Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
T AB LE O F C O N TE N TS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Testing Two Alternatives: Parcel Tax & Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Initial Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Alternative Parcel Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Question 1: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Initial Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Question 2: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Question 2: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Support by Measure Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tax Threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Price Sensitivity by Initial Support for Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Related Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Quality of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Need for Renovated & Upgraded Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Item Ratings by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Claremont Unified School District True North Research, Inc. © 2010

................
i
Table of Contents
Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Question 10: Both Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Question 11: Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Question 11: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Alternative Parcel Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Question 12: Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Split-Sample Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Questionnaires & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Bond Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Parcel Tax Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

................
ii
List of Tables
L I S T O F T AB LES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 3 Top Programs & Projects by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4 Top Programs & Projects by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 5 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 6 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 7 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 8 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 9 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 10 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 11 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 12 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 13 Movement Between Initial and Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 14 Movement Between Initial and Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 15 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

................
iii
List of Figures
L I S T O F F I G U R E S
Figure 1 Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 3 Reasons for Not Supporting Bond Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 4 Reason for Not Supporting Parcel Tax Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 5 Tax Threshold: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 6 Tax Threshold: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 7 Tax Threshold by Position at Initial Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 8 Quality of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 9 Quality of Education by District Child in Hsld, Family Member Employed in
Education & Years in Claremont Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 10 Quality of Education by Position at Initial Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 11 District’s Need for Additional Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 12 District’s Need for Additional Money by District Child in Hsld, Family Member
Employed in Education & Years in Claremont Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 13 District’s Need for Additional Money by Position at Initial Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 14 Programs & Projects: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 15 Programs & Projects: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 16 Positive Arguments: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 17 Positive Arguments: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 18 Interim Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 19 Negative Arguments: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 20 Negative Arguments: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 21 Final Ballot Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 22 Final Ballot Test at $99 Per Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 23 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

................
iv
Introduction
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Located in Los Angeles County, the Claremont Unified School District serves approximately
6,820 students in its K-12 program and additional students in its extensive Adult School pro-
gram. The District currently operates seven elementary schools, an intermediate school, a com-
prehensive high school, as well as a community day school, continuation school, and a school
for the orthopedically handicapped. The District’s mission is to provide an educational climate
that promotes high academic achievement, fosters responsibility, self reliance and creativity, and
enhances the personal, ethical, civic and cultural development of all students.
Although the District has performed exceptionally well to date given the limited funding it
receives from the State, the economic recession and draconian State budget cuts threaten to
undermine the District’s ability to maintain an outstanding educational environment. The loss of
millions of dollars in State funding will force teacher layoffs, class size increases, and deep cuts
to educational programs.
The District also has extensive needs with respect to school facilities. In 2000, the District asked
voters for assistance in funding needed repairs and renovations to school facilities by passing a
general obligation bond, Measure Y. In addition to the $48 million raised by Measure Y, the Dis-
trict has been able to leverage additional state matching funds and make use of other District
resources. Despite these substantial investments, however, facility renovations and improve-
ments remain for which the District does not have a funding source.
To help close the funding gaps noted above, the District will need the financial support of the
communities it serves through the passage of a local revenue measure.
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an
unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters’ interest in supporting a local revenue mea-
sure to partially close the funding gaps noted above. Additionally, should the District decide to
move forward with a revenue measure, the survey data provides guidance as to how to structure
a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs.
Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for a local revenue measure to fund school programs and/
or facility needs
• Identify the tax rate that the community is willing to support
• Identify the types of services and facility improvements that voters are most interested in
funding, should the measure pass
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed tax measure to gauge
how information affects support for the measure, and
• Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information
they will likely be exposed to during the election cycle.
It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often some-
what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim-
ited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and
feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the elec-

................
1
Introduction
tion cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a tax increase to fund
local schools, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the mea-
sure, the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter
during an election cycle—including arguments in favor and opposed to the measure—and gauge
how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision.
TESTING TWO ALTERNATIVES: PARCEL TAX & BOND One of the objectives of the
study was to determine how support for a local measure may vary depending on the type of
financial mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obligation bond. To reliably estimate sup-
port for both types of measures, a split-sample methodology was employed such that 300 voters
were administered a survey that focused on a parcel tax, whereas a separate 300 voters were
asked questions regarding a potential bond measure. All 600 respondents received generic
questions that applied to both types of measures. For more on the sampling design and the rea-
sons for using a split-sample approach, see Split-Sample Method on page 43.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech-
niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 43. In brief, the survey was administered
by telephone to a random sample of 600 registered voters in the Claremont Unified School Dis-
trict who are likely to participate in the November 2010 election under a high turnout scenario.
The survey was administered between April 23 and May 4, 2010 and the average interview lasted
16 minutes.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who
prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions
are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the surveys in bul-
let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is
followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the surveys by
topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for col-
lecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaires used for
the interviews are contained at the back of this report and a complete set of crosstabulations for
the survey results are contained in Appendix A for the parcel tax version, Appendix B for the
bond version.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the Claremont Unified School District and TBWB
for the opportunity to assist the District in this important effort. Their collective expertise,
insight, and local knowledge improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors
(Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those
of the Claremont USD. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to
providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities and
concerns of their residents and voters. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys,
focus groups and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True

................
2
Introduction
North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of
areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational develop-
ment, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public
information campaigns.
During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 500 survey
research studies for public agencies, including more than 200 revenue measure feasibility stud-
ies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, more
than 90% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to
over $19 billion in successful local revenue measures.

................
3
Just the Facts
J U ST T H E F A C T S
The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the surveys. For the reader’s
convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of
this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the
appropriate report section.
IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES
• When presented with a list of specific issues and asked to rate the importance of each, main-
taining the quality of education in our local schools received the highest percentage of
respondents indicating that the issue was either extremely or very important (90%), followed
by maintaining local property values (72%), and protecting the environment (70%). Prevent-
ing local tax increases was rated much lower in importance than maintaining the quality of
education (50% compared with 90%).
INITIAL BALLOT TESTS
• Bond Version: With only the information provided in the ballot language, 59% of respon-
dents indicated they would definitely or probably support the proposed $145 million bond
measure. Approximately 33% said they would oppose the bond measure at this point in the
survey, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.
• Those who opposed the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to cite taxes
already being too high (21%), perceived mismanagement of funds/wasteful spending by the
District (19%), or a reference to a past measure that was ineffective (13%) as the reason for
their opposition.
• Parcel Tax Version: With only the information provided in the ballot language, 66% of vot-
ers indicated they would support a parcel tax of up to $139 per year. Approximately 30%
stated that they would oppose the parcel tax measure at this point in the survey, whereas 4%
were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.
• Those who opposed the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to cite
taxes already being too high (24%), followed by a belief that the District should live within its
means (16%), has issues other than money to address (15%), or has mismanaged/wasted
funds (13%) as the reason for their opposition.
TAX THRESHOLD
• Bond Version: Support for the bond measure varied substantially according to the proposed
tax rate. At the highest tax rate tested ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation) 54% of likely
November 2010 voters surveyed indicated they would vote in favor of the measure. Incre-
mental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea-
sure, with 63% of those surveyed indicating they would support the proposed bond measure
at an annual tax rate of $25 per $100,000 assessed valuation.
• Parcel Tax Version: Support for the parcel tax also varied by the proposed rate. When
focused on the tax rate, support at the highest tax rate tested ($139 per parcel per year) was
found among 60% of likely November 2010 voters. Incremental reductions in the tax rate
resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 66% of those surveyed
indicating they would support the parcel tax measure at an annual tax rate of $79 per parcel
per year.

................
4
Just the Facts
RELATED ATTITUDES
• When asked to rate the overall quality of education provided in the Claremont Unified School
District, more than three-quarters (78%) rated the quality of education as excellent (39%) or
good (39%), 9% indicated it is fair, and less than 2% described it as poor or very poor. An
additional 11% were unsure or declined to provide their opinion.
• Overall, 39% of voters perceived that the District has a great need for additional money, and
a similar percentage (36%) felt that the District’s need for additional money was moderate.
Approximately 15% perceived that the District has little (8%) or no need (7%) for additional
money, and 10% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.
PROGRAMS & PROJECTS
• Bond Version: Overall, the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents
for the bond measure was removing hazardous materials from school sites like lead and
asbestos (80% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by upgrading classroom computers
and technology (78%), and repairing or replacing old, worn-out roofs, plumbing, lighting,
and electrical systems (77%).
• Parcel Tax Version: The item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents for
the parcel tax measure was providing advanced programs in math, science and technology
(90% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by attracting and retaining the best qualified
teachers (89%), keeping school libraries open (88%), and maintaining school safety and secu-
rity personnel (87%).
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS
When presented with arguments in favor of the measures, voters found the following arguments
to be the most persuasive:
Bond Version
• Good schools help protect and improve local property values.

• All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to support our children. It can not
be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.
• This measure will ensure that students have access to the education and technologies they
need to be prepared for the jobs of the future.
Parcel Tax Version
• Good schools help protect and improve local property values.

• If we want our kids to be prepared to succeed in the new global economy, they need to have
a high quality education—including advanced courses in math, science and technology.
• All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to support our children. It can not
be taken away by the State or used for other purposes.

................
5
Just the Facts
INTERIM BALLOT TESTS
• Bond Version: After being presented with programs and projects that could be funded as
well as arguments in favor of the bond measure, overall support for the measure among
likely November 2010 voters climbed by 4% to 63%, with 32% of respondents opposed to the
measure and an additional 6% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
• Parcel Tax Version: After being presented with programs and projects that could be funded
as well as arguments in favor of the parcel tax measure, overall support for the parcel tax
increased by 2% to 68%, with 27% of respondents opposed to the measure, and 5% unsure or
unwilling to state their vote choice.
NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Of the arguments in opposition to the measures, voters found the following arguments to be the
most persuasive:
Bond Version
• People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-
ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes.
• The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond
money raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised.
• Experts say that raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more.
Parcel Tax Version
• People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-
ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes.
• The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond
money raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised.
• The District needs to live within its means—just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they
would not have to raise taxes.
FINAL BALLOT TESTS
• Bond Version: After being presented with projects that could be funded by the measure,
possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for the
bond measure was found among 60% of voters, with 35% opposed to the measure and 5%
unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
• Parcel Tax Version: After being presented with projects that could be funded by the mea-
sure, possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for
the parcel tax cooled down to 64%, with 31% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure or
ALTERNATIVE PARCEL TAX RATE
• In addition to the 64% of voters who said they would support the $139 parcel tax at the Final
Ballot Test, 4% indicated they would support the measure if the tax increase were instead
$99 per parcel, which brings the overall support for the measure at $96 per parcel to
approximately 68%.

................
6
Conclusions
C O N C L U S I O N S
The bulk of this report is devoted to conveying the details of the study findings. In this section,
however, we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of
the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are
based on True North’s and TBWB’s interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective
experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.
Should the Claremont Yes. The vast majority of voters in the District consider maintaining the
Unified School District quality of education in public schools to be the most important issue fac-
proceed with plans to
ing residents—even more important than improving public safety, pro-
place a revenue mea-
sure before voters in tecting the environment, reducing traffic congestion, and preventing
November 2010? local tax increases. The results of this feasibility study suggest that, if
packaged appropriately and combined with a broad-based and well-
orchestrated public education effort, a revenue measure to help fund
school services, programs and facilities has a good chance of being sup-
ported by the necessary proportion of voters.
Having recommended that the District move forward, it is important to

note that this recommendation to take the next steps toward placing a
measure on the ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions.
Indeed, although the results are promising, all tax measures must over-
come challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no
exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and
the next steps that True North and TBWB recommend.
Which funding mecha- One of the objectives of the study was to determine how support for a
nism should be selected local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial
for the revenue mea-
mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obligation bond. Although
sure?
the research suggests that both types of measures are potentially feasi-
ble, the results clearly indicate that a bond is a less risky option for the
November 2010 ballot.
The natural level of support among likely November voters for a $145
million bond measure was 59%, which is 4% above the 55% threshold
required for passage of a Prop 39 bond. Moreover, once voters were
exposed to positive messages about the bond support increased to 63%
and was relatively resistant to negative messages.
Although the natural level of support for a parcel tax was somewhat
higher at 66%, the required threshold for passing a parcel tax is also
higher (two-thirds supermajority). In contrast to the patterns found with
the bond, voters did not respond as strongly to positive messages about
the parcel tax (increasing their support by just 2%), and the negative
messages had a larger impact. The result was that support for a $139
parcel tax declined somewhat over the course of the interview and at 64%

................
7
Conclusions
was several points below the two-thirds threshold required for passage
at the Final Ballot Test.
Due to the higher levels of support for a bond relative to the required
threshold for passage, it has a higher likelihood of success on the
November 2010 ballot when compared to a parcel tax.1
Are there additional con- Yes. In addition to enjoying a higher level of support relative to the
siderations that make a required threshold for passage, a bond has several additional qualities
bond a better option for
or considerations that make it the best option for the November 2010
the November 2010 bal-
lot? ballot. One of the most compelling advantages of a bond is that it will
provide the District with the ability to address its facility needs as well as
its operational needs. Through relieving debt, cutting energy costs, and
paying for ongoing technology expenses that are currently being
financed through the general fund, a bond can free-up money to retain
qualified teachers, maintain small class sizes, and fund important aca-
demic programs.
The November 2010 ballot is also a good time to pass a bond. It will
enable the District to take advantage of historically low interest rates and
construction costs before they rise, and will position the District for fed-
eral stimulus programs and California Solar Incentives before they
expire.
How will the tax rate Naturally, the willingness of voters to support a specific revenue mea-
affect support for the sure is contingent—in part—on the tax rate associated with the measure.
measure?
The higher the rate, all other things being equal, the lower the level of
aggregate support that can be expected. It is critical that the rate be set
at a level that the necessary proportion of voters view as affordable.
For the bond, the research indicates that voters are reasonably comfort-
able with the tax rates that could be associated with a $145 million
bond. Support ranged from 54% to 63% as the potential tax rate varied
from $45 to $25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
For the parcel tax, voters were clearly more sensitive to the potential
rates being considered. When their attention was focused on the tax
rate, just 60% of voters indicated that they would support a $139 parcel
tax. Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental
increases in support for the measure, although even at $79 per parcel
support did not quite reach the required two-thirds threshold.
1. It is important to note, moreover, that by chance the parcel tax survey was administered to a sample that
had a more tax-friendly profile than that used for the bond survey—including a higher percentage of parents
of school-aged children, Democrats and renters. The parcel tax sample modeled a turnout that would be
achieved through a very effective get-out-the-vote campaign, and yet even with this profile support levels did
not reach the two-thirds threshold for much of the survey.

................
8
Conclusions
How might a public As noted in the body of this report, individuals’ opinions about revenue
information campaign measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information
affect support for the
presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition
proposed measure?
to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this
study was to explore how the introduction of additional information
about the measure may affect voters’ opinions about the measure.
It is clear from the survey results that voters’ opinions about the pro-
posed measures are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of
information that they have about the measures. Information about the
specific services and facilities that could be funded by the measures, as
well as arguments in favor of the measures, were found by many voters
to be compelling reasons to support the measures. Moreover, this infor-
mation played an important role in preventing a substantial erosion of
support for the measures once respondents were exposed to the types
of opposition arguments they will likely encounter during an election
cycle.
Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the
measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized campaign to
that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits
that it will bring.
How might the eco- An important component of any ballot measure’s potential for success is
nomic or political cli- the economic and political climate surrounding the election. Concerns
mate alter support for
about the housing market, an unstable stock market, job losses, and the
the measure?
recession have done little to raise consumer confidence—which has yet
to rebound substantially from all-time lows reached last year. Together
with the state of the economy, lingering concerns about the ongoing war
in Iraq and the State budget crisis combine to create an economic and
political climate that is not as favorable to revenue measures as it has
been in prior years.
The results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be
viewed in light of the current times. Indeed, the results for the proposed
measures are reasonably strong despite the general economic malaise,
which speaks volumes about the value that Claremont residents place on
maintaining the quality of local schools. Nevertheless, it is important to
keep in mind that this poll is a snapshot in time. Should the economy
and/or political climate change in ways that would be more favorable,
support for the measure—and the potential effectiveness of a positive
education campaign—could increase considerably. Conversely, negative
economic and/or political developments, especially at the local level,
could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this
study.

................
9
Importance of Issues
I M P O R T A N C E O F I S S U E S
The first substantive question of the survey presented respondents with several issues facing
residents in the District and asked them to rate the importance of each issue. Because the same
response scale was used for each issue, the results provide an insight into how important each
issue is on a scale of importance as well as how each issue ranks in importance relative to the
other issues tested. To avoid a systematic position bias, the order in which the issues were read
to respondents was randomized for each respondent.
Figure 1 presents each issue tested, as well as the importance assigned to each issue by survey
participants, sorted by order of importance.2 Overall, the most important issue was maintaining
the quality of education in our local schools (90% extremely or very important), followed by
maintaining local property values (72%), and protecting the environment (70%). Given the pur-
pose of this study, it is instructive to note that preventing local tax increases was rated much
lower in importance than maintaining the quality of education (50% compared with 90%).
Question 1: Both Versions To begin, I'm going to read a list of issues facing your community
and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of
extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.
FIGURE 1 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES
Ex tre me ly important Very important

Q1b
Maintaining quality of education in our local p ublic sc ho ols 50.1 39.7

Q1e
Maint aining loc al property values 25.4 46.6

Q1g
Prot ec ting t he env iro nment 29.5 40 .5

Q1c
Maint aining loc al streets and roads 12.9 55.2

Q1f
Imp rov ing public safety 20.2 42.6

Q1h
Making Claremont a green, sustainab le co mmunity 2 0.7 37.3

Q1d
Prevent ing loc al tax inc reases 2 0.7 29.4

Q1a
Red uc ing traffic co ngestion 8.2 24.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents
2. Issues were ranked based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the issue was either
extremely important or very important.

................
10
Initial Ballot Tests
I N I T I A L B A L L O T T E S T S
The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate voters’ support for a local revenue
measure that would fund school services and/or facility improvements. To accommodate the
District’s interest in understanding how support for a measure may vary depending on the type
of financial mechanism employed, a split-sample methodology was utilized. Half of the sample
(300 voters) were administered a survey that focused on a parcel tax, whereas a separate 300
voters were asked questions regarding a potential bond measure. Once assigned a particular ver-
sion of the measure, the respondent received the same version throughout the survey. Question
2 was designed to take an early assessment of voters’ support for the proposed measures.
The motivation for placing Question 2 up-front in the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a
measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure. At this
point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed mea-
sure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter cast-
ing a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence
of an effective education campaign. Question 2, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a
good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today. Because the Initial Ballot
Test provides a gauge of ‘uninformed’ support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose
in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items
conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.
Question 2: Bond Version Your household is within the Claremont Unified School District.
Later this year, voters in the District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read
you a summary of the measure. In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-
dents; attract and retain quality teachers; and qualify for millions in State matching money,
shall the Claremont Unified School District repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating class-
rooms and school buildings; improve fire, safety and security systems; remove hazardous mate-
rials like lead and asbestos; and upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and
instructional technology by issuing 145 million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates, with man-
datory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were
held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 2: Parcel Tax Version Your household is within the Claremont Unified School Dis-
trict. Later this year, voters in the District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me
read you a summary of the measure. In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the
impact of State budget cuts at our local schools; attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-
selors and school security personnel; maintain small class sizes; and continue funding advanced
academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement
shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139 per parcel
for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all funds staying local to
benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

................
11
FIGURE 2 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
100
4.4
7.8
Refused
90
20.7
80 20.5
Not sure
70 9.2
12.2
% Respondents
60 Definite ly no
22.2
50
22.5
Probably no
40
30
Probably yes
20
43.4
36.0
10 Definite ly yes
0
Bond Parcel Tax
Initial Ballot Test Version
SUPPORT BY MEASURE TYPE Figure 2 presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test for
both the bond and parcel tax measures. Overall, 59% of respondents indicated that they would
definitely or probably support a $145 million bond measure that would repair and renovate out-
dated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings, improve fire, safety and security systems,
remove hazardous materials like lead and asbestos, upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, comput-
ers and instructional technology, and provide general fund relief to attract and retain qualified
teachers. Approximately 33% stated that they would oppose the bond measure at this point in
the survey, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The level of support
recorded for the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 4% above the 55%
threshold required for passage of a Prop 39 bond in California.
Support for the parcel tax measure was somewhat stronger, although the required threshold for
passing a parcel tax measure is also higher. Overall, 66% of voters initially indicated they would
support a parcel tax of up to $139 per year to protect the quality of education and reduce the
impact of State budget cuts at our local schools, attract and retain high quality teachers, coun-
selors and school security personnel, maintain small class sizes, and continue funding advanced
academic programs in math, science, technology and arts that enhance student achievement.
Approximately 30% stated that they would oppose the parcel tax measure at this point in the sur-
vey, whereas 4% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The level of support
recorded for the parcel tax at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 1% below the two-thirds
threshold required for passage of a special tax in California.

................
12
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Tables 1 and 2 show how support at
the Initial Ballot Test for the bond and parcel tax measures, respectively, varied by key demo-
graphic traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the
likely November 2010 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. When compared with
their respective counterparts, those who have lived in Claremont less than five years, voters who
have a family connection to a career in education, females, Democrats, and those who are likely
to participate in a vote-by-mail special election were consistently the most likely to support a
local revenue measure—be it a bond or a parcel tax.
TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Ap proximate %
of Voter % Prob ab ly or
Univers e Def initely Yes % Not su re
Overall 100 58.5 7.8
Less than 5 10 73.8 3.3
Ye ars in Cla re mont Area 5 to 9 19 56.4 9.7
(QD1) 10 to 14 15 62.3 7.4
15 or more 56 55.6 8.1
Current 28 54.5 19.8
District Child in Hsld Pa st 38 56.4 5.2
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 65.7 0.0
Neve r 26 63.4 3.1
Family Member Employe d Yes 45 66.9 5.8
in Education (QD6) No 55 51.0 9.6
Ma le 45 52.4 5.6
Gender
Female 55 63.7 9.7
18 to 29 9 73.5 7.3
30 to 39 8 47.1 0.0
Age 40 to 49 19 46.8 14.0
50 to 64 35 56.8 5.6
65 or older 30 66.8 8.6
Democrat 49 74.8 3.8
Pa rty Republica n 33 35.1 11.8
Other / DTS 18 60.7 10.6
Single dem 20 74.5 1.3
Dual dem 20 73.4 7.7
Single rep 9 27.7 13.3
Household P arty Ty pe
Dual re p 15 36.3 12.6
Other 15 59.1 10.8
Mixed 22 56.7 6.4
2010 to 2005 32 68.5 7.5
2004 to 2001 22 54.9 9.7
Registration Year 2000 to 1997 16 61.7 5.4
1996 to 1990 12 41.9 6.4
Before 1990 19 54.9 8.8
Yes 76 54.8 8.1
Home ow ner on Vote r File
No 24 71.3 6.8
Yes 25 59.0 9.3
Likely to Vote by Mail
No 75 58.4 7.4
Yes 63 58.9 7.2
Like ly June 2010 Vote r
No 37 57.9 8.8
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 62.7 7.4
V oter No 55 55.2 8.1
Yes 83 58.4 7.6
Like ly Nov 2010 Vote r
No 17 59.0 9.0

................
13
TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Ap proximate %
of Voter % Prob ab ly or
Univers e Def initely Yes % Not su re
Overall 100 65.6 4.4
Less than 5 10 82.8 0.0
Ye ars in Cla re mont Area 5 to 9 19 64.9 5.4
(QD1) 10 to 14 15 60.5 3.1
15 or more 56 64.9 4.7
Current 28 73.1 5.7
District Child in Hsld Pa st 38 63.6 1.7
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 49.6 2.4
Neve r 26 65.7 5.6
Family Member Employe d Yes 45 76.0 2.7
in Education (QD6) No 55 58.8 5.2
Ma le 45 62.9 2.6
Gender
Female 55 67.9 5.8
18 to 29 9 31.2 18.2
30 to 39 8 69.2 0.0
Age 40 to 49 19 71.9 2.8
50 to 64 35 61.3 3.4
65 or older 30 74.9 4.0
Democrat 49 77.3 1.7
Pa rty Republica n 33 49.8 8.4
Other / DTS 18 61.8 4.6
Single dem 20 84.0 4.0
Dual dem 20 80.1 0.0
Single rep 9 54.2 13.5
Dual re p 15 45.7 4.4
Other 15 67.0 5.7
Mixed 22 51.9 2.8
2010 to 2005 32 67.6 7.6
2004 to 2001 22 63.2 1.4
Registration Year 2000 to 1997 16 67.5 0.0
1996 to 1990 12 72.5 4.8
Before 1990 19 58.2 5.2
Yes 76 65.3 2.7
No 24 66.7 9.1
Yes 25 64.8 2.9
No 75 66.0 4.9
Yes 63 65.9 3.7
No 37 65.2 5.4
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 69.7 1.9
V oter No 55 62.2 6.5
Yes 83 63.8 4.2
No 17 75.0 5.3
REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure at Ques-
tion 2 were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 3
was asked in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any reason that
came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North
later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3
for the bond, Figure 4 for the parcel tax. The most frequently-mentioned reasons for opposing
the bond were taxes already being too high (21%), perceived mismanagement of funds/wasteful
spending by the District (19%), or a reference to a past measure that was ineffective (13%). The
most frequently-mentioned reason for opposing the parcel tax was also the concern that taxes
are already too high (24%), followed by a belief that the District should live within its means
(16%), has issues other than money to address (15%), or has mismanaged/wasted funds (13%).

................
14
Question 3: Both Versions Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school
measure I just described?
FIGURE 3 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING BOND MEASURE
Taxes already too high 21.0
Mismanagement of funds / Wasteful spending 19.4
Ineffective similar measures in past 13.0
Need more information 12.8
Cost of measure is too high 10.1
Do not have children in District 9.4
Local tax dollars should be spent elsewhere 8.7
Do not support bonds 7.9
District should live within budget 6.3
No particular reason 3.7
District already has sufficient money 3.3
Teacher, administrator salaries too high 2.5
District has issues other than lack of money 2.0
Maintain schools as they are now 1.8
Should find other funding sources 1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
% Respondents W ho Do Not Support Bond Mea sure
FIGURE 4 REASON FOR NOT SUPPORTING PARCEL TAX MEASURE
Taxes already too high 24.2
District should live within budget 15.8
District has issues other than lack of money 14.7
Mismanagement of funds / Wasteful spending 13.2
Need more information 7.9
Do not have children in District 7.2
Ineffective similar measures in past 6.6
District already has sufficient money 5.8
Should find other funding sources 5.5
Teacher, administrator salaries too high 4.9
No particular reason 3.3
Cost of measure is too high 3.0
Poor quality of teaching, staff 2.0
Maintain schools as they are now 1.7
Refused 0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Parc el Tax M easure

................
15
Tax Threshold
T AX T H R E S H O L D
Naturally, voter support for a revenue measure is often contingent on the cost of the measure.
The higher the tax rate, all other things being equal, the less likely a voter is to support the mea-
sure. One of the goals of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the tax rate
can be expected to have on voter support for the proposed revenue measures.
Question 4 was designed to do just that. Respondents were first instructed that the measure
would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property
owners in the school district, but that the amount to be charged had not yet been determined.
They were then presented with the highest tax rate ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation for the
bond; $139 per year per property for the parcel tax) and asked if they would support the pro-
posed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked
whether they would support the measure at the next lowest tax rate. The three tax rates tested
and the percentage of respondents who indicated they would vote in favor of the measure at
each rate are shown in Figure 5 for the bond, Figure 6 for the parcel tax.
Question 4: Bond Version The amount each home owner will pay if the school bond passes
depends on the assessed value of their home, not the current market value of the home. If you
heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 dollars of
assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the school bond measure?
FIGURE 5 TAX THRESHOLD: BOND
Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure Refused
$45 per $100K 31.5 54% 22.6 11.0 40% 29.0 4.6
$35 per $100K 35.7 57% 21.5 8.3 37% 29.0 4.5
$25 per $100K 44.5 63% 18.8 6.4 32% 25.4 3.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Bond Version Respondents
The most obvious pattern revealed in both figures is that voters are somewhat price sensitive
when it comes to their support for the proposed measure. When their attention is focused on the
tax rate, at the highest tax rate tested for the bond ($45 per $100,000 assessed valuation) 54%
of likely November 2010 voters surveyed indicated they would vote in favor of the measure.
Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea-

................
16
Tax Threshold
sure, with 63% of those surveyed indicating they would support the proposed bond measure at
an annual tax rate of $25 per $100,000 assessed valuation.
The parcel tax results showed similar sensitivity. The ballot language tested in Question 2 men-
tioned that the tax rate would be up to $139 per year, thus leaving open the possibility of it
being a lower amount. When Question 4 focused the respondent’s attention on the tax rate and
clarified that the rate would be a specific amount, support at the highest tax rate tested ($139
per parcel per year) was found among 60% of likely November 2010 voters. Incremental reduc-
tions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 66% of
those surveyed indicating they would support the parcel tax measure at an annual tax rate of
$79 per parcel per year.
Question 4: Parcel Tax Version The measure I just described would raise money through
annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners in the school district.
However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard
that your household would pay ______ per year for each property that you own in the district,
would you vote yes or no on the measure?
FIGURE 6 TAX THRESHOLD: PARCEL TAX
Definite ly yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure Re fuse d
$139 per year 40.9 60% 19.1 9.4 35% 25.4 4.3
$99 per year 47.8 65% 17.1 7.9 31% 23.5 3.1
$79 per year 52.3 66% 13.5 7.4 31% 23.7 2.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Parcel Tax Version Respondents

................
17
Tax Threshold
PRICE SENSITIVITY BY INITIAL SUPPORT FOR BOND Because general obligation
bond ballot language references the aggregate bond amount, but not the individual tax rate, it is
useful to examine how the additional tax rate information presented in Question 4 affected sup-
port for the bond measure according to respondents’ positions at the Initial Ballot Test. What
Figure 7 makes clear is that initial supporters, initial opponents, and those who were unsure at
the Initial Ballot Test were all price sensitive with respect to the proposed bond measure. At a
rate of $45 per $100,000 assessed valuation, for example, just 80% of those who were initially
supportive of the bond indicated that they would continue to support the measure. Conversely,
at the lowest tax rate tested ($25 per $100,000 assessed valuation), 22% of those initially
opposed to the measure and 41% of those who were unsure switched to a supportive position.
FIGURE 7 TAX THRESHOLD BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
100
$45 per $100K $35 per $100K $25 per $100K
% UUT Version Respondents That Said Definitely
90
90
or Probably Yes at Initial Ballot Test
80 84
80
70
60
50
40
41
38
30 34
20
22
10
16
13
0
Defintely or probably yes Definite ly or probably no Not sure
Position at Initial Ballot Te st: Bond (Q2)

................
18
Related Attitudes
R E L A T E D A T T I T U D E S
To understand why voters take the positions they do with respect to a revenue measure, it is
often instructive to look beyond the specifics of the measure itself. With respect to the proposed
measure, how do residents perceive the quality of education being provided by the District? And
do voters sense that the District needs additional money?
QUALITY OF EDUCATION The first question in this series asked voters to rate the overall
quality of education provided in the Claremont Unified School District. As shown in Figure 8,
opinions were very positive overall. More than three-quarters (78%) rated the quality of education
as excellent (39%) or good (39%), 9% indicated it is fair, and less than 2% described it as poor or
very poor. An additional 11% were unsure or declined to provide their opinion.
Question 5: Both Versions In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in
the Claremont Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very
poor?
FIGURE 8 QUALITY OF EDUCATION
Refused
Very po o r 0.7
0.9 Not s ure
10.8
Po o r
0.9
Fair
8.7 Excellent
38.8
Go o d
39.1
Figures 9 and 10 on the next page display how perceptions of the quality of education provided
in the Claremont Unified School District varied across a host of voter subgroups. Although there
were some differences in opinion (e.g., those who have never had children in the District were
less likely to rate the quality of education as excellent), the most striking pattern in the figures is
the relative consistency of opinion. Regardless of subgroup category, voters in Claremont have a
high opinion of the District’s performance in educating students.

................
19
Related Attitudes
FIGURE 9 QUALITY OF EDUCATION BY DISTRICT CHILD IN HSLD, FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYED IN EDUCATION & YEARS IN
CLAREMONT AREA
100
% Resp ondents Who Provided Opinion
90
80
Good
70
41 .1 53.2 44.9 46.1 36 .7
44.5 4 3.8 4 9.6 45.2
60 45.9
50
40
30 Exc ellent
46.3 46.9 50 .4
20 49 .5 42.8 41.8 37.9 4 1.9 4 0.2 42.2
10
0
C urre nt Past Future Nev er Ye s No Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more
D istrict Child in Hsld (QD3,4,5) Family Me mbe r Emplo ye d in Ye ars in C laremo nt Area (QD1)
Education (QD6)
FIGURE 10 QUALITY OF EDUCATION BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TESTS
100
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
90
80
35.7
70 48.4
Good 45.7 40.2
51.3
60 48.8
47.0
50 43.2
40
30 58.4
Excelle nt 44.6 48.1 46.9
20 39.3
40.2 31.6 29.3
10
0
Defin itely y es Probably y e s Prob ably no Definitely no De finitely y es Probably y es Probab ly no Definitely no
Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2) Initial Ballot Test: Parc el Tax (Q2)
NEED FOR RENOVATED & UPGRADED FACILITIES All voters were next queried
about the District’s need for additional money. Overall, 39% of voters perceived that the District
has a great need for additional money, and a similar percentage (36%) felt that the District’s need
for additional money was moderate (see Figure 11). Approximately 15% perceived that the Dis-
trict has little (8%) or no need (7%) for additional money, whereas 10% were unsure or unwilling
to answer the question. When compared to their respective counterparts, voters who currently
have children attending a District school, those with a family connection to a career in education,
voters who have lived in the District less than 10 years, and those who were definitely supportive
of the revenue measure at the Initial Ballot Test were the most likely to rate the District’s need
for additional money as great (see Figures 12 & 13).

................
20
Related Attitudes
Question 6: Both Versions How would you rate the school district's need for additional money?
Would you say it has a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?
FIGURE 11 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY
No t sure Refu sed

9.7 0.2
No ne
6.8
Great
Little
38.9
8.0
Mo derate
36.4
FIGURE 12 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY BY DISTRICT CHILD IN HSLD, FAMILY MEMBER EMPLOYED IN
EDUCATION & YEARS IN CLAREMONT AREA
100
% Resp ondents Who Provided Opinion
90
80
Moderate
70 34 .5
37.1 43.8 4 1.3
50.6 42.1
60 44.1 43.8 39.2
4 1.1
50
40
30 Great
56 .6 50.2 46.0 4 6.1
20 3 7.3 37.3 37.5 42.3 42.0
36.7
10
0
C urre nt Past Future N ev er Yes No Le ss than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more
D istric t C hild in Hsld (QD3,4,5) Family Member Employ ed in Years in Clare mo nt Area (QD1)
Educ ation (QD6)

................
21
Related Attitudes
FIGURE 13 DISTRICT’S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TESTS
100
% Respondents Who P rovided Opinion
90
Moderate 29.9
80
35.8
70 51.8
49.0
60
50
59.5
40
Great 36.5 68.9
30 60.7 40.4
62.3
20 42.0 43.4
10 17.7
15.3 12.4
0 0.0
De finitely y es Probably y es Probably no Definitely no Definitely y es Probably y es Probably no Definitely no
Initial Ballot Test: Bond (Q2) Initial Ballot T est: Parc el Tax (Q2)

................
22
Programs & Projects
P R O G R A M S & P R O J E C T S
The ballot language presented in Question 2 indicated that the proposed bond would repair and
renovate classrooms and school buildings, improve safety and security systems, remove hazard-
ous materials like lead and asbestos, upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and instruc-
tional technology, and provide general fund relief to attract and retain qualified teachers. The
ballot language for the parcel tax was similarly succinct, stating that the measure would attract
and retain high quality teachers, counselors and school security personnel, maintain small class
sizes, and continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science, technology and arts
that enhance student achievement. The purpose of Question 7 was to provide respondents with
the full range of services and facility improvements that may be funded by the proposed mea-
sures, as well as identify which of these improvements voters most favored funding with mea-
sure proceeds.
After reading each service or project that may be funded by the measure, respondents were
asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assum-
ing that the measure passes. Truncated descriptions of the improvements tested, as well as vot-
ers’ responses, are shown in Figure 14 for the bond, Figure 15 for the parcel tax.3
Question 7: Both Versions The measure we've been discussing could fund a variety of
improvements to local schools. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of
the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 14 PROGRAMS & PROJECTS: BOND

Strongly fav or S omewhat favor
BQ7o BQ7i BQ7k BQ7b BQ7n BQ7m BQ7a BQ7j BQ7g BQ7l BQ7c BQ7h BQ7d BQ7f BQ7e
Remove hazardous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos 58.6 21 .7
Upgrade classroom c omputers and tec hnology 42.8 35.8
Repair or replace roofs, plumbing, lighting, and elec tric al systems 44.7 31.9
Upgrade library technology, Internet acc ess and research tools 41.5 34.4
Upgrade safety, sec urity systems 41.4 32.9
Install solar panels, make other energy -efficiency improv ements 45.8 28.3
Upg rade and improv e sc hool libraries 45.5 28.2
Make energy-efficient imp rovements and refinance Distric t debt 47.9 25.2
Replace det eriorating temporary trailers w ith permanent c lassrooms 39.6 29 .4
Retrofit classrooms for special purposes such as art , music, language 44.2 24.3
Improving tec hnology to c reate science, engineering magnet school 35 .0 31.9
Renov ate or replace outd ated classrooms and sc hool buildings 32.0 33.6
Renovate old , w orn-out athletic facilities 24.5 38.0
Improve pick-up and drop-off zones at school sit es 27.0 30.4
Renov ate the Claremont Hig h School Theater 20.8 34.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Bond Version
3. For the full text of the items tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaires & Toplines on page 47

................
23
Programs & Projects
There was no shortage of popular services or facilities on which voters would favor spending
measure proceeds. Overall, the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents
for the bond measure was removing hazardous materials from school sites like lead and asbes-
tos (80% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by upgrading classroom computers and technol-
ogy (78%), and repairing or replacing old, worn-out roofs, plumbing, lighting, and electrical
systems (77%). It is worth noting, moreover, that 73% of respondents favored using the bond to
make energy-efficient improvements and refinance District debt in order to reduce the impact of
State budget cuts and free up money to save teachers and academic programs.
FIGURE 15 PROGRAMS & PROJECTS: PARCEL TAX
Strongly favo r So me what fav or

PQ7q PQ7m PQ7h PQ7b PQ7o PQ7j PQ7f PQ7c PQ7l PQ7k PQ7e PQ7p PQ7g PQ7i PQ7n PQ7a PQ7d
Provide adv anc ed ac ademic programs in math, science, and technology 69.8 20 .2
Att rac t, retain the best qualified teachers 73.8 15.1
Keep sc hool libraries open 59.7 27.8
Maintain sc hool safety and sec urit y personnel 48.3 38.8
Continue funding for art and music programs 57.5 28.8
Continue providing co llege prep programs 66.8 19.2
Keep textbooks and instruc tional materials up-to-date 55.0 30.3
Keep c lassroom comput ers and technology up-to-date 56.6 28.6
Keep school facilities clean and w ell maintained 49.2 35.9
Maintain small c lass sizes 58.6 25.9
Continue funding for physical education and athletic programs 49.7 33.6
Maintain ac ademic and career counselors 45.1 37.5
Provide summer school programs 48.1 33.7
Av oid teac her lay-offs due t o St ate budg et cut s 57.3 21.7
Continue providing advanced foreign language instruction programs 44.2 30.7
Maintain tutors and aides for one-on-one inst ruc tion 35.5 33.5
Prev ent furlough days for teachers and other staff 35.4 26.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Parc el Tax Version
For the parcel tax, the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents was pro-
viding advanced programs in math, science and technology (90% strongly or somewhat favor),
followed by attracting and retaining the best qualified teachers (89%), keeping school libraries
open (88%), and maintaining school safety and security personnel (87%).
ITEM RATINGS BY SUBGROUP Table 3 presents the top five bond projects (showing the
percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test. Table 4
provides the same information for the parcel tax. Not surprisingly, individuals who initially

................
24
Programs & Projects
opposed the measure or were unsure of their position were generally less likely to favor spend-
ing money on a given project or service when compared to supporters. Nevertheless, initial sup-
porters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on several of the top priorities for funding.
TABLE 3 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Position at
Initial Ballot % Strongly
Test (Q2) Item Pro ject o r Pr ogram Su mmary Favo r
BQ7e Re move haza rdous materials from school sites like lead and asbestos 77
Probably or BQ7j M ake energy-efficient improvements and refina nce District debt 67
Definitely Yes BQ7l Install solar panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements 63
(n = 177) BQ7g Upgrade a nd improv e school libraries 62
BQ7m Retrofit classrooms for spe cial purposes such as art, music, language 61
Probably or BQ7d Repair or replace roofs, plumbing, lighting, a nd ele ctrical sy stems 25
Definitely No BQ7n Improving te chnology to cre ate science, engineering magnet school 23
(n = 99) BQ7c Upgrade safety, se curity sy stems 22
BQ7g Upgrade a nd improv e school libraries 20
BQ7j M ake energy-efficient improvements and refina nce District debt 33
N ot Sure
BQ7f Upgrade classroom computers and technology 33
(n = 24)
BQ7g Upgrade a nd improv e school libraries 30
BQ7l Install solar panels, make other energy-efficiency improvements 29
TABLE 4 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Position at
Initial Ballot % Strongly
Test (Q2) Item Pro ject o r Pr ogram Su mmary Favo r
P Q7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 88
Probably or PQ 7d P rovide adva nce d a cade mic programs in math, science, and technology 82
Definitely Yes PQ 7p Continue providing college prep programs 81
(n = 194) PQ7c M aintain small class sizes 74
PQ 7g Continue funding for a rt and music programs 71
PQ 7d P rovide adva nce d a cade mic programs in math, science, and technology 46
Probably or P Q7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 43
Definitely No PQ 7p Continue providing college prep programs 35
(n = 89) PQ 7n Keep school libraries open 35
P Q7e K eep textbooks and instructional materials up-to-date 34
PQ 7g Continue funding for a rt and music programs 74
PQ 7p Continue providing college prep programs 74
N ot Sure
PQ 7n Keep school libraries open 69
(n = 13)
PQ7l K eep school facilities clean and we ll maintained 67
P Q7a Attract, retain the best qualified teachers 67

................
25
Positive Arguments
P O S I T I V E A R G U M E N T S
Ballot measures do not succeed or fail in a political vacuum. During an election cycle, propo-
nents of a measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just
as opponents will present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. The objective of Question 8
was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify
whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition
to the measure were also presented and will be discussed later in this report (see Negative Argu-
ments on page 32). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to
avoid a systematic position bias.
Question 8: Both Versions What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying
about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think
this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the
measure?
FIGURE 16 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS: BOND
Ve ry convinc ing S omewhat c onvinc ing

BQ8m BQ8k BQ8l BQ8d BQ8f BQ8j BQ8e BQ8h BQ8c BQ8i BQ8g BQ8a BQ8b
Good schools help protec t and improve local property values 48.6 31.2
All money raised b y t he measure w ill stay in the Distric t 53 .2 25.4
Measure ensures educ ation, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 37.1 39.5
Claremont sc hools are among the best in the region 36.1 38.8
Dist rict may qualify for state grant s, matc hing funds, federal stimulus 31.2 4 2.1
No money w ill be used for administrators’ salaries 44.9 28.0
This bond w ill free-up money to help save teachers’ jobs 35.5 36.0
The longer we w ait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 36.0 35.1
There w ill be a clear system of fiscal accountabilit y 29.6 39.4
Many of the sc hool buildings and fac ilit ies are up to 50 years old 27 .9 40.4
Measure w ill improv e fac ilit ies at some schools for magnet programs 27.3 40.6
Measure w ill complete projec ts begun w it h sc hool measure 10 y rs ago 19.5 41.8
Measure will st rengthen local ec onomy, creat e good -pay ing jobs 17.3 39.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondent s: Bond Version
Figure 16 above presents the truncated positive arguments tested in the bond survey, as well as
voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convincing to least
convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either
a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this method-
ology, the most compelling positive argument was: Good schools help protect and improve local
property values (80%), followed by All money raised by the measure will stay in the District to

................
26
Positive Arguments
support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for other purposes (79%), and
This measure will ensure that students have access to the education and technologies they need
to be prepared for the jobs of the future (77%).
For the parcel tax survey (see Figure 17), the most compelling positive arguments were: Good
schools help protect and improve local property values (86%), If we want our kids to be prepared
to succeed in the new global economy, they need to have a high quality education—including
advanced courses in math, science and technology (86%), and All money raised by the measure
will stay in the District to support our children. It can not be taken away by the State or used for
other purposes (82%).
FIGURE 17 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS: PARCEL TAX
Very co nvincing S omewhat c onvinc ing

PQ8j PQ8a PQ8g PQ8b
Good schools help protec t and improve local property values 53.5 32.9
Kids need high qualit y educ ation to succ eed in global economy 54.9 31.0
All money raised by t he measure w ill stay in the Distric t 58.9 22.6
Wit h smaller class sizes, measure provides individualized instruct ion 47.9 3 3.1
PQ8l PQ8h PQ8e PQ8i
Claremont sc hools are among the best in the region 44.2 35.9
State budget cuts are going to hurt the quality of our sc hools 45.6 34.2
Measure pro vides an exemption for property ow ners w ho are 65+ 48.8 30.1
Measure provides college prep, tec h t raining for job out of high sc hool 40.3 38.5
PQ8k PQ8d PQ8f PQ8c
No money from the measure w ill be used for administrators’ salaries 53.1 21.9
There w ill be a clear system of fiscal accountability 38.8 33.6
This measure lasts for six years only 40.0 30.3
Measure w ill allow the Distric t to provide an early college program 26.5 32.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT For the interested reader, Tables 5 and
6 list the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents
who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test
for the bond and parcel tax surveys, respectively. The most striking pattern in the tables is that
the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially
inclined to support the measure or were unsure when compared to voters who initially opposed
the measure. Nevertheless, all three groups ranked several of the same arguments as being
among the most compelling.

................
27
Positive Arguments
TABLE 5 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Position at
Initial Ballot % Very
Test (Q2) Item Pos itive Ar gument Sum mar y Convincing
BQ8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 72
Probably or BQ8h No mone y will be used for administrators’ salaries 64
Definitely Yes BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 58
(n = 177) BQ8g M easure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 53
BQ8j The longer w e wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 51
BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 34
Probably or BQ8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 26
Definitely No BQ8h No mone y will be used for administrators’ salaries 19
(n = 99) BQ8g M easure ensures education, technologies to prepare kids for future jobs 14
BQ8l Mea sure will improve facilities at some schools for magnet programs 13
BQ8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 44
BQ8i Claremont schools are among the best in the region 34
N ot Sure
BQ8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 34
(n = 24)
BQ8e This bond will fre e-up money to help save teachers’ jobs 33
BQ8j The longer w e wait to fix schools the more expensive the cost 32
TABLE 6 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Position at
Test (Q2) Item Pos itive Ar gument Sum mar y Convincing
P Q8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 76
Probably or PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 67
Definitely Yes PQ 8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 66
(n = 194) PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 64
P Q8e S tate budget cuts a re going to hurt the qua lity of our schools 62
PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 30
Probably or PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 30
Definitely No PQ 8b Good schools help protect and improve local property values 28
(n = 89) PQ 8h Me asure provides a n e xemption for prope rty owners who are 65+ 27
P Q8a All money raised by the mea sure will sta y in the District 26
P Q8f There w ill be a clear system of fisca l a ccountability 51
PQ 8h Me asure provides a n e xemption for prope rty owners who are 65+ 51
N ot Sure
PQ 8g K ids need high quality education to succe ed in global economy 50
(n = 13)
PQ8j With smaller cla ss sizes, me asure provides individualized instruction 50
PQ8c No money from the measure will be used for administrators’ salaries 46

................
28
Interim Ballot Tests
I N T E R I M B A L L O T T E ST S
After exposing respondents to the types of positive arguments they may encounter during an
election cycle, the survey again presented voters with the ballot language used previously to
gauge how their support for the proposed bond or parcel tax measure may have changed. As
shown in Figure 18, overall support for the bond measure at this point climbed by 4% to 63%,
with 32% of respondents opposed to the measure and an additional 6% unsure or unwilling to
state their vote choice. Overall support for the parcel tax increased by 2% to 68%, with 27% of
respondents opposed to the measure, and 5% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.
Question 9: Bond Version In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-
Question 9: Parcel Tax Version In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the
FIGURE 18 INTERIM BALLOT TESTS
100
5.7 5.4
90 Not sure
22.4 21.0
80
70 5.9 Definite ly no
9.2
% Respondents
60
22.2
50 22.7 Probably no
40
30 Probably yes
45.5
20 40.0
10 Definite ly yes
0
Bond Parcel Tax
Interim Ballot Test Version

................
29
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested readers, Tables 7 and 8 display how support
for the bond and parcel tax measures at this point in the survey varied by key demographic sub-
groups, as well as the percentage change in subgroup support when compared to the Initial Bal-
lot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red.
TABLE 7 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: BOND
Ap proximate % Change From

of Voter % Prob ab ly or Initial Ballot
Univers e Def initely Yes Test (Q2)
Overall 100 62.7 +4.2
Less than 5 10 81.3 +7.5
Ye ars in Cla re mont Area 5 to 9 19 53.0 -3.4
(QD1) 10 to 14 15 67.5 +5.2
15 or more 56 62.1 +6.5
Current 28 58.4 +3.9
District Child in Hsld Pa st 38 61.1 +4.7
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 65.7 No change
Neve r 26 68.1 +4.6
Family Member Employe d Yes 45 69.5 +2.6
in Education (QD6) No 55 56.6 +5.6
Ma le 45 57.7 +5.3
Gender
Female 55 66.9 +3.2
18 to 29 9 80.8 +7.3
30 to 39 8 61.8 +14.6
Age 40 to 49 19 55.1 +8.3
50 to 64 35 57.5 +0.6
65 or older 30 68.9 +2.1
Democrat 49 77.7 +2.9
Pa rty Republica n 33 40.4 +5.4
Other / DTS 18 65.8 +5.2
Single dem 20 78.5 +4.1
Dual dem 20 76.2 +2.8
Single rep 9 32.6 +4.9
Dual re p 15 46.5 +10.3
Other 15 65.5 +6.3
Mixed 22 55.7 -1.0
2010 to 2005 32 69.6 +1.1
2004 to 2001 22 54.8 -0.1
Registration Year 2000 to 1997 16 73.0 +11.4
1996 to 1990 12 49.2 +7.3
Before 1990 19 60.9 +6.0
Yes 76 62.3 +7.5
No 24 64.0 -7.3
Yes 25 60.9 +1.9
No 75 63.2 +4.8
Yes 63 60.7 +1.7
No 37 66.2 +8.3
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 63.4 +0.8
V oter No 55 62.1 +6.9
Yes 83 62.8 +4.4
No 17 62.1 +3.1

................
30
TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Ap proximate % Change From

of Voter % Prob ab ly or Initial Ballot
Univers e Def initely Yes Test (Q2)
Overall 100 67.7 +2.1
Less than 5 10 88.0 +5.2
Ye ars in Cla re mont Area 5 to 9 19 67.5 +2.5
(QD1) 10 to 14 15 62.9 +2.4
15 or more 56 66.3 +1.4
Current 28 73.5 +0.3
District Child in Hsld Pa st 38 64.3 +0.7
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 61.9 +12.4
Neve r 26 68.3 +2.5
Family Member Employe d Yes 45 79.3 +3.3
in Education (QD6) No 55 60.0 +1.3
Ma le 45 61.8 -1.1
Gender
Female 55 72.6 +4.7
18 to 29 9 49.4 +18.2
30 to 39 8 70.9 +1.8
Age 40 to 49 19 74.1 +2.2
50 to 64 35 64.6 +3.3
65 or older 30 72.1 -2.8
Democrat 49 78.9 +1.6
Pa rty Republica n 33 50.8 +1.1
Other / DTS 18 67.1 +5.3
Single dem 20 91.0 +7.0
Dual dem 20 79.4 -0.7
Single rep 9 56.6 +2.4
Dual re p 15 41.2 -4.5
Other 15 71.3 +4.3
Mixed 22 53.9 +2.0
2010 to 2005 32 71.5 +3.9
2004 to 2001 22 70.0 +6.7
Registration Year 2000 to 1997 16 63.3 -4.3
1996 to 1990 12 72.5 -0.0
Before 1990 19 58.5 +0.3
Yes 76 66.1 +0.8
No 24 72.7 +6.0
Yes 25 69.1 +4.4
No 75 67.2 +1.3
Yes 63 68.3 +2.3
No 37 66.9 +1.7
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 67.7 -1.9
V oter No 55 67.7 +5.6
Yes 83 66.7 +3.0
No 17 72.8 -2.2

................
31
Negative Arguments
N E G A T I V E A R G U M E N T S
Whereas Question 8 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measure, Question
10 presented arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question
10, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing,
somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments
tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented in Figure 19 for the bond,
Figure 20 for the parcel tax.
Question 10: Both Versions Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are say-
ing.Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat con-
vincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
FIGURE 19 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS: BOND
Very c onv incing So me what co nvincing

BQ10f BQ10d BQ10e BQ10c BQ10b BQ10a
With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 39.5 28.9
The Distric t c an’t be trusted with this tax 27.5 33.4
Raising taxes during a recession w ill hurt the economy ev en more 27.3 26.8
Distric t needs to live w ithin its means, just like everyone else 27.3 26.8
More t han 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the Distric t 27.7 23.4
Teac hers not w illing t o take furlough days 24.3 20.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Respondents: Bond Version
In general, the negative arguments resonated with fewer respondents than did the positive argu-
ments. Among the negative arguments tested in the bond survey, the three most compelling
were: People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy-
ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (68%), followed by
The District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money
raised during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised (61%), and Experts say that
raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more (54%).
Among the negative arguments tested in the parcel tax survey, the three most compelling were:
People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment,
and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (64%), followed by The
District can't be trusted with this tax. Some feel the District mismanaged the bond money raised
during the 2000 election and didn't build what they promised (59%), and The District needs to
live within its means—just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they would not have to raise
taxes (57%).

................
32
Negative Arguments
FIGURE 20 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS: PARCEL TAX
Ve ry c onvinc ing So mewhat co nv incing

PQ10f PQ10c PQ10d PQ10e PQ10b PQ10a
With ec onomic crisis, now is NOT t he time to raise taxes 34.9 29.5
The District can’t be trusted w ith this tax 30.6 28.5
Distric t needs to live w ithin its means, just like ev eryone else 29.6 27.6
More t han 15 percent of students transfer in from outside the District 29.2 27.2
Raising taxes during a recession w ill hurt the ec onomy ev en more 26.3 24.8
Teachers not w illing to take furlough day s 19.9 24.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT For the interested reader, Tables 9

and 10 list the top five most convincing negative arguments (showing the percentage of respon-
dents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot
Test for the bond and parcel tax surveys, respectively.
TABLE 9 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Position at
Test (Q2) Item Neg ative Arg umen t Summ ary Con vincin g
BQ10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 21
Probably or BQ 10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 16
Definitely Yes BQ 10f Teachers not willing to ta ke furlough days 15
(n = 177) BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 14
BQ 10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 20
Probably or BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 50
Definitely No BQ 10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 49
(n = 99) BQ10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 45
BQ10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 41
N ot Sure
BQ10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 37
(n = 24)
BQ 10f Teachers not willing to ta ke furlough days 35

................
33
Negative Arguments
TABLE 10 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Position at
Test (Q2) Item Neg ative Arg umen t Summ ary Con vincin g
PQ10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 17
Probably or PQ 10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 17
Definitely Yes PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 16
(n = 194) PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 14
PQ 10f Teachers not willing to ta ke furlough days 14
PQ 10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 69
Probably or PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 62
Definitely No PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 61
(n = 89) PQ10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 54
P Q10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 52
PQ 10a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 72
P Q10c Raising taxes during a recession will hurt the economy even more 67
N ot Sure
PQ10b The District can’t be trusted with this tax 40
(n = 13)
PQ 10e District needs to live w ithin its means, just like eve ry one else 40
PQ10d M ore than 15 perce nt of students tra nsfer in from outside the District 35

................
34
Final Ballot Tests
F I N A L B AL LOT T E S T S
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor-
mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. An important goal of the survey
was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measures may be affected by the
information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respon-
dents with the wording of the proposed measures, possible tax rates, programs and services
that could be funded by the measures, as well as arguments in favor and against the proposals,
respondents were again asked whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed bond and
parcel tax measures.
Question 11: Bond Version In order to: provide safe and modern school facilities for all stu-
Question 11: Parcel Tax Version In order to: protect the quality of education and reduce the
FIGURE 21 FINAL BALLOT TESTS
100
5.2 4.7
Refused
90
23.3 22.5
80
Not sure
70 8.5
11.7
% Respondents
60 Definitely no
20.1
50 21.7
40 Probably no
30
Probably yes
43.8
20 38.1
10 Definitely yes
0
Bond Parcel Tax
Final Ballot Te st Version

................
35
Final Ballot Tests
At this point in the survey, support for the bond measure was found among 60% of voters, with
35% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Support for
the parcel tax was slightly higher at 64%, with 31% opposed to the measure and 5% unsure or

................
36
Change in Support
C H A N G E I N S U P P O R T
Tables 11 and 12 provide a closer look at how support for the proposed bond and parcel tax
measures changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support
between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within various subgroups of voters. The per-
centage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the head-
ing % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final
and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, nega-
tive differences in red.
TABLE 11 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Appr oxim ate % Chang e F rom Ch ang e from

of Voter % Probably or Initial Ballot Interim Ballot
Universe Definitely Yes Test (Q2) Test (Q9)
Ov erall 100 59.8 +1.3 -2.9
Less than 5 10 81.3 +7.5 No change
Years in Claremont Are a 5 to 9 19 48.6 -7.8 -4.4
(Q D1) 10 to 14 15 64.8 +2.6 -2.7
15 or more 56 59.1 +3.5 -3.0
Curre nt 28 56.9 +2.4 -1.5
District Child in Hsld Past 38 56.6 +0.2 -4.5
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 60.7 -5.1 -5.1
Never 26 66.9 +3.5 -1.2
F amily M embe r Yes 45 67.3 +0.4 -2.2
Employed in Education No 55 53.1 +2.0 -3.6
Male 45 57.2 +4.8 -0.5
Gender
Female 55 62.0 -1.7 -5.0
18 to 29 9 75.8 +2.3 -5.0
30 to 39 8 61.8 +14.6 No change
Age 40 to 49 19 54.1 +7.3 -1.1
50 to 64 35 54.1 -2.8 -3.4
65 or olde r 30 66.2 -0.6 -2.8
Democrat 49 76.0 +1.1 -1.8
Party Republican 33 36.7 +1.6 -3.7
Other / DTS 18 61.6 +0.9 -4.3
Single dem 20 76.0 +1.5 -2.6
Dual dem 20 77.0 +3.6 +0.8
Single re p 9 22.8 -4.9 -9.7
H ousehold Pa rty Type
Dual rep 15 44.6 +8.3 -2.0
Other 15 63.6 +4.5 -1.8
Mixed 22 49.7 -7.0 -6.0
2010 to 2005 32 68.7 +0.1 -1.0
2004 to 2001 22 46.5 -8.5 -8.3
Registra tion Year 2000 to 1997 16 69.3 +7.6 -3.8
1996 to 1990 12 49.2 +7.3 No change
Before 1990 19 60.1 +5.2 -0.8
Yes 76 59.3 +4.5 -3.0
Homeowner on Voter File
No 24 61.5 -9.8 -2.5
Yes 25 56.4 -2.7 -4.6
No 75 60.8 +2.4 -2.4
Yes 63 56.9 -2.0 -3.8
Likely J une 2010 Voter
No 37 64.7 +6.9 -1.4
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 58.1 -4.6 -5.3
Voter No 55 61.2 +6.0 -1.0
Yes 83 59.1 +0.6 -3.7
Likely Nov 2010 Vote r
No 17 63.5 +4.5 +1.3

................
37
Change in Support
As expected, most groups responded to the negative arguments with a modest reduction in their
support for the bond and parcel tax measures when compared with the levels recorded at the
Interim Ballot Test. However, the general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to
Final Ballot Test) was one of slightly increasing support for the bond (+1%) and slightly decreas-
ing support for the parcel tax (-2%).
TABLE 12 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Appr oxim ate % Chang e F rom Ch ang e from

of Voter % Probably or Initial Ballot Interim Ballot
Universe Definitely Yes Test (Q2) Test (Q9)
Ov erall 100 63.9 -1.8 -3.9
Less than 5 10 88.0 +5.2 No change
Years in Claremont Are a 5 to 9 19 59.8 -5.1 -7.7
(Q D1) 10 to 14 15 60.8 +0.3 -2.1
15 or more 56 63.0 -2.0 -3.3
Curre nt 28 70.7 -2.4 -2.8
District Child in Hsld Past 38 62.5 -1.1 -1.8
(QD3,4,5) Future 8 56.9 +7.3 -5.1
Never 26 62.0 -3.8 -6.3
F amily M embe r Yes 45 74.5 -1.5 -4.8
Employed in Education No 55 57.4 -1.4 -2.7
Male 45 59.1 -3.7 -2.6
Gender
Female 55 67.7 -0.2 -4.9
18 to 29 9 49.4 +18.2 No change
30 to 39 8 68.3 -0.9 -2.6
Age 40 to 49 19 69.9 -2.0 -4.1
50 to 64 35 60.3 -1.0 -4.2
65 or olde r 30 66.9 -8.0 -5.2
Democrat 49 76.8 -0.5 -2.1
Party Republican 33 45.4 -4.4 -5.4
Other / DTS 18 61.0 -0.8 -6.1
Single dem 20 86.2 +2.2 -4.7
Dual dem 20 80.8 +0.7 +1.4
Single re p 9 45.5 -8.7 -11.1
H ousehold Pa rty Type
Dual rep 15 43.5 -2.1 +2.3
Other 15 65.6 -1.4 -5.7
Mixed 22 47.8 -4.1 -6.1
2010 to 2005 32 67.9 +0.4 -3.5
2004 to 2001 22 63.9 +0.7 -6.1
Registra tion Year 2000 to 1997 16 60.3 -7.2 -2.9
1996 to 1990 12 69.9 -2.7 -2.7
Before 1990 19 54.8 -3.4 -3.7
Yes 76 63.5 -1.8 -2.6
No 24 64.9 -1.7 -7.8
Yes 25 64.9 +0.1 -4.3
No 75 63.5 -2.5 -3.7
Yes 63 63.0 -2.9 -5.3
Likely J une 2010 Voter
No 37 65.3 +0.1 -1.6
Likely 2010 Special Mail Yes 45 66.4 -3.3 -1.4
Voter No 55 61.7 -0.5 -6.0
Yes 83 63.5 -0.3 -3.3
Likely Nov 2010 Vote r
No 17 65.8 -9.2 -7.0
Whereas Tables 11 and 12 display change in support for the measure over the course of the
interview at the group level, Tables 13 and 14 display the individual-level changes that occurred
between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the respective measures. On the left side of the
tables is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of
respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the tables depict movement within each

................
38
Change in Support
response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as
recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row of Table 13 we see that of the
36.0% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the bond measure at the
Initial Ballot Test, 30.1% also indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the
Final Ballot Test. Approximately 3.3% moved to the probably support group, 1.0% moved to the
probably oppose group, 0.7% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 1.0% percent stated
they were now unsure of their vote choice.
To ease interpretation of the tables, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining
support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move-
ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from
yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.
TABLE 13 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND
Final Ballo t Test: Bond (Q11)

Initial Ballot Tes t: Definitely P robably P robably Definitely
Bond (Q2) support support oppose oppose Not sure
Definitely support 36.0% 30.1% 3.3% 1.0% 0.7% 1.0%
Probably support 22.5% 6.4% 12.4% 2.7% 0.2% 0.8%
Probably oppose 12.2% 0.0% 3.3% 4.7% 3.8% 0.5%
Definitely oppose 20.5% 0.2% 0.7% 1.8% 16.9% 0.9%
Not sure 8.7% 1.3% 2.1% 1.6% 1.7% 1.5%
TABLE 14 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL AND FINAL BALLOT TEST: PARCEL TAX
Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax (Q11)

Initial Ballot Tes t: Definitely P robably P robably Definitely
Par cel Tax (Q2) support support oppose oppose Not sure
Definitely support 43.4% 36.7% 4.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.8%
Probably support 22.2% 5.1% 13.6% 1.4% 0.0% 2.0%
Probably oppose 9.2% 1.0% 1.6% 4.5% 1.9% 0.3%
Definitely oppose 20.7% 0.5% 0.3% 1.2% 18.8% 0.0%
Not sure 4.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6% 1.9%
As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ-
uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative
in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Tables 13 and 14 make clear that
although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all
respondents. Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the inter-
view to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a similar percentage
found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive.
Despite 19% of respondents making a fundamental4 shift in their opinion about the bond mea-
sure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the bond measure at the
Final Ballot Test (60%) was just over 1% higher than support at the Initial Ballot Test. Similarly,
although 12% of respondents made a fundamental shift in their opinion about the parcel tax
4. That is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ-
ent position at the Final Ballot Test.

................
39
Change in Support
measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the parcel tax at the
Final Ballot Test (64%) was 2% lower than support at the Initial Ballot Test.

................
40
Alternative Parcel Tax Rate
A L T E R N A T I V E P AR CEL T A X R A T E
The ballot language for the parcel tax measure used in Questions 2, 9, and 11 indicated that the
measure would increase annual property taxes by up to $139 per parcel. Respondents who
opposed the measure at the Final Ballot Test (or were unsure of their position) were subse-
quently asked how they would vote if the tax increase were instead $99 per parcel.
Figure 22 displays the responses to this question and also includes those respondents who pre-
viously indicated they would support the measure at $139 (and thus did not receive this ques-
tion). An additional 4% of voters indicated they would support the measure at the lower rate,
which brings the overall support for the measure at $96 per parcel to approximately 68% at this
point in the survey.
Question 12: Parcel Tax Version How about if instead of $139 per parcel, the tax were $99
per parcel. Would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 22 FINAL BALLOT TEST AT $99 PER PARCEL
No t sure Refused
4.3 0.4
De finitely no
21.5
Suppo rted
measure
Pro bably no at $139 (Q11)
5.6 63.9
Pro bab ly yes
2.6
Definitely yes
1.8

................
41
Background & Demographics
B A C K G R O U N D & D E M O G R A P H I C S
TABLE 15 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions directly
Survey Version
Overall
Bond P arcel Ta x
related to the tax measures, the
Total Respo ndents 600 300 300 study collected basic demographic
Years in Claremont Area (Q D1)
information about respondents and
Less tha n 5 9.5 9.6 9.5
5 to 9 19.0 20.1 17.8 their households. Some of this
10 to 14 14.7 12.3 17.1 information was gathered during
15 or more 55.9 57.5 54.3
the interview, although much of it
Refused 0.9 0.5 1.3
District Child in Hsld (QD3,4,5) was collected from the voter file.
Current 28.0 24.0 32.1 The profile of the likely voter sam-
Past 37.6 42.6 32.6
Future
ples used for this study are shown
7.7 6.5 9.0
Never 26.0 26.7 25.3 in Table 15. It is important to note
Refused 0.6 0.2 1.0 that by chance, the sample used for
Family Member Employed in Education (QD6)
Yes 44.7 46.4 43.0
the parcel tax survey had a some-
No 54.4 53.4 55.4 what more tax-friendly profile than
Refused 0.9 0.2 1.5 the bond sample, including more
Ge nder
Male 45.4 46.0 44.9 parents of current students, and
Female 54.6 54.0 55.1 slightly higher percentages of Dem-
Age
ocrats and renters.
18 to 29 8.6 10.1 7.0
30 to 39 7.2 5.4 9.1
40 to 49 18.1 18.1 18.1
50 to 64 32.9 32.8 32.9
65 or older 28.3 27.7 28.9
Refused 5.0 5.9 4.0
Party
Democrat 48.5 47.3 49.8
Republican 33.3 34.5 32.2
Other / DTS 18.1 18.2 18.1
Single dem 20.1 19.6 20.7
Dua l de m 19.7 20.3 19.2
Single rep 9.2 6.7 11.6
Dua l rep 14.5 16.9 12.1
Other 14.6 14.8 14.5
Mixed 21.8 21.7 22.0
Yes 76.0 77.4 74.5
No 24.0 22.6 25.5
Like ly to Vote by M ail
Yes 24.6 22.4 26.8
No 75.4 77.6 73.2
Yes 62.6 62.9 62.3
No 37.4 37.1 37.7
Like ly 2010 Spe cial M ail V oter
Yes 45.5 44.6 46.3
No 54.5 55.4 53.7
Yes 83.4 83.6 83.2
No 16.6 16.4 16.8

................
42
Methodology
M E T H O D O L O G Y
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for
using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely

with the Claremont Unified School District and TBWB to develop questionnaires that covered the
topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error,
including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects and
priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking the items in a set
order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random
order for each respondent.
Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For
example, only respondents who opposed the measure (or were undecided) at the Initial Ballot
Test (Question 2) were asked a follow-up question (Question 3) regarding the reason they did not
support the measure. The questionnaires included with this report (see Questionnaires &
Toplines on page 47) identify the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure
that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI
(Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist the live interviewers when
conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip pat-
terns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of
keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The integrity of the question-
naire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the District
prior to formally beginning the survey.
SPLIT-SAMPLE METHOD The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered ran-
dom sample of registered voters in the Claremont Unified School District who are likely to partic-
ipate in the November 2010 election under natural (normal) and high turnout (enhanced)
scenarios. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters,
each representing a particular combination of age, gender, household party-type, and voting
propensity. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate
cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate in the
study, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.
One of the key objectives of the study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure
may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: parcel tax or general obliga-
tion bond. To reliably estimate support for both types of measures, a split-sample methodology
was employed such that 300 respondents received questions pertaining to a parcel tax, and 300
respondents received questions pertaining to a bond. All 600 respondents received generic
questions that applied to both types of measures.
The split-sample approach is used because it is the most reliable method of estimating voter
support for alternative tax measures. Prior research (and actual election results) have consis-
tently shown that attempting to estimate support for multiple tax measures (e.g., parcel tax and

................
43
Methodology
bond) with the same respondent during the course of an interview will lead to an artificially low
estimate of support for whichever measure is introduced second—and it also has a tendency to
cause confusion. To avoid these sources of measurement error, it is important that each respon-
dent be asked their opinions regarding one of the alternatives, not both.
Voters were assigned to a particular version of the survey (parcel tax or bond) on a random
basis, thus ensuring that both alternatives had a representative sample of likely November 2010
voters and that the survey results would indicate the level of support in the community for each
alternative. It is important to keep in mind that should the Board choose to place a measure on
the ballot, voters will have the opportunity to support or oppose a particular measure. They will
not be provided the option of choosing their preferred option (e.g., parcel tax or bond). The sur-
vey methodology was appropriately structured to simulate this type of scenario. Moreover, allow-
ing respondents to choose which version of the survey they preferred to take (rather than
assigning individuals to a version on a random basis) is a form of methodological error known as
selecting on the dependent variable. It would have biased the samples and led to a gross overes-
timation of support for each version.5 Accordingly, voters were randomly assigned to one ver-
sion or the other.
STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design

noted above, True North ensured that the final samples were representative of voters in the Dis-
trict who are likely to participate in the November 2010 election. The results of the surveys can
thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in the November 2010
election. Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is
known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the differ-
ence between what was found in the survey for a particular question and what would have been
found if all 13,707 likely November voters identified in the District had been surveyed for the
study.
For example, in estimating the percentage of likely voters that would definitely support the par-
cel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 2 in the survey), the margin of error can be
calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a confidence level, and
the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the mar-
gin of error, in this case, is shown below.
N – n p̂ ( 1 – p̂ )
p̂ ± t ⎛ -------------⎞ --------------------
⎝ N ⎠ n–1
Where p̂ is the proportion of voters who said definitely yes (0.43 for 43% in this example), N is
the population size of likely voters (13,707), n is the sample size that received the question
(300) and t is the upper α ⁄ 2 point for the t-distribution with n – 1 degrees of freedom (1.96
for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error
of ± 5.5%. This means that with 43% of survey respondents indicating they would definitely sup-
5. To illustrate this point, imagine that 50% of likely voters in Claremont preferred the parcel tax, and 50% pre-
ferred the bond. If respondents were allowed to choose which version of the questionnaire they preferred
based on their preference for a parcel tax or bond, the samples for each version would consist solely of sup-
porters and the results would yield 100% support for a parcel tax and a bond—which obviously does not
accurately reflect actual opinions in the community.

................
44
Methodology
port the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test, we can be 95% confident that the actual per-
centage of all likely voters that would definitely support the measure is between 37% and 49%.
Figure 23 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum
margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split
such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this study,
the maximum margin of error is ± 5.6% for questions asked only of respondents in a particular
subsample (parcel tax or bond version). For questions asked of all 600 respondents, the maxi-
mum margin of error is ± 3.9%.
FIGURE 23 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
14 %
12 %
10 %
Margin of E rror
8%
6% S ample o f 60 0
Co mbined Samples
Sample o f 300 ± 3. 9%
4% Vo t ers per Ve rsio n
± 5 . 6%
2%
0%
0 10 0 2 00 3 00 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 800 90 0 10 00
Sa mple Size (Number of Respondents)
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by sub-
groups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 23 is thus useful for understanding
how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ-
uals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows
exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing
and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
DATA COLLECTION The method of data collection was telephone interviewing. Interviews
were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM)
between April 23 and May 4, 2010. It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays
because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the
sample. The interviews averaged 16 minutes in length.

................
45
Methodology
DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis-
tencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing fre-
quency analyses and crosstabulations.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num-
ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a
decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to
small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given
question.

................
46
Questionnaires & Toplines
Q U E S TI O N N A I RE S & T O P L I N E S
BOND VERSION
Claremont USD
Bond Survey
Final Toplines
May 2010
Section 1: Introduction to Study

Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, an
independent public opinion research firm. We’re conducting a survey of voters about
important issues in Claremont and I’d like to get your opinions.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell
anything and I won’t ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call
back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate
instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by
this particular individual.
If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey,
politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely
associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.
Section 2: Importance of Issues

To begin, I’m going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one,
please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely
important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.
Q1
Here is the (first/next) issue: _____. Do you think this issue is extremely important, very
important, somewhat important, or not at all important?
Somewhat
Extremely
Important
Important
Important
Important
Not at all
Not sure
Refused
Very
Randomize
A Reducing traffic congestion 8% 23% 48% 20% 0% 0%

Maintaining the quality of education in our
B 51% 39% 7% 2% 0% 0%
local public schools
C Maintaining local streets and roads 12% 57% 29% 2% 0% 0%
D Preventing local tax increases 22% 28% 30% 18% 1% 0%
E Maintaining local property values 21% 47% 27% 4% 1% 0%
F Improving public safety 19% 46% 30% 5% 1% 0%
G Protecting the environment 28% 41% 23% 7% 0% 0%
Making Claremont a green, sustainable
H 19% 40% 30% 9% 1% 0%
community
True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 1

................
47
Claremont USD Bond Survey May 2010
Section 3: Initial Ballot Test

Your household is within the Claremont Unified School District. Later this year, voters in the
District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the
measure:
In order to:
x Provide safe and modern school facilities for all students
x Attract and retain quality teachers
x And qualify for millions in State matching money
Shall the Claremont Unified School District
Q2 x Repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings

x Improve fire, safety and security systems
x Remove hazardous materials like lead and asbestos
x And upgrade classrooms, libraries, labs, computers and instructional technology
By issuing 145 (one-hundred-forty-five) million dollars in bonds at legal interest rates,
with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the
election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then
ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 36% Skip to Q4
2 Probably yes 22% Skip to Q4
3 Probably no 12% Ask Q3
4 Definitely no 21% Ask Q3
98 Not sure 8% Ask Q3
99 Refused 1% Skip to Q4
Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school measure I just
Q3
described?
Taxes already too high 21%

Mismanagement of funds / Wasteful
19%
spending
Need more information 13%
Ineffective similar measures in past 13%
Cost of measure is too high 10%
Do not have children in District 9%
Local tax dollars should be spent elsewhere 9%
Do not support bonds 8%
District should live within budget 6%
No particular reason 4%
District already has sufficient money 3%
Salaries too high 3%
District has issues other than lack of money 2%
Maintain schools as they are now 2%
Should find other funding sources 1%

................
48
Section 4: Tax Threshold

The amount each home owner will pay if the school bond passes depends on the
assessed value of their home – not the current market value of the home.
If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per
Q4 100,000 (one hundred thousand) dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or
no on the school bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or
probably (yes/no)?
If needed: The assessed value of your home is listed on your property tax bill.
Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.
If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and
go to Section 5.
Definitely
Definitely
Probably
Probably
Not sure
Refused
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ask in Order
A $45 31% 23% 11% 29% 5% 1%

B $35 36% 22% 8% 29% 5% 1%
C $25 44% 19% 6% 25% 4% 1%
Section 5: Related Attitudes
Q5 In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in the Claremont
Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
1 Excellent 36%
2 Good 42%
3 Fair 8%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very Poor 2%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Refused 0%
Q6 How would you rate the school district’s need for additional money? Would you say it
has a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?
1 Great need 37%

2 Moderate need 37%
3 Little need 9%
4 No need 7%
98 Not sure 10%
99 Refused 0%

................
49
Section 6: Programs & Projects

The measure we’ve been discussing could fund a variety of improvements to local
schools.
Q7
If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____,
or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be
strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
No Opinion
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
Strongly
Refused
Oppose
Oppose
Favor
Favor
Randomize
Replace deteriorating temporary trailers with

A permanent classrooms 40% 29% 8% 11% 11% 1%
Renovate or replace outdated classrooms and
B school buildings 32% 34% 11% 12% 10% 1%
Upgrade security lighting, fencing, smoke
detectors, fire alarms, sprinklers, and
C security systems for improved safety and 41% 33% 11% 9% 6% 0%
security
Repair or replace old, worn-out roofs,
D plumbing, lighting, and electrical systems 45% 32% 10% 7% 6% 1%
Remove hazardous materials from school
E sites like lead and asbestos 59% 22% 7% 8% 4% 0%
Upgrade classroom computers and
F technology 43% 36% 7% 9% 6% 0%
G Upgrade and improve school libraries 46% 28% 10% 8% 8% 0%
Upgrade library technology, Internet access
H and research tools 41% 34% 6% 10% 8% 0%
Improve pick-up and drop-off zones at school
I 27% 30% 15% 13% 13% 1%
sites for improved student safety
Make energy-efficient improvements and
refinance District debt to reduce the impact
J 48% 25% 3% 13% 11% 1%
of State budget cuts and free up money to
save teachers and academic programs
Renovate old, worn-out athletic facilities to
K 24% 38% 14% 16% 8% 0%
improve student health, fitness and safety
Install solar panels, replace outdated heating
and ventilation systems, and make other
L 46% 28% 8% 12% 6% 0%
energy-efficiency improvements to save
money and be environmentally sustainable
Retrofit old classrooms to meet special
M purposes such as art, music, and language 44% 24% 12% 12% 8% 0%
labs
Improving wiring and technology to help
N create a science, technology, engineering and 35% 32% 8% 14% 10% 1%
math magnet school
O Renovate the Claremont High School Theater 21% 34% 16% 13% 16% 0%

................
50
Section 7: Positive Arguments
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve
been discussing.
Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat
Q8
convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure?
Don’t Believe
Convincing
Convincing
Convincing
Somewhat
Not At All
Know/No
Refused
Opinion
Don’t
Very
Randomize
All money raised by the measure will stay in

the District to support our children. It can not
A 53% 25% 20% 1% 1% 0%
be taken away by the State or used for other
purposes.
Good schools help protect and improve local
B 49% 31% 19% 0% 2% 0%
property values.
If voters approve this measure, the District
may qualify for state grants, matching funds,
C and federal stimulus programs, which is 31% 42% 24% 0% 3% 0%
money that will otherwise go to other school
districts.
Many of the school buildings and facilities are
up to 50 years old and in need of repair to
D provide a modern and safe learning 28% 40% 29% 1% 2% 0%
environment for students.
This bond will free-up money to help save
E teachers’ jobs and continue funding 35% 36% 27% 0% 1% 0%
academic programs.
There will be a clear system of accountability
F including a Citizen’s Oversight Committee to 30% 39% 28% 2% 2% 0%
ensure that the money is spent properly.
This measure will ensure that students have
access to the education and technologies
G 37% 39% 23% 0% 1% 0%
they need to be prepared for the jobs of the
future.
All of the money raised by this measure will
be spent on improving school facilities,
H technology, and classroom instruction. No 45% 28% 23% 2% 2% 0%
money will be used for administrators’
salaries.
The Claremont schools are among the best in
the region. This measure will help ensure that
I school buildings, facilities and equipment are 36% 39% 24% 0% 1% 0%
adequate to support this excellent learning
environment.
The longer we wait to fix our schools, the
J greater the problems become and the more 36% 35% 27% 0% 1% 0%
expensive the cost to taxpayers.

................
51
This measure will complete the school repair

and improvement projects begun with the
K 19% 42% 31% 1% 7% 0%
last local school bond measure, approved by
Claremont voters ten years ago.
This measure will improve facilities at a few
school sites for magnet programs in math,
science, language and arts. This is a cost-
L 27% 41% 29% 1% 2% 0%
effective way to guide students with
advanced skills and interests to achieve at
the highest levels.
This measure will strengthen the local
economy and create good-paying local jobs.
Many local workers will be employed to make
M 17% 40% 39% 2% 2% 0%
facility improvements, and local stores and
service providers will receive much of the
money spent.
Section 8: Interim Ballot Test

Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information
about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary
of it again:
In order to:
x Repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings
Q9 x Improve fire, safety and security systems

with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer,
then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 40%
2 Probably yes 23%
3 Probably no 9%
4 Definitely no 22%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Refused 0%

................
52
Section 9: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.
Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat
Q10
convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
Don’t Believe
Convincing
Convincing
Convincing
Somewhat
Not At All
Know/No
Refused
Opinion
Don’t
Very
Randomize
People are having a hard time making ends

meet with the housing crisis, high
A unemployment, and the economy in 39% 29% 30% 0% 1% 0%
recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising
taxes.
The District can’t be trusted with this tax.
Some feel the District mismanaged the bond
B 27% 33% 28% 0% 11% 0%
money raised during the 2000 election and
didn’t build what they promised.
Experts say that raising taxes during a
C recession will hurt the economy even more. 27% 27% 43% 1% 2% 0%
This measure is unfair to local property
owners. More than 15 percent of the students
D in our schools transfer in from outside the 28% 23% 46% 0% 2% 0%
District. They will receive all the benefits of
this measure without having to pay a dime.
The District needs to live within its means,
E just like everyone else. If they cut waste, they 27% 27% 44% 0% 2% 0%
would not have to raise taxes.
Teachers have not been willing to
compromise in these tough economic times.
It’s not fair to ask property owners to pay
F 24% 20% 51% 1% 3% 0%
more taxes when teachers aren’t even willing
to take a few furlough (fur-low) days to cut
costs.

................
53
Section 10: Final Ballot Tests
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one
more time:
In order to:
x Repair and renovate outdated, deteriorating classrooms and school buildings
Q11 x Improve fire, safety and security systems

with mandatory audits, independent citizen oversight, and all money staying local?
2 Probably yes 22%
3 Probably no 12%
4 Definitely no 23%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Refused 0%
Section 11: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for
statistical purposes.
D1 How long have you lived in the Claremont area?
1 Less than 1 year 1%

2 1 year to less than 5 years 9%
3 5 years to less than 10 years 20%
4 10 years to less than 15 12%
5 15 years or more 57%
99 Refused 0%

................
54
Claremont USD Bond Survey
Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
How many school-aged children under the age of 19 do you have living in
D2
1 household?
Male 46%
2 Female 54%
0 None 71% Skip
S2 Party
1 One 15% Ask
1 Democrat
2 Two 47% 11% Ask
2 Republican 35%
3 Three or more 4% Ask
3 Other 4%
4 99
DTS Refused 15% 0% Skip
S3 Age on Do
Voterone
File or more of the children in your household attend a school in the C
D3
Unified School District?
1 18 to 29 10%
2 1 39
30 to Yes 5% 83% Skip
3 2 49
40 to No 18% 17% Ask
4 50 to 64 33%
98 Not sure 0% Skip
5 65 or older 28%
99 Not99 Refused
Coded 6% 0% Skip
S4 Do you
Registration Datehave grown children who previously attended a school in the Clar
D4
School District when they were younger?
1 2010 to 2005 30%
2 1 to 2001
2004 Yes 22% 56% Skip
3 2 to 1997
2000 No 16% 44% Ask
4 1996 to 1990 12%
99 Refused 0% Skip
5 Before 1990 21%
Do you have, or expect to have, children who will attend a school in the C
D5
Unified School District in the future?
1 Yes 20%
2 No 78%
99 Refused 2%
Are you or any member of your family currently employed by a local scho
D6
or retired from a career in education?
1 Yes 46%
2 No 53%
99 Refused 0%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participa

................
55
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 20%

2 Dual Dem 20%
3 Single Rep 7%
4 Dual Rep 17%
5 Single Other 11%
6 Dual Other 4%
7 Dem & Rep 8%
8 Dem & Other 5%
9 Rep & Other 7%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 1%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 77%
2 No 23%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 22%
2 No 78%
S8 Likely June 2010 Voter
1 Yes 63%
2 No 37%
S9 Likely November 2010 Voter
1 Yes 84%
2 No 16%
S10 Likely Vote-by-Mail Special
1 Yes 45%
2 No 55%

................
56
PARCEL TAX VERSION
Claremont USD
Parcel Tax Survey
Final Toplines
May 2010
Section 1: Introduction to Study

Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, an
independent public opinion research firm. We’re conducting a survey of voters about
important issues in Claremont and I’d like to get your opinions.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell
anything and I won’t ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call
back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate
instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by
this particular individual.
If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey,
politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely
associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.
Section 2: Importance of Issues

To begin, I’m going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one,
please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely
important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important.
Q1
Here is the (first/next) issue: _____. Do you think this issue is extremely important, very
important, somewhat important, or not at all important?
Somewhat
Extremely
Important
Important
Important
Important
Not at all
Not sure
Refused
Very
Randomize
A Reducing traffic congestion 8% 26% 47% 17% 2% 0%

Maintaining the quality of education in our
B 49% 40% 8% 1% 1% 0%
local public schools
C Maintaining local streets and roads 14% 53% 30% 2% 1% 0%
D Preventing local tax increases 19% 31% 30% 17% 3% 0%
E Maintaining local property values 30% 46% 19% 3% 2% 0%
F Improving public safety 22% 39% 33% 5% 2% 0%
G Protecting the environment 31% 39% 26% 4% 0% 0%
Making Claremont a green, sustainable
H 22% 35% 31% 11% 0% 0%
community

................
57
Claremont USD Parcel Tax Survey May 2010
Section 3: Initial Ballot Test

Your household is within the Claremont Unified School District. Later this year, voters in the
District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the
measure:
In order to:
Protect the quality of education and reduce the impact of State budget cuts at
our local schools
Attract and retain high quality teachers, counselors and school security
personnel
Maintain small class sizes
Q2 And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science, technology
and arts that enhance student achievement
Shall the Claremont Unified School District establish a school parcel tax of up to $139
per parcel for six years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all
funds staying local to benefit our schools? If the election were held today, would you
vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no)
or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 43% Skip to Q4
2 Probably yes 22% Skip to Q4
99 Refused 0% Skip to Q4
Is there a particular reason why you do not support the school measure I just
Q3
described?
Taxes already too high 24%

District should live within budget 16%
District has issues other than lack of money 15%
Mismanagement of funds / Wasteful
13%
spending
Need more information 8%
Do not have children in District 7%
Ineffective similar measures in past 7%
Should find other funding sources 6%
District already has sufficient money 6%
Salaries too high 5%
Cost of measure is too high 3%
No particular reason 3%
Maintain schools as they are now 2%
Poor quality of teaching, staff 2%

................
58
Section 4: Tax Threshold

The measure I just described would raise money through annual property taxes paid by
residential and commercial property owners in the school district. However, the
amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet.
Q4
If you heard that your household would pay ______ per year for each property that you
own in the district, would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Is
that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.
If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and
go to next section.
Definitely
Definitely
Probably
Probably
Not sure
Refused
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ask in Order
A $139 41% 19% 9% 25% 4% 1%

B $99 48% 17% 8% 23% 3% 1%
C $79 52% 14% 7% 24% 3% 0%
Section 5: Related Attitudes
In general, how would you rate the quality of education provided in the Claremont
Q5 Unified School District? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
1 Excellent 41%
2 Good 36%
3 Fair 9%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very Poor 0%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Refused 1%
How would you rate the school district’s need for additional money? Would you say it
Q6 has a great need, moderate need, little need, or no need?
1 Great need 41%

2 Moderate need 36%
3 Little need 7%
4 No need 7%
98 Not sure 10%
99 Refused 0%

................
59
Section 6: Programs & Projects

The measure we’ve been discussing would continue funding for a variety of school
programs and services.
Q7
If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____,
or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be
strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
No Opinion
Somewhat
Somewhat
Strongly
Strongly
Refused
Oppose
Oppose
Favor
Favor
Randomize
A Attract and retain the best qualified teachers 74% 15% 2% 4% 5% 1%

Avoid teacher lay-offs due to State budget
B 57% 22% 6% 9% 6% 0%
cuts
C Maintain small class sizes 59% 26% 4% 6% 6% 0%
Provide advanced academic programs in
D 70% 20% 2% 3% 4% 1%
math, science, and technology
Keep textbooks and instructional materials
E 55% 30% 5% 6% 4% 1%
up-to-date
Continue funding for physical education and
F 50% 34% 8% 4% 5% 0%
athletic programs
G Continue funding for art and music programs 57% 29% 3% 5% 6% 1%
Continue providing advanced foreign
H 44% 31% 7% 10% 8% 0%
language instruction programs
I Maintain school safety and security personnel 48% 39% 4% 4% 5% 0%
J Maintain academic and career counselors 45% 37% 5% 6% 6% 0%
Keep classroom computers and technology
K 57% 29% 3% 6% 6% 0%
up-to-date
Keep school facilities clean and well
L 49% 36% 3% 5% 6% 0%
maintained
Maintaintutorsandaidesforoneonone
M 35% 34% 13% 10% 7% 1%
instruction
N Keep school libraries open 60% 28% 3% 4% 5% 0%
Provide summer school programs that help
keep at-risk kids on the right track, and help
O 48% 34% 5% 6% 7% 0%
high-achieving students move more quickly
toward their goals of higher education
Continue providing college prep programs
P that help our students get into the best 67% 19% 5% 6% 4% 0%
colleges
Prevent furlough (fur-low) days for teachers
Q 35% 27% 11% 12% 13% 1%
and other staff

................
60
Section 7: Positive Arguments
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve
been discussing.
Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat
Q8
convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure?
Don’t Believe
Convincing
Convincing
Convincing
Somewhat
Not At All
Know/No
Refused
Opinion
Don’t
Very
Randomize
All money raised by the measure will stay in

the District to support our children. It can not
A 59% 23% 15% 1% 2% 1%
be taken away by the State or used for other
purposes.
Good schools help protect and improve local
B 54% 33% 12% 0% 1% 1%
property values.
No money from the measure will be used to
C pay for administrators’ salaries. Every penny 53% 22% 20% 1% 3% 1%
will go into supporting classroom instruction.
This measure lasts for six years only. Then
D voters will get another chance to decide if it is 40% 30% 27% 0% 2% 1%
still needed.
State budget cuts are going to hurt the
quality of our schools, forcing teacher lay-
offs, larger class sizes, and deep cuts to
E educational programs. This measure will 46% 34% 16% 1% 2% 1%
provide a stable source of locally-controlled
funding to reduce the impact of State budget
cuts.
There will be a clear system of accountability
F including a Citizen’s Oversight Committee to 39% 34% 25% 1% 2% 1%
ensure that the money is spent properly.
If we want our kids to be prepared to succeed
in the new global economy, they need to have
G 55% 31% 12% 0% 1% 1%
a high quality education—including advanced
courses in math, science and technology.
The measure will provide an optional
exemption for property owners who are 65 or
H older. We do not want this measure to 49% 30% 19% 0% 1% 1%
become a burden to seniors living on a fixed
income.
The Claremont schools are among the best in
the region. This measure is essential to
I 44% 36% 17% 0% 2% 1%
maintaining the quality of our outstanding
local schools.
By keeping class sizes small, this measure
J will provide more individualized instruction 48% 33% 17% 0% 1% 1%
for students and improve student learning

................
61
This measure will allow the District to provide

an early college program, so students can
K 27% 32% 36% 1% 3% 1%
receive a two-year college degree at the time
they graduate high school.
This measure will fund college prep courses
that help students get into the best colleges,
and technical training for students who don’t
L 40% 39% 18% 1% 2% 1%
plan to go to college so they have the skills
they need to compete for in-demand jobs
right out of high school.
Section 8: Interim Ballot Test

Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information
about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary
of it again:
In order to:
our local schools
personnel
And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science,
Q9
technology and arts that enhance student achievement
funds staying local to benefit our schools?
2 Probably yes 22%
3 Probably no 6%
4 Definitely no 21%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Refused 0%

................
62
Section 10: Final Ballot Tests
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one
more time:
In order to:
our local schools
personnel
And continue funding advanced academic programs in math, science,
Q11
technology and arts that enhance student achievement
funds staying local to benefit our schools?
1 Definitely yes 44% Skip to D1
2 Probably yes 20% Skip to D1
99 Refused 0% Ask Q12
How about if instead of $139 per parcel, the tax were $99 per parcel. Would you vote
Q12 yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or
probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 5%
2 Probably yes 7%
3 Probably no 16%
4 Definitely no 60%
98 Not sure 12%
99 Refused 1%

................
63
Section 11: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for
statistical purposes.
D1 How long have you lived in the Claremont area?
1 Less than 1 year 0%

2 1 year to less than 5 years 9%
3 5 years to less than 10 years 18%
4 10 years to less than 15 17%
5 15 years or more 54%
99 Refused 1%
How many school-aged children under the age of 19 do you have living in your
D2
household?
0 None 60% Skip to D4

1 One 17% Ask D3
2 Two 14% Ask D3
3 Three or more 7% Ask D3
99 Refused 1% Skip to D6
Do one or more of the children in your household attend a school in the Claremont
D3
Unified School District?
1 Yes 83% Skip to D6

2 No 17% Ask D4
98 Not sure 0% Skip to D6
Do you have grown children who previously attended a school in the Claremont Unified
D4
School District when they were younger?
1 Yes 49% Skip to D6

2 No 51% Ask D5
Do you have, or expect to have, children who will attend a school in the Claremont
D5
Unified School District in the future?
1 Yes 26%
2 No 70%
99 Refused 4%

................
64
Are you or any member of your family currently employed by a local school or college,
D6
or retired from a career in education?
1 Yes 43%
2 No 55%
99 Refused 2%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this
important survey.
Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 45%
2 Female 55%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 50%
2 Republican 32%
3 Other 5%
4 DTS 13%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 7%
2 30 to 39 9%
3 40 to 49 18%
4 50 to 64 33%
5 65 or older 29%
99 Not Coded 4%
S4 Registration Date
1 2010 to 2005 34%

2 2004 to 2001 21%
3 2000 to 1997 16%
4 1996 to 1990 12%
5 Before 1990 17%

................
65
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 21%

2 Dual Dem 19%
3 Single Rep 12%
4 Dual Rep 12%
5 Single Other 11%
6 Dual Other 3%
7 Dem & Rep 7%
8 Dem & Other 6%
9 Rep & Other 6%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 3%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 75%
2 No 25%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 27%
2 No 73%
S8 Likely June 2010 Voter
1 Yes 62%
2 No 38%
S9 Likely November 2010 Voter
1 Yes 83%
2 No 17%
S10 Likely Vote-by-Mail Special
1 Yes 46%
2 No 54%

................
66

Claremont USD Survey Report &#39;10 DRAFT 1T

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Claremont USD Survey Report &#39;10 DRAFT 1T

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INITIAL BALLOT TESTS

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

PROGRAMS & PROJECTS

• Good schools help protect and improve local property values.

Parcel Tax Version

• Good schools help protect and improve local property values.

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

Parcel Tax Version

FINAL BALLOT TESTS

ALTERNATIVE PARCEL TAX RATE

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 1 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES

Ex tre me ly important Very important

Maintaining quality of education in our local p ublic sc ho ols 50.1 39.7

Maint aining loc al property values 25.4 46.6

Prot ec ting t he env iro nment 29.5 40 .5

Maint aining loc al streets and roads 12.9 55.2

Imp rov ing public safety 20.2 42.6

Making Claremont a green, sustainab le co mmunity 2 0.7 37.3

Prevent ing loc al tax inc reases 2 0.7 29.4

Red uc ing traffic co ngestion 8.2 24.3

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

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

Initial Ballot Test Version

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 3 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING BOND MEASURE

Taxes already too high 21.0

Mismanagement of funds / Wasteful spending 19.4

Ineffective similar measures in past 13.0

Need more information 12.8

Cost of measure is too high 10.1

Do not have children in District 9.4

Local tax dollars should be spent elsewhere 8.7

Do not support bonds 7.9

District should live within budget 6.3

No particular reason 3.7

District already has sufficient money 3.3

Teacher, administrator salaries too high 2.5

District has issues other than lack of money 2.0

Maintain schools as they are now 1.8

Should find other funding sources 1.5

% Respondents W ho Do Not Support Bond Mea sure

FIGURE 4 REASON FOR NOT SUPPORTING PARCEL TAX MEASURE

Taxes already too high 24.2

District should live within budget 15.8

District has issues other than lack of money 14.7

Mismanagement of funds / Wasteful spending 13.2

Need more information 7.9

Do not have children in District 7.2

Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T

Claremont USD Survey Report '10 DRAFT 1T