I’m excited about public opinion surveys this week, because I’ve been working with a small group of community activitists who are designing a survey to address the Archuleta County housing crisis.
A year ago, the Town of Pagosa Springs and the Archuleta County government collaborated in funding a $34,000 Archuleta County Housing Needs Study, to be performed by Denver-based Economic and Planning Systems (EPS). That study was supposed to include a expert survey of the community’s employers, but when the study was published last December, EPS stated that they had failed to obtain statistically meaningful results with their survey.
“While the response rate for the survey was not high enough to make statistically significant conclusions from the data, some qualitative findings are important to note…”
I’m excited by the idea that a small group of local Pagosa activists might be able to a better job — on behalf of our community — than the experts from Denver. Can they get a “statistically significant” response rate? How, exactly, does that come about? And why did EPS fail, last year?
My excitement is also related to a Public Opinion Survey I created yesterday morning, using the online service at SurveyMonkey.com. We shared the link to that online-only survey in Part Two of this article series, and a small number of Daily Post readers (33 people) took the opportunity to participate during ‘Day One’ of the survey period.
This is, of course, a much smaller number than participated in the Archuleta School District’s recent “Public Opinion Survey” last spring (more than 700 people) or the number of people who took the Town government’s recent “Community Parks & Recreation Survey” (about 518 people.) But I nevertheless found the results of yesterday’s Daily Post survey to be interesting, even if the results weren’t statistically significant.
For example:
‘Question 1’ asked readers how they felt about government expansion, in general. The above-mentioned surveys (School District survey and the Parks & Rec survey) had both asked the public to consider future government expansion — and related tax increases — but had never actually posed the question, “How do you feel, in general, about government expansion in Archuleta County?”
So I asked the question for them.
The small number of Daily Post readers who participated in our multiple-choice survey, yesterday, took a generally negative view of government expansion.
55% picked the answer, “Our government services are less than they should be, because of inefficient operations or misplaced priorities. No need for higher taxes.”
18% picked, “We need to shrink local government, and cut taxes.”
15% picked, “Our government services are about right, thank you.”
Only 9% picked, “We need expanded government services, and I’m willing to pay higher taxes to fund them.”
(No one picked the choice, “We need expanded government services, but I prefer that other people pay for the expansion.”)
To summarize the general feelings of this small survey sample about government in Archuleta County, 88% didn’t see any need to increase taxes to pay for expanding government. Generally speaking.
Granted, our online survey was open to anyone and everyone. We didn’t try to control the public’s participation to insure the survey was truly representative of our community’s various demographic groups. (Neither did the School District, nor the Town Recreation Department.) In fact, you could say that our Daily Post survey was especially biased, because it included only people willing to read a Daily Post editorial. (A select group, if there ever was one!)
Our survey was posted purely for the fun of posting a survey. We had no political agenda, and weren’t expecting the results to have any statistical significance. Indeed, the results should be viewed purely for entertainment purposes.
But right now, I’d like to address the “Public Opinion” results from the mailed survey conducted by Archuleta School District 50JT in collaboration with the investment bankers at George K. Baum. As mentioned earlier, the ASD survey was mailed out to about 5,300 households, and about 700 households responded. 68% of the respondents were over the age of 55, and about 80% had no children (or grandchildren?) enrolled in ASD schools.
About 79% of the survey respondents felt that knew at least something about the two tax increase proposals the District has been considering over the past couple of years — a $1.7 million per year “Mill Levy Override” and a $50 million “Phase One” facilities expansion. 50% said they knew “Some” and 29% said they knew “A Lot.”
11% of the respondents said they were School District employees. (Overall, School District employees make up less than 2% of the resident population in Archuleta County.)
The survey was conducted for a purely political purpose. ASD and George K. Baum wanted to measure the public’s temperature regarding two tax increase proposals: the Mill Levy Override (MLO) and the facilities expansion bond issue. Also, the two collaborating organizations wanted to use the “Public Opinion Survey” to inform the voters about the proposals and expose the voters to arguments that might favor future tax increases. Specifically, ASD and George K. Baum asked the survey respondents to rank arguments “For” and “Against” the tax increases, to see which arguments were the most effective:
For example:
High-performing teachers drive quality schools. It’s critical that we can provide a salary schedule that gives our district a fighting chance to recruit and retain quality teachers and staff. With fewer and fewer college students choosing teaching as a career, recruitment and retention of quality teachers are only going to become more difficult. (70% found this argument convincing.)
And…
No student should have to worry about being harmed when at school. Providing a new elementary school that is in a much safer location and more secure, as well as addressing critical safety and security upgrades at the middle school and high school, is a smart plan. (53% found this argument convincing.)
And…
District 50 JT has worked hard to maintain its school buildings, however, there comes a time when system replacements and other major renovations need to be made. There is also a need to reconfigure buildings to improve safety/security and accessibility for students and staff with disabilities. (48% found this argument convincing.)
The District and George K. Baum also wanted to know which arguments “Against” the proposed tax increases were most effective.
For example:
District 50 JT is trying to do too much: facility upgrades, teacher pay increases, adding school resource officers, and expanding all-day kindergarten. The scope needs to be scaled back. (50% found this argument convincing.)
And…
There are a lot of reasons why teachers leave, and many are not about pay and benefits. Some retire, some choose different careers, and others choose not to live in our area. Raising teacher salaries does not guarantee they will stay here. (40% found this argument convincing.)
And…
Given that District 50 JT did not receive all three of the state grants that it sought, the District should step back and let the County place its tax measure on the ballot to fund a new jail. (21% found this argument convincing.)
After considering the survey results, a volunteer task force decided (during a closed-door meeting at the Middle School) to recommend placing a $1.7 million annual Mill Levy Override on the 2018 election ballot, for consideration by District voters.
The task force was split on the idea of a $50 million (or less) facilities expansion bond measure.
The ASD School Board also reviewed the Public Opinion Survey results and voted to accept the task force recommendations. So we will be voting on a Mill Levy Override tax increase this coming November, but we will not be voting on a new elementary school. (We will be reporting on the County’s $28 million tax increase proposal — also headed for the November ballot — in a separate editorial.)