policy Institute of California PPIC is a public charity. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or board of directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 3 Introduction 4 Voluntary Contributions in California 5 How Districts Spend Voluntary Contributions 9 Looking Forward: Voluntary Contributions, LCFF, and Equity 11 Conclusion 13 References 14 A bout the A uthors 17 Acknowledgements 17 Table of A technical appendix to this report is available on the PPIC website: ppic.org/content/pubs/other /10 15MWR_appendix.pdf California has recently made a number of dramatic changes in the way it finances K–12 education. One of the most significant was pass ing the Local Controlled Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013. Under the LCFF, the state will provide more per -pupil funding for low -income and English L earner students, thus direct ing more revenue to districts with higher shares of l ow -income students and English L earners than it will to wealthier districts. What has not changed is that local school districts in California have little control over the level of funding available. M ost of the money comes from the state, and districts have few options for increasing their resources. P rivate fundraising is o ne alternative source of revenue—generating voluntary contributions that go directly to schools and districts. This report examines the role these volu ntary contributions play in California’s school finance picture. We found that the y have increased dramatically in recent years—both in dollars and in the number of organizations participating. This growth is impressive and represents an important source of school revenue. For example, we estimate that in 2011, private fundraising accounted for $547 million. However, that is still modest when compared with the year’s total funds for K–12— amounting to less than one percent. Not surprisingly, w ealthier school s and districts raise more money than their poorer counterparts . Could voluntary contributions offset the LCFF’s emphasis on directing more dollars to districts that serve more disadvantaged students ? It is possible, but unlikely at this time. The analysis here ends in 2011, before the start of LCFF. Parents may have stepped up their fundraising efforts subsequently, though offsetting the LCFF effect would require a steep jump in giving. In addition, the distribution of voluntary contributions within a dist rict could raise equity concerns in the future and bears watching , especially for larger districts comprising both wealthy and disadvantaged schools . CONTENTS SUMMARY PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 4 Introduction After years of budget cuts and flat spending following the Great Recession, California’s school finance system is now undergoing dramatic changes. Revenues from Proposition 30 (2012) and an improving state economy are leading to increases in per -pupil funding, which has returned to pre -recession levels. 1 The state is sp ending these additional revenues in two primary ways: pa ying down debts owed to schools and directing funds so that poorer districts have more money to meet their students’ needs. 2 This second initiative is the new school finance formula —the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Under the LCFF, the state will direct more revenue to districts with many low -income students and English Learners than it will to those with only a few. 3 Unlike in many other states, local California school districts have little co ntrol over their level of revenue. 4 The LCFF provides districts with more discretion over how they allocate their funds than they had before it was passed, but state sources still supply most of the dollars dedicated to K–12 education. Even so, districts a re not completely void of options for increasing their revenues. Historically they have used two vehicles: locally generated parcel taxes and private fundraising. A parcel tax is a flat fee per parcel of land approved by two- thirds of local voters. Overall , the contribution of parcel taxes is small. Moreover, the schools benefiting tend to be in wealthier districts. 5 Private fundraising may take many forms: contributions by parents to parent teacher associations (PTAs) or booster clubs, fundraising from var ious sources through a district education foundation, cash or equipment (e.g., used fax machines) from corporations, and grants from philanthropic foundations (e.g., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). This report focuses on this second method of gene rating local revenue. It takes a systematic look at the role voluntary contributions have played in funding California schools in the years leading up to the passage of the LCFF. It is an ambitious effort that identifies all nonprofits affiliated with spec ific schools or school districts between 1990 and 2011, and then tracks the revenue they raise. We find that the level of activity around voluntary contributions has grown dramatically over the period. And, as with parcel taxes, we find that though the sta tewide total revenue is small, wealthier schools and districts raise considerably more money. This dynamic in turn raises the question of equity issues arising within districts containing schools from diverse socioeconomic levels. The report first summariz es voluntary contributions in California and what has changed over time. After establishing that statewide picture, it breaks down voluntary contributions along regional and income dimensions and shows how districts have used those resources. It concludes with a discussion of voluntary contributions going forward under the LCFF, examining the potential for intra -district equity issues. Because so much of the decision making has now been shifted to the local level, we would expect some districts to take a cl oser look at their local revenue options, including private fundraising, and to consider ways to facilitate equitable distribution of those funds among schools. 1 The LAO reports that the recently passed 2015- 16 budget would yield a per-pupil spending level of $9,942 (California Legislative Analyst Office, 2015). This figure compares to an inflation- adjusted per pupil expenditure of $9,272 for the 2008 -09 year. 2 These debts were accrued primarily during the recession and include deferred payments to schools (commonly termed part of the “wall of debt”). At one point these deferred payments —revenue paid after the close of the fiscal year —totaled more than $10 billion. 3See Rose and Weston (2013) California Legislative Analyst ’s Office (2013), for a more detailed discussion of the LCFF. 4 Sonstelie, Brunner, and Ardon, 2000. 5 In the districts where parcel taxes did pass, they contributed an average of $584 per pupi l per year in 2010-11. During that period, per -pupil parcel tax revenue ranged from $25 to $4,500. See McGhee and Weston, 2013, Table 1. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 5 Voluntary Contributions in California This section presents an overview of the role voluntar y contributions play in California public education, describing how the number of organizations and the amount they contribute have grown considerably. It then disaggregates that information geographically and across socioeconomic status. 6 How many organiz ations contribute to schools? Voluntary contributions to California public schools generally flow through tax- exempt organizations such as education foundations , booster clubs, or PTAs. Organizations of this type must report their contributions to the IRS if those contributions exceed a threshold—initially $25,000 but raised to $50,000 in 2010. 7 We estimate the number of organizations that supported public schools over the period 1990 to 2011 to be 12,619.8 For our analysis, w e have partitioned those organ izations into the following six types. Education foundations typically are associated with school districts and seek to use fundraising as a way to supplement tax -generated revenues. Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) are dues -paying affiliates of their st ate and the national PTA structure. They are governed by specific requirements regarding their fundraising and how the funds may be used. Parent Teacher Organizations (P TOs) perform a similar function but are not part of a national network. Both seek to engage parents in the education of their children— with fundraising being one of their activities —and are commonly associated with a specific school. 9 Booster clubs support a particular school’s sports team or teams. Community organizations are non profits specifically focused on education a nd tied to a school or district but are organized by some other local entity. For example, a local chamber of commerce may establish its own education fund. The ”other” category represents the fund- raising nonprofits that we could match to schools or districts but were unable to neatly sort into one of the above categories. Consistent with other research, we report a dramatic growth in support organizations both in terms of their absolute numbers and of the dollars they rais e. 10 Overall, the number of supporting organizations increased by almost one -third, with most of the growth accounted for by entities other than PTAs (Table 1). 6 For a discussion of the methodological approach and associated challenges, please see the Technical Appendix. 7 We di d check to see if there was a significant drop- off in the number of organizations reporting in 2011 as a consequence of the change. If there was one, it does not appear to be significant. By our count, the number of support organizations actually grew from 2010 to 2011 (an additional 195 organizations ). This figure appears to be consistent with changes in the prior five years that averaged an additional 181 organizations a year . Brunner and Sonstelie (1996, 1997), estimated that about 40 percent of school s upport organizations did not meet the threshold and therefore did not file the IRS form. The absence of these organizations in our analysis introduces a downward bias in our estimates. If these organizations are concentrated in poorer districts, our estima tes in Tables 2 and 3 will understate the level of contributions for these schools. 8In addition to these organizations, the sample also included 453 charter schools. Charter schools, as nonprofits, must submit a 990. Some charter schools, like traditional public schools, establish other supporting nonprofits such as PTAs and education foundation and we found an additional 468 or ganizations affiliated with charters were identified. Others, however, report all revenues (including voluntary contributions) in the charter school’s 990. Therefore, it is quite difficult to distinguish voluntary contributions from other state and federal revenues. This report excludes all charter schools and organizations affiliated with charter schools, instead focusing on traditi onal public schools, to ensure that voluntary contributions are not misrepresented and incorrectly estimated in charter schools. Future research could examine voluntary contributions in charter schools. See Quinn, Tompkins -Stange, and Meyerson (2013) for a case study of foundation support for California charter schools, particularly those managed by charter management organizations. 9 The descriptions here are generalizations, of course. It is possible to have a foundation that is affiliated with a specifi c school while a PTA is organized to serve a district. And, in the case of some of California’s micro- districts, the school and the district are the same. 10 Addonizio (1998), Brunner and Sonstelie (1997) and Downes and Steinman (2007) examine voluntary contributions as a response to sweeping changes to state finance constraint policies and found that those most affected by the new state finance systems saw the largest increase in the reven ue raised. Estimates from these and Brent (2002) and Figlio & Kenny ( 2009) show revenues in the tens of thousands per s ite, roughly translating to $10–60 dollars per pupil for the median and mean district. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 6 TABLE 1 Number of support organizations by type, 1990 –2011 Year Education Foundation PTA PTO Booster Community Other Total 1990 278 7,391 445 640 39 479 9,272 2000 583 7,522 735 1,066 105 590 10,601 2011 920 7,288 1,181 2,075 148 690 12,302 SOURCE: Author’s calculations. NOTE: Because of the filing threshold, these numbers should be considered a conservative estimate. I t also is worth noting that an organization that existed in 1990 may not be operating in 2011. Support organizations come and go over the 20 -year period . Each year, then, represents a snapshot of those organizations who filed that year, with a clear upward trend in the total number. As impressive as that growth is, the value of contributions has grown at an even faster rate. Figure 1 presents our estimate of total voluntary contributions to public schools in California from 1990 to 2011, adjusted for inflation. Over the period, total dollars increased more than four -fold. And although the growth in the value of these contributions appeared to plateau around the 2001 dot -com recession, they have been growing steadily sinc e. Even the start of the Great Recession in 2008 appears to have put only a temporary damper on their expansion. In 2011, the final year for which we were able to calculate estimates, voluntary contributions represented $547 million of support to schools, or about $88 per student. FIGURE 1 Total revenue from all reporting nonprofits increased dramatically between 1990 and 2011 SOURCE: IRS Core 990 files 1989–2011 for private foundations and public charities and Master NTEE lookup file, National Center fo r Charitable Statistics; Public School Directory, California Department of Education. NOTES: Figure includes 167 organizations that report 218 instances of negative revenues, totaling $3 million over the time period (not adjusted for inflation). All revenu e is adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers to the annual 2013 value. Given the reporting and revisions deadlines extended by the IRS, revenue reported for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 is preliminary. Nonprofits affiliated with charter schools are excluded. Nonprofits categorized as community foundations (such as chambers of commerce education foundations) are included. There is no Core File for private foundations in 1993, which may affect observed revenue for the 31 organ izations that filed exclusively using the private found ation 990 for fiscal years 1991 –1995. There are 0 observations of private foundation revenue in 1993. In order to help put these figures in perspective, we must compare the total amount of reported vol untary contributions to total K –12 education revenues. For example, the 2011 contributions estimate of nea rly 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total observed revenue ($2013 million) Fiscal year Community Other Booster PTO PTA Education Foundation PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 7 $550 million is significant but needs to be examined in light of the $66.6 billion in total school spending that year.11 Voluntary contributions a ccounted for only 0.8 percent of K–12 dollars that year statewide. Even compared to funds raised by other sources, the overall share of voluntary contributions is modest. In 2011, the federal government provided nearly $10 billion to California 12 school dis tricts, contributing $18 in revenue for every $1 raised by voluntary contributions. The distribution of voluntary contributions As we have seen, statewide figures suggest that the overall share of K –12 spending that voluntary contribution supports is modest. We also know those funds are not raised —and therefore not distributed—equally. This section examines that distribution regionally and relative to school and district income levels. From a geographic perspective, voluntary contributions tend to be a function of larger and coastal school districts (Figure 2). With only a few exceptions, the districts raising more than $100 per pupil were found in the coastal metropolitan areas. Outside those areas, the districts with organizations reporting voluntary contributions tended to be the larger ones in the Central Valley. FIGURE 2 More voluntary contributions occur in larger, coastal school districts SOURCE: Authors’ calculations. To investigate how equitable the distribution of voluntary contributions is in California, we compared the value of the contributions to the share of students enrolled in the free and reduced -price lunch program (FRLP), using that measure as a proxy for wealth. It is not possible to disentangle the web of different school, district, and county support 11 U.S. Bureau of Census 2011 Annual Survey of School District Finances. 12 Ibid. Less than $100/pupil in aggregate at district level More than $100/pupil in aggregate at district level PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 8 organizations that could, in theory, benefit an individual student in a meaningful way. Therefore, we examined the relative distribution of voluntary contributions first across districts and then at the school level. In 2010, 251 districts and 2,311 schools had at least one active support organization that provided relatively complete fiscal information. At the district level, we find the distribution of voluntary contribution organizations skewed toward wealthier communities, with the greatest variation at the extreme ends of the income spectrum. Districts with relatively few students enrolled in FRLP (0–20%) are much more likely to have a voluntary organization raising money for them when compared to districts with more than 80 percent enrolled (Table 2). And, on a per-pupil basis, the wealthiest districts raise almost 15 times more money than the poorest. Table 2 includes only those organizations we matched at the district level and excludes school-based fundraisers. TABLE n The wealthiest districts raise much more than the poorest Students enrolled in FRPL Share with active organizations (%) Total students Dollars per pupil (H) l–nl% qm% rmt,ntu Hmnm.qo nl–pl% oo m,loo,qqm ms.nn pl–rl% nl m,orm,mpo np.un rl–tl% nl n,olr,rtp or.lq tl–mll% t tnn,nuo s.ul SOURCE: Authors’ calculations. NOTE: Only support organizations matched to a specific school district were included in the calculations. Individual schools were not included. A school-level analysis reveals a similar story. Schools with relatively low numbers of students qualifying for FRLP raise the largest sums, on both a per-school and a per-student basis. As Table 3 shows, a school with the fewest relative share of low-income students will raise more than 50 times as much through voluntary contributions as a school at the other end of the spectrum. 13 Table 3 excludes support organizations we matched at the district level that could be the source of additional funds for some of these schools. In addition, this analysis does not account for a school without an active organization raising funds to support it. Since we estimate that the wealthiest schools are far more likely to have a support organization working on their behalf, that disparity becomes greater. TABLE o The wealthiest schools raise much more than poorest Students enrolled in FRPL Share with active organizations (%) Total students Dollars per school (H) Dollars per pupil (H) l–nl% qu% usp,urm Hmlm,nnn Hmpp.pl nl–pl% pn utp,lpq oq,usu ql.ns pl–rl% nu m,mmn,usp nn,lpt op.po rl–tl% mo m,otu,qul q,qmt t.rp tl–mll% p m,rtl,oul m,qsu n.tn SOURCE: Authors’ calculations. NOTE: Only support organizations matched to a specific school were included in the calculations. School district support organizations schools were not included. 13 Brunner and Imazeki (2005) do observe something of a collective action problem where per-pupil dollars do decline as the size of the school grows. This relationship holds after accounting for differences in the socioeconomic status of the students. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 9 How Districts Spend Voluntary Contributions In an effort to determine how districts spent voluntary contributions, we collected board minutes for the entire 2011–12 fiscal year for 25 school districts.14 Based on the board minutes from these districts, we were able to identify 2,427 separate donations totaling $12.4 million and to categorize their intent. In per -pupi l terms, the donations averaged $32, with a range of less than 50 cents per pupil to $262 per pupil. 15 Districts designated these funds to be used for a number of different purposes (Figure 3). In dollar terms, most of the money went to technology and equi pment (e.g., computers, desks), to the district for general purposes, and to fund positions. 16 Relative to the number of donations, however, the most frequent recipients were technology and equipment, schools for general purposes, additional staff, and extr acurricular activities. Although donations to the district and for staff positions were large in magnitude, very few of them were made. And very few donations, both in terms of numbers and revenue, supported teacher stipends. 17 FIGURE 3 Most of the donated dollars were directed to equipment, general support, and added staff SOURCE: Author’s calculation from 2011 –12 board minutes from 25 school districts . NOTE: Extracurricular activities include field trips, athletics, and clubs. Enrichment includes arts a nd music programs and other activities that occur during the school day (e.g., science classes). General donations to schools did not list a purpose but did list the school’s name . 14 The IRS documents provide almost no insight into how school districts allocate these resources. In theory, one could use the state accounting database, SACS, to identify these expenditures, but that system does not provide enough detail. SACS revenue category 8699, “all other local revenue,” is something of a residual category that groups together different revenue such as donations, gifts, and library fines. And, it is not clear that all districts do in fact use this code for voluntary contributions. At t he suggestion of a chief business officer, we examined the board minutes for a sample of districts to try to identify how the district spends donations. State regulations require boards to formally accept gifts to the district. We began with a non- representative sample of 33 districts. Only 25 of the 33 districts’ board minutes were sufficiently detailed to tabulate the purpose of the donation. School districts were selected based on convenience with some effort to create a diverse sample in size, district type, and geographical location. The primary selection criteria, however, was the availabi lity of a full fiscal year 2011–12 of board minutes on their district website. Thus the estimates provided based on this sample should not be viewed as representing t he typical district in California, but rather provide an estimate of the upper and lower bounds of funds raised by PTAs, education foundations, and boosters that are donated to the school or distric t. 15 We did attempt to reconcile the voluntary contributio ns reported in the board minutes with the revenue estimates derived from IRS form 990.15 For this sample of districts, we identified 658 corresponding support organizations. For the 2010 fiscal year, 282 of these support organizations reported rev enues using the 990 totaling $40 million. Because of the mismatch of years and other factors, we did not expect to reconcile the amounts to the penny. However, this figure is mor e than three times the amount that appears in the board minutes. We had expected the boa rd estimates to be higher since they should include gifts from individuals and for -profit corporations. For this sample, individuals and corporations accounted for nearly 40 percent of the accepted contributions (Figure 4). The discrepancy, though, might r eveal more about how diligent boards are in recording gifts in their board minutes. The purpose of this reconciliation is twofold: first, to estimate the percent of 8699 funds that orig inated from PTAs, boosters, and education foundations to estimate the e xtent to which we may be double -counting such revenues using 8699 and revenues provided to the IRS through the 990 form. The second purpose is to get a sense of the funds channeled directly to school districts from organizations other than support organiza tions, such as large family foundations (such as Walton, Gates, or Broad), corporations (such as Apple, Target, and Chevron), and gifts that come directly from individuals. 16 The district donation category is highly skewed by $2.6 million to one district. If that is excluded, there are just 70 district general donations totaling $172,000 in 14 districts. 17 Teacher stipends were most often for coaching or athletics, though they also include small grants and awards. In contrast, th e funds for positions were explicit about FTEs and the type of position (e.g., consultant, counselor). 27.0% 22.3% 16.4% 11.8% 10.5% 8.6% 3.3% Technology & Equipment District, General Position School, General Extracurricular Enrichment Teacher Stipend Technology and equipment District —general Additional staff School —general Extracurricular Enrichment Teacher stipend PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 10 FIGURE 4 Nearly half of the donated dollars came from individuals and paren t associations SOURCE: Author’s calculation from 2011 –12 board minutes from 25 school districts . One interesting finding in the individual donations were those made for students’ absences. When a student is absent, the district loses average daily attendance (ADA). Except for in basic aid districts, funding is based on ADA. A loss in ADA, therefore, results in a loss of state aid. The average revenue limit (property taxes and general purpose state aid) for all districts in 2011 –12 was $5,555 per pupil (Education Data Partnership). For a 180- day school year, this amounts to a little more than $30 per pupil per day. We discovered that some districts send a fo rm letter home to parents of absent students explaining the connection between attendance and lost revenue. The letter also includes a solicitation to cover the lost state revenue. Suggested donations ranged between $20 and $40. In the final section, we w ill use our findings about voluntary contributions patterns prior to the LCFF, along with other recent PPIC research, to examine some questions of equity between and among districts and schools that could arise in future. 24% 23% 23% 15% 9% 6% Individual PTO/PTA Foundation Corporate Booster Other PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 11 Looking Forward: Voluntary Contri butions, LCFF, and Equity The findings we have discussed in the earlier sections of this report reveal that two equity questions may merit additional investigation as LCFF moves forward. The first is the distributional effects of combining locally raised resources from multiple sources. We noted that wealthy school districts were more likely than poor ones to have a voluntary contributions organization affiliated with them. Other PPIC research has found that school districts that passed parcel taxes also ha d fewer students enrolled in the free and reduced -priced lunch program and had higher average household incomes compared to districts where these taxes had not been passed (McGhee and Weston 2013). In the wealthiest districts, the parcel taxes generated $666 per student, on average. 18 Combining parcel tax revenue with voluntary contributions to a district could easily generate more than $800 per student, compared to a district that had neither. And, as already noted, a single school could benefit from a dist rict-level support organization as well as one or more school -based fundraising groups. It appears feasible, then, that motivated wealthy districts could offset some of the progressive distributional effects of LCFF. The second question is whether volunta ry contributions could further accentuate resource differences within a school district. As this analysis found, a large number of support organizations affiliate with specific schools. The school -level analysis found significant disparities among the fund raising capacities, and these differences could exist in a single district. Recent PPIC work describes how the distribution of low -income students and English Learners can vary considerably between schools within a district (Hill and Ugo 2015). The state, however, bases its LCFF calculations on the district level. Since districts now have much more discretion over the distribution of funds, there is no guarantee that the additional resources provided by the LCFF formula will “follow” the students that “gene rate” them. If districts do not direct significantly more resources to the schools with relatively more low -income students and school-based support organizations funnel more dollars to wealthier schools, a concern about intra -district resource equity emerges. We performed an initial analysis of school -affiliated voluntary organizations in the ten districts that had the largest d ifferences in their concentration of high- needs schools relative to the district average as identified in Hill and Ugo (2014). The pattern mimics the one observed in Table 3, but with a slightly larger gap in fundraising levels across the income levels. An d very few of the poorest schools raised any external funds at all. 19 Some districts have instituted equalization policies in an attempt to guard against voluntary contributions fueling within district funding disparities. In arguably the most public and contentious discussion of inequities in voluntary contributions, Santa Monica –Malibu has centralized fundraising operations and prohibits PTAs from direct contributions to schools, with a few exceptions. 20 The local board approved the centralized fundraising unanimously despite strong opposition from Malibu parents, who wanted to keep their donations local.21 Critics claimed that fundraising would decline following the move and even called for splitting the district back into two 18 See McGhee and Weston, 2013, Table 2, p. 4. 19 Eighty schools in these ten districts had more than two- thirds of their students enrolled in the free/reduced meals program. Of these, only eight, or 10 percent, registered voluntary contributions in 2010. 20 Islas (2011) reports that PTAs cannot fund teaching positions and other personnel and “premium programs” at certain schools. PTAs can still donate supplies and equipment and raise funds for field trips. The centralized district equity fund’s revenue comes primarily from the school PTAs who are to voluntarily contribute 15 percent of their revenues (Islas 2012). Stevens (2013) reports that the bans on certain PTA expenditures, pass ed in 2011, takes effect starting in 2014. 21 According to Stevens (2013), the median income in Malibu is twice that of Santa Monica and the city of Malibu has about 15% of Santa Monica’s population. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 12 separate districts.22 Islas (201 3) reports that donations fell by nearly $40,000 in the first fiscal year after the board adopted the policy, suggesting that parents responded to the policy even before full implementation. Albany Unified School District also enacted a central fundraisin g effort in 2011 for its three elementary schools. 23 As in Santa Monica –Malibu, many parents were unhappy and predicted a decline in donations. The new rules allow PTAs to continue fundraising for some projects, but they are prohibited from fundraising for enrichment activities that are supported by the central district fund. In light of our findings, and since the LCFF was designed to direct more resources toward the students of greatest need in California, it will be important to keep an eye on how these local dynamics develop moving forward. 22 Islas (2011, 2012), Stevens (2013) 23 All information o n Albany from Raguso (2014) PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 13 Conclusion We find that the number of organizations that support schools through donations continues to grow in California. The value of those contributions has been growing even faster. This growth has been relative ly steady even in the wake of the Great Recession. As dramatic as that has been, statewide voluntary contributions still represent a modest share of total K–12 spending. We estimate they account for less than one percent of total education revenue. Wealthi er schools and districts, however, are more likely to have fundraising organizations support them, and they generate far more dollars on a per -pupil basis than do poorer schools. This analysis updates our understanding of the role voluntary contributions played in the period before the state made dramatic changes to the way it funds its schools. When California created LCFF in 2013, it began to direct substantially more revenue to districts with many low -income students and English Learners. Could voluntary contributions offset the distributional effects of the new funding formula? At the level of fundraising we observed, it is possible, but unlikely. As reported above in Tables 2 and 3, school districts with very few low -income pupils raise considerably mo re money through voluntary contributions than districts with the highest concentration of poor students. It is a stark contrast. Under the LCFF formula, however, a district with the highest concentration of high -need students could receive as much as an ad ditional $3,000 per pupil over the base funding compared to the district with few high -need students. To match this, wealthy schools and districts would have to raise more than 20 times the $144 per student we estimate they were contributing before the LCF F was passed. What complicates this picture even more is that the extra LCFF funding is based on and managed at the district level. There is no way to ensure that the additional resources will follow the students they were meant for when they go to distri cts containing schools at both ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. If districts do not direct significantly more resources to the schools with relatively more low -income students and school -based support organizations funnel more dollars to wealthier schoo ls, a concern about intra-district resource equity emerges. Our findings suggest that if such a concern emerges , it may be a local one. Those worried about equity may want to monitor the role voluntary contributions play in districts where the neediest students are concentrated in just a few schools. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 14 REFERENCES Addonizio, Michael F. 1999. “New Revenues for Public Schools: Alternatives to Broad-Based Taxes.” In Selected Papers in School Finance, 1997 -99, ed. William J. Fowler (U.S. Department of Education , Office of Educational Research and Improvement). Addonizio, Michael F. 2001. “New Revenues for Public Schools: Blurring the Line Between Public and Private Finance.” In Education Finance in the New Millennium, ed. Stephen Chaikind and William J. Fowler . Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education Arnsberger, Paul, Melissa Ludlum, Margaret Riley, and Mark Stanton. 2008. “A History of the Tax-Exempt Sector: An SOI Perspective.” Statistics of Income Bulletin Winter: 105 -135. Blasnik, Michael. 2007. “RECLINK: Stata Module to Probabilistically Match Records.” Born, Laurie and Dave Wilson. 2000. Philanthropic Support for Public Education in the Southwestern Region: An assay of philanthropy’ s potential to impact comprehensive school reform in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas . Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Brent, Brian O. 2002. “Expanding Support Through District Education Foundations: A Tale of Two States.” Leadership and Policy in Schools , 1 (1): 30 -51. Brunner, Eric J. and Jon Sonstelie. 1996. “Coping with Serrano : Voluntary Contributions to California’s Local Public Schools.” Aspen Institute. Brunner, Eric J. and Jon Sonstelie. 1997. “Coping with Serra no: Voluntary Contributions to California’s Local Public Schools.” Proceedings of the Eighty -Ninth Annul Conference on Taxation: 372-381 National Tax Association. Brunner, Eric J. and Jon Sonstelie. 2003. “School Finance Reform and Voluntary Fiscal Federa lism.” Journal of Public Economics , 87 (9-10): 2157- 2185. Brunner, Eric J. and Jennifer Imazeki. 2003. “Private Contributions and Public School Resources.” Discussion Paper 07-03, San Diego State University Center for Public Economics. Brunner, Eric J. and Jennifer Imazeki. 2005. “Fiscal Stress and Voluntary Contributions to Public Schools.” In Developments in School Finance , 2004: Fiscal Proceedings From the Annual State Data Conference of July 2004, ed. Fowler, W.J., Jr. (Government Pr inting Office). California Budget Project. 2014. “An Incomplete Vision: Putting the Governor’s Proposed 2014 –15 Budget in Context. ” California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2013. An Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula. California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011. The 2011–12 Budget: To Defer or Not Defer? An Analysis of the Effects of K –12 Payment Deferral. California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2015. The 2015-16 Budget: Major Features of the Adopted Plan . Crawford, Susan and Peggy Levitt. 1999. “Social Change and Civic Engagement: The Case of the PTA.” In Civic Engagement in American Democracy, ed. Skocpol, Theda and Morris P. Fiorina (Brookings Institution Press). de Leon, Erwin, Katie L. Roeger, Carol J. de Vita, and Elizabeth T. Boris. 2010. “Who Helps Public Schools? Public Education Support Organizations in 2010.” Urban Institute Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. de Luna, P. 1998. “Local Education Foundation: Right for Many Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan 79 (5): 385 -9. Downes, Thomas and Jason Steinman. 2007. “Alternative Revenue Generation in Vermont Public Schools: Raising Funds Outside the Tax Base to Support Public Education.” Unpublished manuscript. Figlio, David N. and Lawrence W. Kenny. 2009. “Public Sector Performance Measurement and Stakeholder Support.” Journal of Public Economics 93 (9-10): 1069- 1077. Fischel, William. 2003. “Notes on the volun tary payment of taxes: How Vermont towns avoid the Act 60’s penalties for local school spending.” Unpublished manuscript. Golebiewski, Julie Anna and John Yinger. 2008. “Who Gives? The Determinants of Contributions to Education Foundations, Booster Clubs, and PTAs in California.” Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University. Greene, Jay P. 2005. “Buckets into the Sea: Why Philanthropy isn’t Changing Schools, and How it Could.” In With the Best of Intentions: How Philanthropy is Reshaping K–12 Education , ed. Hess, Frederick M. (Harvard Publishing Group). PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 15 Guzman -Lopez, Adolfo. April 3, 2014. “Report: Foundation funding widens the gap between California's 'rich' and 'poor' schools .” 89.3 KPCC radio. Islas, Jason. 2011. “Santa Monica-Malibu School Board Approves Controversial Gift Policy .” Santa Monica Lookout , December 1. Islas, Jason. 2012. “Equity Fund Slump Related to District -Wide Fundraising Effort, Say Malibu Parents .” Santa Moni ca Lookout, November 1. Islas, Jason. 2013. “Santa Monica -Malibu Ed Foundation Takes on New Fundraisers for Centralized Funding Program .” Santa Monica Lookout , February 26. Killeen, Kieran. 2007. “How the Media Misleads the Story of School Consumerism: A Perspective from School Finance.” Peabody Journal of Education 82 (1): 32 -62. Loeb, Susanna. 2001. “Local Revenue Options for K –12 Education.” In School Finance and California’s Master Plan for Education, ed. J. Sonstelie and P. Richardson (Public Policy Institute of California). Luttrell, Sharron Kahn . “What Should PTOs Pay For?” PTO Today . Meno, L.R. 1983. “Sources of Alternative Revenue.” In Managing Limited Resources: New Demands on Public School Management , ed. L.D. Webb and V.D. Mueller (Ballenger ). Merz, Carol and Sheldon S. Frankel. 1995. Private Funds for Public Schools: A Study of School Foundations . University of Puget Sound. Merz, Carol and Sheldon S. Frankel. 1997. “School Foundations: L ocal Control or Equity Circumvented?” The School Adminstrator, 54 (1): 28- 31. National Center for Charitable Statistics. Public Charities Core Files 1989 -2011. National Center for Charitable Statistics. Private Foundations Core Files 1989 -2011. National C enter for Charitable Statistics. Master File. Quinn, Rand, Megan Tompkins -Stange, and Debra Meyerson. 2013. “Beyond Grantmaking: Philanthropic Foundations as Agents of Change and Institutional Entrepreneurs.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX (X ): 1 -19. Raguso, Emilie. 2014. “Albany School District Levels Parent Fundraising Playing Field. ” San Francisco Public Press, February 13. Reckhow, Sarah and Jeffrey W. Snyder. 2014. “The Expanding Role of Philanthropy in Education Politics.” Educational Researcher 43 (4): 186 -195. Rose, Heather and Margaret Weston. “California’s School Finance Reforms Target More Funding to Poor Students .” Center for Poverty Research Policy Brief 2 (8). U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. “Projections of Education Statistics to 2021. ” 2013. St. George, Donna. 2014. “Scoreboards and butterfly gardens: Is parent fundrai sing equitable in Montgomery?” Washington Post, May 10. Sattem, Jennifer L. “Publicly Funded, Privately Assisted: The Role of Giving in Oregon K –12 Education.” Unpublished manuscript. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University. Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Hella Bel Hadj Amor, and Norm Fruchter. 2002. “Private Money/Public Schools: Early Evidence on Private and Non -Traditional Support for New York City Public Schools." In Research in Education Fiscal Policy and Practice , ed. Christopher Roellke and Jennifer Rice (In formation Age Publishing). Smith, Jeremy Adam. 2014. “How Budget Cuts and PTA Fundraising Undermined Equity in San F rancisco Public Schools.” San Francisco Public Press , February 3. Sonstelie, Jon, 2015. Parcel Taxes as a Local Revenue Source in California. Public Policy Institute of California. Sonstelie, Jon, Eric Brunner, and Kenneth Ardon, 2000. For Better or For Worse? School Finance Reform in California . Public Policy Institute of California. Stevens, Matt. 2013. “A Split of Haves and Have Mores .” Los Angeles Times , April 28. Thorsby, Jeffrey, Jason Winshell, Tom Guffey, and Justin Slaughter. 2014. “Infographics: School Fundraising in S.F. by the Numbers .” San Francisco Public Press , February 6. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 16 Useem, Elizabeth L. 1999. From the Margins to the Center of School Reform: A Look at the W ork of Local Education Funds in Seventeen Communities . Public Education Network. Useem, Elizabeth L. and Ruth Curran Neild. 1995. “A Place at the Table: The Changing Role of Urban Public Education Funds.” Urban Education 30 (2): 175 -194. Zimmer, Ron, Cathy Krop, Tessa Kaganoff, Karen Ross, and Dominic Brewer. 2001. Private Giving to Public Schools and Districts in Los Angeles County: A Pilot Study . RAND Corporation. Zimmer, Ron W., Cathy Krop, and Dominic J. Brewer. “2003. Private Resourc es in Public Schools: Evidence from a Pilot Study.” Journal of Education Finance 28 (4): 485 -521. PPIC.ORG Voluntary Contributions to California’s Public Schools 17 ABOUT THE AUTHOR S Margaret Weston worked as a PPIC research fellow specializing in K –12 school finance. Before joining PPIC, she taught high school English and drama in Baltimore City Public Schools through Tea ch For America. She earned an MA degree in teaching from Johns Hopkins University and an MPP from the University of Michigan. Before her untimely death in July 2014, s he was pursuing a PhD in school org anization and education policy at the University of California, Davis. Kevin Cook is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California. His research interests include education finance and policy for both K –12 and higher education, and his current work focuses on performance -based funding, online learning, and public pensions. Before joining PPIC, he worked as a research assistant in the investments division of the California State Teachers ’ Retirement System, where he conducted sustainabili ty risk analysis. He holds an MPPA from Sacramento State University and a BA in history from Occidental College. Patrick Murphy is director of research and a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he holds the Thomas C. Sutton C hair in Policy Research. At PPIC, Patrick coordinates and directs the policy work of over 25 researchers. His own research focuses on education financing and management in both K –12 and higher education. He is a professor of politics at the University of S an Francisco, where he served as the director of the McCarthy Center for Public Service. His work has been published by PPIC, the Center for American Progress, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Center on Reinventing Public Education, the Berkeley Cente r for Studies in Higher Education, and RAND. Previously, he worked for RAND and at the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, DC. He holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin –Madison and a master’s of public affairs from the University of Texas –Austin. Iwunze Ugo is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California. His work focuses on K –12 education. Previously, he studied adolescent health and changes in education spending following the passage of Proposition 13. He holds a BA in economics and mathematics, with a minor in statistical science, from the University of California, Santa Barbara. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Maggie Weston began this project in 2011 and had written a draft prior to her death. PPIC felt the contribution was too impor tant not to see it through to completion. Refinement of her draft and preparing it for release became an institutional effort. We f eel the final product is consistent with the direction and message of that first draft. T hanks to The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation for support of this research. We are also particularly grateful to Eric Brunner for sharing his dataset of matched organizations and his time discussing his methods as well as the Urban Institute’s National Center for Charitable Statistics. David Ezekiel and Chrysanthemum Mattison also deserve thanks for providing initial exploratory data wo rk. Maggie’s longtime colla borators Jon Sonstelie and Heather Rose help us make sure we remained true to her voice as well as offering their considerable expertise on the substance. Finally, we thank Kim Reuben, Eric Brunner, Jacob Jackson, and Lynette Ubois for their comments on a prior draft and Chansonette Buck for helping us tell the story in an accessible manner. PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Donna Lucas, Chair Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Mark Baldassare President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Ruben Barrales President and CEO GROW Elect María Blanco Executive Director Undocumented Student Legal Services Center University of California Office of the President Louise Henry Bryson Chair Emerita, Board of Trustees J. Paul Getty Trust A. Marisa Chun Partner McDermott Will & Emery LLP Phil Isenberg Vice Chair Delta Stewardship Council Mas Masumoto Author and Farmer Steven A. Merksamer Senior Partner Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP Gerald L. Parsky Chairman Aurora Capital Group Kim Polese Chairman ClearStreet, Inc. Gaddi H. Vasquez Senior Vice President, Government Affairs Edison International Southern California Edison The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independ ent, objective, nonpartisan research. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: 415.291.4400 F: 415.291.4401 PPIC.ORG P PIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 T: 916.440.1120 F: 916.440.1121" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:42:38" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(9) "r_1015mwr" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:42:38" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:42:38" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(51) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/R_1015MWR.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }