Is Indiana Better Off?

June 10, 2021October 29, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

Population Rank of 50 States

Indiana maintained its 11th place rank from 1920 through 1970.

Since 1970 it has fallen 6 places to just 17th.

Of the 9 “nearby” states, only Iowa, dropping 7 places performs worse at attracting and retaining citizens. Missouri, Wisconsin and West Virginia are essentially the same as Indiana, dropping 5 places each in this half century. Michigan and Kentucky slipped by 3 places. Illinois and Ohio, starting near the top at 5th and 6th place, declined just one place. Tennessee gained one place, from 17th to 16th, moving ahead of Indiana.

Indiana Population 2021 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs) (worldpopulationreview.com)

Indiana’s Population Gains: What’s Our Rank?

90 Years and Indiana Doubles Its Population (January-February 2015)

Census 2020: Indiana population up, Midwest population down in 2020 (indystar.com)

Personal Income Growth Since the Great Recession

The economic recovery between 2007 and 2019 was one of the slowest after a recession. Average U.S. personal income grew by 2.0% overall. Indiana’s 4 way tie for 19th place at 1.9% is above the median state, even though it is slightly below the U.S. 2.0% average. 10 states grew by 2.4% annually or faster. 19 grew by 1.5% or less per year. Among the nearby states, Indiana was the second fastest grower, trailing only Tennessee at 2.2%. Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and Kentucky grew just a little less quickly, with 1.5-1.6% rates. Michigan (1.4%), Missouri (1.3%), West Virginia (1.1% and Illinois (1.0%) trailed significantly.

States 2020 Personal Income Growth Was Highest in 20 Years | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)

Relative Per Capita Income

Year	IN	US	IN/US	Decade IN – US %
1970	3,849	4,218	91.3
1980	9,365	10,204	91.8	+1%
1990	17,768	19,641	90.5	-3%
2000	28,233	30,640	92.1	+3%
2010	35,453	40,518	87.5	-7%
2020	51,340	59,754	85.9	-3%

Indiana per capita income has trailed the national average throughout the last half century, starting at 91% of the national figure. Indiana gained a small amount in the first 30 years, reaching 92%. Indiana has slipped quite significantly to 86% in the last 20 years.

Per Capita Personal Income in Indiana (INPCPI) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

Personal income per capita (A792RC0A052NBEA) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)

• Indiana: per capita real GDP 2000-2019 | Statista

United States | Per Capita Personal Income Trends over 1958-2020 (reaproject

Per Capita State GDP Rankings

State	1998	2018	Change
IL	11	12	-1
IA	33	21	+12
WI	28	24	+4
OH	20	25	-5
IN	27	32	-5
TN	31	36	-5
MI	26	37	-11
MO	23	38	-15
KY	35	44	-9
WV	47	48	-1

In the 20 years from 1998-2018, Indiana per capita GDP grew by an average level for the heartland, 19%, the same as Ohio, West Virginia and Tennessee. Kentucky, Missouri and Michigan grew by only 10-14%. Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa grew by 24% or more, close to the national average.

During this time, Indiana dropped from a middling 27th rank to a lower 32nd rank. Ohio and Tennessee also dropped by 5 places. Kentucky dropped by 9, Michigan by 11 and Missouri by 15 places. Illinois and West Virginia slipped by 1 notch. Iowa and Wisconsin increased their rankings.

Useful Stats: Per Capita Gross State Product, 1998-2018 | SSTI

Median Household Income Rank

State	1984	2018	Change
IL	14	14	0
IA	29	18	+11
WI	18	26	-8
MO	17	31	-14
OH	19	32	-13
MI	16	33	-17
IN	30	34	-4
TN	47	41	+6
KY	42	44	-2
WV	52	47	+5

Over a slightly longer time period, 1984-2018, Indiana again slipped by a few places, from 30th to 34th place. Four states dropped by 8 or more places: Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri and Michigan. Illinois and Kentucky maintained their relative positions. West Virginia, Tennessee and Iowa improved their rankings.

Median Household Income by State: 2018 Update – dshort – Advisor Perspectives

Useful Stats: Median Household Income by State, 1984-2018 | SSTI

Summary

Indiana has been average or above average versus its “peer group” of 9 nearby states, but it has lost position versus the nation on all 5 measures. Personal income growth since 2007 is the best result, at 1.9% versus 2.0% national average. Indiana population has fallen 6 spots to 17th in 50 years. Per capita income versus the nation has slipped by 6% to just 86% of the average in 20 or 50 years. Per capita state GDP has dropped 5 places to 32nd place in 20 years. Median household income has fallen 4 places to 34th place in 34 years.

Indiana’s business friendly low tax/low service strategy has helped the state do better than its peers, but has not delivered above average growth by any measure.

Indiana: Red State

May 20, 2021August 30, 2023 tomkapostasy1 Comment

In presidential elections since 1960, Republicans have won 14/16 races. LBJ won 56% of the vote in 1964. Obama won 50% of the vote in 2012. Democrats earned just 33-38% of the vote in 6 of those elections, including 2016. Democrats earned only 40-42% of the vote in 4 elections, including in 2020. The median Democratic result is 41%.

United States presidential elections in Indiana – Wikipedia

Indiana leans Republican in surveys of party affiliation. Voters do not permanently register for a party. They declare a party only when they vote in each election. According to one survey, Indiana voters are tied for 18th most Republican leaning. Indiana has just 42% of voters reporting as strong or “leaning” Democratic.

Party affiliation by state – Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org)

In the last 6 presidential elections, 15 states have always voted for Democrats and 20 states have always voted for Republicans. Indiana is part of the 15 in the mixed middle due to the Obama result. Indiana has not been highlighted as a “swing state” in recent years.

Blue and Red States (270towin.com)

Indiana has elected 10 different governors since 1960, with Republicans serving 10 of the 16 terms (63%), including each of the last 5.

List of governors of Indiana – Wikipedia

Since 1984, the results have been similarly divided, with 6 Republican and 4 Democratic terms. From 1988-2000, Evan Bayh and Joe Kernan won 71/92 counties (77%), on average. In 2002, Mitch Daniels won his first term with 53% of the vote, but carried 73 (79%) of the counties. This broad geographical Republican dominance has continued, with Democrats winning just 13, 19, 13 and 3 counties in the last 4 elections. When Mike Pence won with 50% of the vote in 2012, he carried 73 counties. When Eric Holcomb won with 51% in 2016, he carried 80 counties.

1984 Indiana gubernatorial election – Wikipedia

At the U.S. Senate level, Indiana has elected 10 different senators, with Republicans serving 13 of the 22 terms (59%). Democrat Joe Donnelly was replaced by Republican Mike Braun in 2019.

List of United States senators from Indiana – Wikipedia

Since 1960, Republicans have won 42 of the 68 congressional races (62%). Since 2000, the median party split has been 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. This balance has been consistent in each of the last 5 terms. Democrats did hold a small 5-4 advantage in 2006 and 2008.

List of United States representatives from Indiana – Wikipedia

2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana – Wikipedia

The Indiana Senate has been controlled by Republicans since 2009, with Democrats holding an average of only 22% of the seats.

Indiana Senate – Wikipedia

The Indiana House is closer to the overall 40% +/- Democratic population, with Dems holding an average of 31% of the seats in recent years. The concentration of Democrats in a relatively small number of counties drives some of this situation.

Indiana House of Representatives – Wikipedia

Since 1970, Marion County and Indianapolis have been combined into a common City-County Council and Mayor system, usually termed unigov. Since Mayor Lugar’s first term in 1968, Republicans have held the mayor’s office for 16 of 26 terms (62%). Democrats have held office for 10 of the last 14 terms (71%).

List of mayors of Indianapolis – Wikipedia

The City-County Council has been a competitive body. Democrats held a 15-14 majority in 2003. Republicans lead 16-12 in 2007. Democrats resumed the majority by 16-12 in 2011, and more narrowly by 13-12 in 2015 when the “at large” districts were removed. Democrats won a large victory in 2019 of 20-5. It is unclear if this lopsided result will continue in the future.

Since Obama’s surprising presidential win in 2012, metropolitan Indianapolis area Democrats have become more active, with more candidates running for suburban offices, more financial and volunteer support and a few of them winning. This has been newsworthy, because many suburban counties and cities had zero or only nominal Democratic candidates historically. Joe Biden narrowly won some precincts in the 2020 presidential election, generating more news coverage.

2020 Election: How Trump, Biden performed in Hamilton County, Indiana (indystar.com)

However, Biden’s relative progress in the Indianapolis suburbs, like his results in other U.S. suburbs, did not translate into Democratic gains in the state and local races, where Republicans consistently outperformed Trump and won races by margins significantly higher than pollsters forecast.

Indiana elections: Dems see few wins as still sign for optimism (indystar.com)

Indiana election results: Democrats look for answers after losses (indystar.com)

The 19 counties that voted for John Gregg (D) against Mike Pence (R) in the close 2012 race account for 43% of the state’s 2019 population. That is consistent with 43% in 2010 and down a little from the 44% share in 2000. The Democratic leaning counties are not growing faster than the Republican leaning counties.

Indiana Democrats like Evan Bayh, Joe Kernan and Joe Donnelly appear to be unable to re-assemble a winning “blue dog” coalition of voters at the state level. Barrack Obama’s narrow 1% point victory over John McCain and Sarah Palin looks like an “outlier” result. Indianapolis seems to be an increasingly solid base for the party and its suburbs may fall from 70% to 55% Republican through time. However, for the foreseeable future, Indiana will be a solid Republican (Red) state.

High ROI Suburbs

July 8, 2010October 23, 2021 tomkapostasy2 Comments

Many of America’s highest income, politically conservative suburbs have successful pursued high amenity public service strategies. How is this high spending approach economically and politically justified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model

In 1956, economist Charles Tiebout developed a model of competing suburban governments providing different levels and combinations of services to match the varied preferences of groups. Subsequent research on suburbs and private real estate communities has confirmed that individuals prefer to choose amenity/payment bundles which match their values.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1v378785j2588j8/

Why would members of this usually tax and government-averse high income group willingly choose to live in a high amenity suburb?

The sociological observation that individuals prefer to belong to groups of like individuals is a partial explanation. Exclusive communities are more homogeneous.

Brand name communities also provide some luxury goods type value from their exclusive status as high income, wealth and service communities.

High income, wealth, tax and service communities screen out criminal elements and benefit from low service costs to security services, delivering a safe environment.

High service communities provide signaling benefits in a world of imperfect information. Transferred corporate executives rely upon education and amenity cues in choosing a residence. Universities rely upon the reputation of school districts in selecting among applicants.

Most importantly, a high service strategy delivers a great financial return on investment – especially for the initial group of residents. High service communities proactively pursue strategies to minimize the cost to existing residents.

They invest in all service dimensions to ensure that the community is recognized as “a” or “the” leader in the metropolitan area and region. Schools, roads, utilities, zoning, parks, transportation, libraries and cultural institutions achieve recognition.

They increase the tax base through annexation, selective density increases and attracting commercial firms.

They pursue “good government” initiatives, outsourcing services, consolidating services, utilizing volunteers and boards, leveraging regional, state and federal funds, employing specialized consulting firms and retaining highly qualified staff that benefit from the community’s growth and financial stability.

They invest in economic development, using Tax Increment Financing districts, user fees, economic development incentives, balanced zoning and negotiation to take advantage of the economic value of their attractive locations. Retail, office, distribution, services, logistics and light manufacturing firms are welcome in the right zoned areas.

High service communities make capital investments to provide future economic returns. Schools, parks, roads, libraries, utilities, cultural services, transportation and recreation assets are created through donations, local and regional government actions.

Suburbs compete with other metropolitan suburbs for residents and with other regional centers for commercial investments. The right investments provide an atmosphere with low taxes, high services and a high quality of life.

A Midwestern suburb of 75,000 has invested almost $1 billion in the last 20 years in its schools, roads, utilities, library, parks, infrastructure, cultural institutions and economic development incentives. In essence, each of the existing 25,000 households has made a $40,000 bet on the future. There has been some political and journalistic opposition. A typical residence is valued at $250,000. There are another 3,000 commercial firms with $250,000 property investments, making the total property value $7 billion.

The community has annexed the unincorporated areas, increased density, attracted new businesses and continued its build-out towards a 120,000 population. The number and value of commercial enterprises is expected to grow from .75B to $4B in 20 years. Through zoning measures, growth and increased demand for a singular resource, the average residence will be valued at $400,000, with the existing residences appreciating from $250,000 to $325,000. The built out residential market value will be $16B, for a total property value of $20B.

The original 25,000 households will gain a real $75,000 on their housing values. Because of the community’s economic and population growth, their capital investment will be reduced to less than $20,000. The early residents will clearly benefit from this high service and investment strategy. The new residents will benefit from the investments and have the opportunity to “vote with their feet” in determining if the services delivered are worth the property values and taxes required.

High income families demand high quality services and are willing to pay for them. They also require their municipal governments to take all possible steps to increase the cost effectiveness of these services.

Tale of Two Cities

June 19, 2010October 23, 2021 tomkapostasy4 Comments

In a recent speech at the Carmel Rotary Club, Indianapolis Star editor Dennis Ryerson warned the audience of the risk of a central city meltdown in Indianapolis as he had observed in Cleveland 20 years ago. As someone who has lived in each region for more than 20 years, this prompted me to collect some historical statistics and speculate on the differential success of these two mid-sized Midwest areas.

In 1900, Indy was two-thirds the size of Cleveland, which at 654,000 people, was the nation’s seventh or eighth largest urban area by various definitions. Indianapolis was in the 21st-25th range.

By 1930, Cleveland had grown by an astonishing 173%, adding 1.1 million people for a total of 1.8 million, reaching a peak national ranking of 6^th to 8^th. Indianapolis was the turtle in this race, adding a mere 200,000 residents to grow by 50% to reach Cleveland’s 1900 650,000 population level, while maintaining a 21^st-25^th highest population ranking.

By 1960, Cleveland had added another one million residents (50%), reaching 2.7 million residents and maintaining a top 10 population ranking. Indianapolis grew a little faster on a percentage basis, adding 400,000 residents to reach the 1.1 million population level. Its national population rank slid to 26^th as Sunbelt and west coast cities began to grow.

In the next five decades to 2009, Indianapolis continued its modest 1-1.5% annual growth rate, adding 750,000 residents to reach a population of 1.8M, while sliding to 34^th place in the national metro population rankings. Cleveland reached a peak population of 3M in 1970 before declining to 2.8M in 2009, good for a 26^th place metro population ranking.

In summary, Cleveland grew by 1 million people from 1900-1930 and from 1930-1960, but added ZERO population in the next 50 years! Indianapolis added a quarter, half and three-quarters of a million people in those 3 periods. What could possibly account for these divergent trends in cities located only 300 miles apart?

The locations are not very different. Indy claims to be the “crossroads of America”, while Cleveland has said it is “the best location in the nation”. Cleveland is on the New York to Chicago train line, the Great Lakes and interstates I-80, I-90 and I-77. Indy boasts I-70, I-65, I-74 and I-69 interstate access. Indy has leveraged its location and lower labor costs to become a greater distribution hub. Cleveland has enjoyed a decade as a mini-hub for Continental, while Indy once served as a minor USAir hub. Both cities have attracted rural residents from a 100 mile circle, but Cleveland’s area is only half as large due to Lake Erie.

Both cities had strong historic banking companies. All of the Indy companies are gone. Cleveland maintained National City Bank and KeyCorp as major banks through most of the period.

Cleveland has maintained a large Fortune 500 headquarters lead. Firestone, Republic Steel, Uniroyal, Goodrich. TRW, Std Oil, White Motor, Eaton, Sherwin-Williams, Cleveland-Cliffs, Hanna Mining and Reliance Electric appeared in the 1960 list. Cleveland had grown from 12 to 15 firms by 2009, adding Progressive Insurance, National City, KeyCorp, Parker-Hannifin, PolyOne, Lubrizol and Travel Centers of America. Indy had 5 firms in 1960: RCA, Lilly, Curtis Publishing, Stokely Van Camp and Inland Containers. It maintained only Lilly, WellPoint and Conseco in 2009.

On the professional sports scene, Cleveland has maintained football and baseball teams, while adding basketball, but dropping the second level hockey Barons. Indy added the Colts and moved the Pacers from the ABA to the NBA. Indy has successfully pursued an amateur sports strategy, attracting the Pan-Am games, the NCAA and many collegiate tournaments.

The cities share historical strengths in their art museums and orchestras, with Cleveland’s ranked higher. Indy has added the Children’s Museum and Eiteljorg Museum, while Cleveland added the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame museum and lost the Salvador Dali museum. Neither city has a major state university, with IUPUI and Cleveland State growing in parallel. Cleveland has Case Western Reserve as a local research university. Greater Cleveland has a much stronger community college system. The Cleveland Playhouse and theatre groups offer more than Indy’s scene. Cleveland’s Coventry/University Heights area is more vibrant than Indy’s Broad Ripple. Cleveland adopted Michael Stanley while Indy embraced John Mellencamp.

Both cities focused on manufacturing for growth, especially automotive and metal forming manufacturing. Cleveland had a greater emphasis on basic manufacturing in steel, rubber and plastics. Indianapolis attracted a significant amount of investment from Japanese manufacturers. Indianapolis’ health care industry has benefited from Lilly, Roche and IU, while Cleveland has leveraged CWRU University Hospitals and the Cleveland Clinic.

Net, net, Cleveland should have continued to grow slightly faster based on the factors above. The drivers for Indianapolis’ positive differential growth include:

Better public relations regarding momentum. Cleveland’s river fire and “mistake on the lake” moniker have hurt. Indy was able to overcome the “naptown” label through continued positive growth and publicity.

Indianapolis and Indiana have maintained a low tax and low service environment conducive to business investment.

Indy has benefited from being the state capital and the only large city in Indiana, while Cleveland has battled Columbus and Cincinnati for state leadership.

Indianapolis has avoided major racial conflicts. The 1966 Hough riots in Cleveland contrast with the calming Bobby Kennedy speech after Martin Luther King’s 1968 assassination.

Indianapolis public schools have not fallen as far as IPS. Busing and white flight had a bigger negative impact in Cleveland where a more established Catholic school system option existed.

Downtown Indianapolis has recovered based upon major public and private investment in the Circle Center Mall, convention center and sports arenas. Cleveland’s investment in the Brown’s stadium, Jacobs Field, Cavaliers arena, major office buildings and “the flats” has never reached the critical mass required for downtown growth. Indianapolis’ downtown residential growth has been modest, but adequate.

Indianapolis pioneered the concept of uni-gov, merging the city into the county. Cleveland has remained an island within Cuyahoga County and a small island within the metro area.

Indianapolis civic leaders found a variety of ways to preserve and grow the central city and avoid having widespread areas of decay. As Mr. Ryerson noted, this strategy will be more difficult to maintain as the surrounding counties grow at the expense of Marion County. Both cities could benefit from some degree of regional government and taxing authority that aligns the interests of suburbs with the central city.

	Cleveland	Indy
	7 counties	9 counties

1900	654	429	66%
1910	913	489	54%
1920	1,426	569	40%
1930	1,784	656	37%
1940	1,817	702	39%
1950	2,154	829	38%
1960	2,734	1,071	39%
1970	3,000	1,248	42%
1980	2,833	1,305	46%
1990	2,759	1,381	50%
2000	2,844	1,605	56%
2009	2,791	1,824	65%

1900-30	1,130	227
	173%	53%

1930-60	950	415
	53%	63%

1960-2009	57	753
	2%	70%

Indiana 2050

May 13, 2010August 30, 2023 tomkapostasy4 Comments

It will take some time for the official 2010 Indiana census to be complete. The 2009 estimates and 1950-2000 census data can be used today to create a reasonably accurate picture of Indiana in 2050, 40 years from now.

Indiana grew by 24% from 1970 to 2009 and is likely to grow by 25% from 2009 to 2050. The population will increase from 5.2 to 6.4 to 8.0 million residents.

In 1970, Indiana had only 4 counties with populations of 200,000 or more: Marion (Indy) at 794,000, Lake (Gary) with 546,000, Allen (Ft. Wayne) with 280,000 and St. Joseph (South Bend) with 245,000. These four counties contained 1.9M people, or 36% of the 1970 population. They grew to 2.0M in 2009 and an estimated 2.2M in 2050.

By 2009, there were 6 counties above 200,000 populations, with Elkhart and Hamilton counties joining the list. By 2050, it is likely that 10 counties will be above the 200,000 mark, adding Porter, Hendricks, Johnson and Tippecanoe counties to the list.

Between 2009 and 2050, Indiana is expected to grow by 1.6M people, or 25%. Ten of the 92 counties will experience two-thirds of the growth across the next four decades. Based on recent trends, Hamilton County will add 300,000 residents. Suburban Hendricks and Johnson counties will grow by 100,000 residents (89%). Marion and Allen counties will add 80,000 residents at 10-20% growth. Tippecanoe, Hancock, Elkhart, Porter and Boone counties will each grow by 60-80,000 residents.

Five Indianapolis area counties will experience 70% or higher growth. Hancock, Hamilton and Boone Counties will grow by 100%, with Johnson and Hendricks Counties close behind. The nine counties in the Indianapolis area grew by 46%, from 1.25M to 1.8M people, in the last 40 years and are expected to grow by a further 43% in the next four decades, reaching a population of 2.6M. This 790,000 person growth accounts for half of the state’s total growth from 2009 to 2050. The Indianapolis area will grow from 28% to 33% of the total state population.

Eleven counties will change population ranks by three or more places. Boone and Hancock Counties will climb 9-10 places. Shelby, Clark and Hendricks Counties will rise 3-4 places. Delaware, Wayne, Henry, Grant and Vanderburgh Counties will decline by 3-4 places. Howard County may drop 7 places.

Indiana’s population will continue its 0.5% annual growth rate and reach 8 million by 2050. Growth will be highly concentrated in a small number of urban counties. The top ten counties, each with 200,000 or more people, will account for 50% of the state population. The next 11 counties, each with 100,000 or more people, will account for another 19% of the state population. These 21 counties will capture 80% of all growth,

averaging increases of 60,000 people. The remaining 71 counties will experience growth of 4,000 people each on average.

			Pop	Pop	Est	2009-50		2009	2050	Chg
SMSA	County	City	1970	2009	2050	Growth	Pct	Rank	Rank	Rank

Vincennes	Knox	Vincennes	42	38	38	–	0%	37	37	–
Terre Haute	Vigo	Terre Haute	115	106	106	–	0%	17	19	(2)
South Bend	Elkhart	Goshen	127	201	273	72	36%	6	6	–
South Bend	Kosciusko	Kosciusko	48	76	104	28	37%	19	20	(1)
South Bend	LaPorte	LaPorte	105	111	120	9	8%	15	16	(1)
South Bend	Marshall	Plymouth	35	47	59	12	26%	31	31	–
South Bend	St. Joseph	South Bend	245	268	289	21	8%	5	5	–
Richmond	Henry	Newcastle	53	48	48	–	0%	30	34	(4)
Richmond	Wayne	Richmond	79	68	68	–	0%	25	29	(4)
Muncie	Delaware	Muncie	129	115	115	–	0%	14	17	(3)
Louisville	Clark	Jeffersonville	76	108	148	40	37%	16	13	3
Louisville	Floyd	New Albany	56	74	94	20	27%	21	23	(2)
Lafayette	Tippecanoe	Lafayette	109	168	248	80	48%	8	8	–
Kokomo	Cass	Logansport	40	39	39	–	0%	36	36	–
Kokomo	Grant	Marion	84	69	69	–	0%	23	27	(4)
Kokomo	Howard	Kokomo	83	83	83	–	0%	18	25	(7)
Indianapolis	Boone	Lebanon	31	56	114	58	104%	27	18	9
Indianapolis	Hamilton	Noblesville	55	279	579	300	108%	4	2	2
Indianapolis	Hancock	Greenfield	35	68	144	76	112%	24	14	10
Indianapolis	Hendricks	Danville	54	141	261	120	85%	11	7	4
Indianapolis	Johnson	Franklin	61	142	242	100	70%	10	9	1
Indianapolis	Madison	Anderson	139	131	141	10	8%	13	15	(2)
Indianapolis	Marion	Indianapolis	794	891	971	80	9%	1	1	–
Indianapolis	Morgan	Martinsville	44	71	101	30	42%	22	21	1
Indianapolis	Shelby	Shelbyville	38	45	61	16	36%	33	30	3
Ft. Wayne	Allen	Ft Wayne	280	354	434	80	23%	3	4	(1)
Ft. Wayne	De Kalb	Auburn	31	42	54	12	29%	34	32	2
Ft. Wayne	Noble	Albion	31	48	68	20	42%	29	28	1
Evansville	Vanderburgh	Evansville	169	175	189	14	8%	7	11	(4)
Evansville	Warrick	Booneville	28	59	84	25	42%	26	24	2
Columbus	Bartholomew	Columbus	57	76	96	20	26%	20	22	(2)
Columbus	Jackson	Brownstown	33	42	45	3	8%	35	35	–
Cincinnati	Dearborn	Lawrenceburg	29	51	71	20	39%	28	26	2
Chicago	Lake	Gary	546	494	534	40	8%	2	3	(1)
Chicago	Porter	Valparaiso	87	164	232	68	41%	9	10	(1)
Bloomington	Lawrence	Bedford	38	46	50	4	8%	32	33	(1)
Bloomington	Monroe	Bloomington	85	131	171	40	31%	12	12	–
	Subtotal	37 counties	4,091	5,125	6,543	1,418	12%

	All Others	55 counties	1,104	1,298	1,459	161	12%
	(Pct of State)		21.3%	20.2%	18.2%	10.2%

	Indiana		5,195	6,423	8,002	1,579	25%
				24%	25%

Indianapolis			1,251	1,824	2,614	790	43%
(Pct of State)			24.1%	28.4%	32.7%	50.0%

Indiana School Finances

February 23, 2010October 23, 2021 tomkapostasy1 Comment

Indiana state school funding will decline for the next 3 years. The current 5% expense reduction is just the first step. School districts need to take bold actions to reduce their underlying cost structures. Other organizations are reducing costs by 10% and increasing labor productivity by 5-8%. Innovative schools can achieve the same financial gains while improving the quality of education. These 20 ideas may be infeasible, but they might help to generate some creative solutions.

Rank order career & technical programs and eliminate the single least effective one.
Replace some career and guidance counselors with web resources and volunteers from local civic group partners.
Assign administrators to jointly teach 1 FTE of classes in a technical field.
Employ technology for teaching and testing and eliminate 1 staff/department.
Carefully define “special needs” education and obtain separate funding or sponsorship.
Double the fees for extracurricular programs to cover all costs, including coaching supplements and subsidies for low-income students.
Maximize the use of capital budgets and bond funding for capital maintenance expenses. Refinance bonds and use savings for capital maintenance.
Reduce employee benefits by one-half for the first 5 years of employment.
Add an additional teaching period for tenured staff.
Assign a mentee to tenured staff and provide incentives for retention/progress.
Provide teachers with a financial incentive in years 3-6 to remain in place.
Eliminate future degree/credit hours based compensation increases.
Outsource transportation, IT, HR, marketing and financial services.
Extend textbook lives by 2 years.
Move to a used computer strategy, recycling the 3-year-old units from local businesses.
Consolidate library/AV staff and resources with community libraries.
Reduce the cost of transportation by increasing the share of walkers, reducing the number of stops and limiting extra services.
Move discipline problem students to countywide alternative programs after 3 strikes.
Collect fees for AP and dual credit programs.
Increase the use of teacher’s assistants when they can cost-effectively increase classroom sizes while providing quality education.

All changes have costs and benefits. In a world of 10% less funding, schools that are able to identify the areas where the greatest cost reductions can be found with the least negative impact will be the ones that best serve their students, teachers and communities. Schools should reach out to their communities for help in generating solutions to the coming crisis.

Indiana Metro Growth Trends Continue

December 9, 2009October 23, 2021 tomkapostasy3 Comments

Since 1900, a majority of Indiana counties have grown by less than 0.4% per year. These 47 rural counties have been trapped in a time machine, slowly evolving from 20,000 to 24,000 people per county. In 1900, they accounted for 38% of the population. This dropped to 23% in 1950 and 17% in 2010. These counties account for half of the counties and land, but only one-sixth of the population. The urbanization of Indiana continues slowly, decade after decade. The 47 rural counties had a population of 960,000 in 1900 when William McKinley of Ohio was elected president and only 1,120,000 in 2010.

On the other hand, the urban counties have more than tripled in population (+241%), increasing from 1.6 to 5.3 million. Indiana has grown by 155%, from 2.5 to 6.4M people. Fully 96% of this growth has taken place in the 45 urban counties.

The ten medium-sized cities and their immediate counties increased by two-thirds between 1900 and 1950 and then by one-sixth through 2010. They accounted for 460,000 people in 1900, increased to 760,000 in 1950 and maintained minor growth to 870,000 in 2010. Evansville, Anderson, Muncie, Terre Haute, Kokomo, Marion, Richmond, Bedford, New Castle, and Huntington grew from counties with 30-70,000 residents in 1900 to counties with 40-170,000 citizens across the century.

The five largest cities – Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Gary and South Bend/Elkhart – grew significantly faster. They increased from about 0.4 million in 1910 to 1.4 million in 1950 to 2.2 million in 2010. The rapid growth from 1900 to 1950 has since tapered off. These 5 areas have grown from one-sixth of the state’s population to slightly more than one-third.

The greatest changes have taken place in the suburbs. Fully 28 counties plus Lafayette and Bloomington have benefited from the growth of metropolitan areas. These 30 counties have grown from a 1900 average population of 23,000 (abut the same as the rural counties) and total of 680,000 to 860,000 in 1950 (up 26%) to 1,950,000 (up a stunning 186%) in 2000 and an even higher level of 2,250,000 in 2010. The suburban counties have increased from 27% to 35% of the Indiana population.

Indiana’s population growth is expected to drop back to 6% for the 2010 decade after a 10% increase in 2000, 1% in 1990 and 6% in 1980. This follows a post-war period where 15% growth per decade was the norm. This decade continues to show very unequal growth. The 30 suburban counties show a 14% growth of 305,000 people. The other 62 counties increased by only 1%, from 4.1 to 4.2 million people. The 30 suburban counties have 88% of the population growth.

Indiana has been blessed to have 6 urban areas that drive significant population growth: Chicago/Gary, South Bend/Elkhart, Ft. Wayne, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Louisville. The state legislature would be wise to adopt policies that reinforce this century long trend.

Good News

… and commentary

Category: Local government / economy