| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence: Address correspondence to Professor Robert Applebaum, Scripps Gerontology Center, Miami University, Upham Hall, Room 396, Oxford, OH 45056. E-mail: Applebra{at}muohio.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract MethodsResultsAging Levies: Good Politics...References |
|---|
Key Words: Property-tax levy • Alternative funding • Aging services
Four other states use local tax levies to fund programs, services, and facilities for older people. Of the other states using senior-service levies, Michigan, where 59 of 85 counties have levies, raises $25 million each year. In Kansas, 64 of 104 counties have senior-service levies, adding up to $8 million annually. Louisiana collects about $6 million yearly through senior levies in 13 of its 46 counties, and North Dakota, which has passed senior levies in 50 of its 53 counties, brings in just over $1.5 million annually.
In 1982, Clermont County passed the first countywide senior-service levy in Ohio, a 0.5- mill levy that raised $540,000 annually. This first levy was the result of years of effort by Lois Brown Dale, a county administrative assistant who pushed for state legislation to allow countywide levies to be used to support senior services. Word of Clermont County's levy success spread among administrators in Ohio's aging network, and 22 other Ohio counties joined Clermont County in successfully passing senior-service levies in the 1980s. As OAA funds continued to stagnate, 26 more Ohio counties passed senior-service levies for the first time in the 1990s. Another 10 counties passed senior-service levies for the first time after 2000, with a total of 59 of Ohio's 88 counties having a levy in place at the time of the survey in 2005.
Unlike most other types of levies around the country and across the state, Ohio's senior levies are meeting with considerable success at the ballot box. They are passing, on average, by almost a two-third's margin of voter support, led by Franklin County (Columbus), which passed its last levy with more than 80% approval, and nine other counties where levies passed by better than three fourths of the vote. Although most of the 59 counties currently operating these levies have gone back to voters to renew or replace them at least once over the years (meaning that these levies, in total, have been on the ballot more than 100 times), only 7 have had their levies defeated.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsAging Levies: Good Politics...References |
|---|
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsAging Levies: Good Politics...References |
|---|
Ohio's 59 levies raised more than $94 million in 2004 (and over $100 million in 2006). Although the average annual revenue for each county was $1.6 million, there was considerable variation in program size across the state, and the median was $580,000. As presented in Table 1,<--CO?4--> one fourth of the levies generated $250,000 or less, whereas one third generated $1 million or more; the two largest levies brought in more than $18 million apiece.
|
The number of older Ohioans benefiting from these levy services likely exceeds 100,000 statewide. Again, there is considerable variation in the number of people served by the program from county to county. Although the dollar amount of the levy was an important determinant of number served, so too was the philosophy of the program. Some programs chose to target services to individuals with high levels of disability, and thus served fewer people with a higher average cost per care plan; other programs decided to serve a wider range of older community members, often with one service such as meals or transportation. This resulted in a tremendous variation in the numbers served by program. More than a few of the counties' responses to this question, however, point toward the difficulty in keeping an accurate count of these figures.
Services Funded
We asked county program administrators to report on the proportion of dollars spent by service category. We then averaged proportional expenditures across programs. As presented in Table 2, levy programs funded an array of services, including nutrition, transportation, in-home services, information and referral, case management, and senior center administration. Nutrition, which consisted primarily of home-delivered meals, accounted for approximately one fifth of total program expenditures, and 30% of the counties spent approximately one third of levy revenues in this area. Slightly less than one fifth of funds were spent on in-home services and transportation. About one in five counties steered 30% or more of their senior levies to in-home services and transportation. As one might expect, the more rural counties spent a higher proportion of levy funds in the transportation area.
|
Measuring Quality
We asked respondents about evaluation and quality-assessment activities in their levy program. Program administrators reported that 70% of their programs used consumer-satisfaction surveys to assess performance. Many of these same programs also developed information systems to track number of clients served, units of service provided, service expenditures, and program waiting lists. Administrators also identified various other approaches, including the use of supervisory home visits, random phone calls or visits, and the use of quality councils or teams. There was considerable diversity across programs on the level of effort and type of quality strategies employed. Some of these differences are explained by resource availability and size of levy and agency, and others by philosophy and local attitudes about how funds should be allocated.
Leveraging Other Funds
On top of the $94 million generated by senior levies are matching funds that these programs attract from an array of federal, state, local, and private sources. More than four fifths of county program administrators responding to questions regarding matching funds indicated that they use senior levy money to leverage additional matching funds.
OAA allocations (particularly for Title III services such as nutrition, transportation, and home services) were the most common source of matching funds drawn by the senior levy dollars. Administrators from 60% of Ohio counties indicated that their senior levies attracted some matching money from the OAA funds. Counties also reportedly received matching funds from United Way, the state Senior Community Services Fund, the Ohio Department of Transportation, and the Alzheimer's Association.
Challenges in Operating and Passing Levy Programs
Program administrators reported a range of answers regarding the "biggest challenge" they faced in operating senior-service levies. Although the majority of these generally involved money, the specific reply most often given (by seven programs) was about educating local voters and political officials on the need for, and benefits of, services. Six respondents pointed to an increasing demand for services, combined with the loss of other government funding. Competition for funding with schools and other social service agencies in an era of taxpayer discontent was also mentioned by six respondents.
Though more than 90% of senior-service levy campaigns have been successful, one third of the respondents to the survey question on modifications stated that they will change their next levy campaigns on the basis of their past experience. Placing their levies on the ballot in the spring rather than in the fall, engaging in more public speaking beforehand, and starting to plan earlier were mentioned by several respondents. Other mentioned modifications included seeking a more active role from board members; doing more with local radio and TV stations; planning funding for the campaign that was separate from the campaign itself; creating more public awareness; targeting younger voters as well as older ones; and using more senior volunteers.
"Planning early" was the one piece of advice delivered most emphatically by respondents. One fourth of the respondents offering recommendations or comments on past successes listed planning early as crucial to their efforts. Data on election planning found that, on average, programs began working on the initiative 5 months before voting day, with four starting only 1 month early and another four starting a whole year in advance. Eleven programs started preparations for their levies 6 months prior to Election Day.
Public speaking and yard signs were listed by one third of the county program administrators responding to questions on successful levy campaigns. One third of the county program administrators also valued and advocated newspaper coverage and advertisements. Radio ads were recommended for success by 30% of the respondents, and TV ads were cited by 10%. The recommendations of an additional 10% of the respondents fell into the broader category of "gaining support of the local media."
Other measures recorded as key to past successful levies and recommended for future campaigns include the following: (a) maintaining a good name in the community; (b) using one-on-one communication, going door to door, and spreading information by word of mouth; (c) ensuring visibility and promotion of aging services in the community; (d) educating the voters—explaining the value of levy services; (e) involving older adults in promoting the levy; (f) using informational pamphlets, brochures, and newsletters; (g) having year-round accountability and accessibility (not just at levy time); (h) having the support of, and absence of conflict with, county commissioners; and (i) making careful selection of chairs and committees to lead the levy campaign.
Program administrators also stressed the value of having a celebrity or community leader as a spokesperson for their levies. For example, two of the programs used an ex-Cincinnati Reds player to serve as honorary chairman.
|
Aging Levies: Good Politics or Good Policies? |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsAging Levies: Good Politics...References |
|---|
It is clear that aging levies are good politics, but are they good policy? Critics have argued that these polices are based on a regressive property tax and affect low-income residents negatively. Concern about whether such programs lead to intergenerational conflict have been raised, with some individuals suggesting that older voters may not be supporting programs for other age groups (Poterba, 1997). Proponents of the levy concept in Ohio point to the many residents on fixed incomes who appear to be supporting these levies, and data that suggest that there is no relationship between the size of the older population in a community and support for ballot initiatives for general social service and education programs (Harris, Evans, & Schwab, 2001).
Respondents expressed some concern that the success rate of these senior levies may decrease in the face of a public that is growing increasingly tired of having property taxes hiked to fund what other taxes will not. There is also rising competition for these levy dollars from schools and other social services, and there are concerns that levies across the age spectrum could be in jeopardy in the future. Additionally, some academics and other aging program administrators have argued that continuing success with senior-service levies may have the unintended effect of encouraging government to further reduce general revenue funds to aging, because the counties are doing such a good job of funding at the local level.
In response to these issues, aging advocates in Ohio have argued that because there is no state home-care program or coherent federal policies on long-term care, it is critical for the local communities to support services. Although they acknowledge problems with the property tax as a funding source, in the absence of comprehensive state and federal policy, communities have no choice if they are to serve local citizens. The other states using levies also seem to face the same challenges of having limited home- and community-based programs separate from Medicaid waiver efforts. For now, the levy programs appear to be good politics and fill a void in national and state long-term-care policy.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 Program Development and Evaluation Division, Ohio Department of Aging, Columbus, OH.
Decision Editor: Nancy Morrow-Howell, PhD
Received for publication August 9, 2006. Accepted for publication February 5, 2007.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractMethodsResultsAging Levies: Good Politics...References |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
