Government Spending or Tax Cuts for Education in Taylor County, Texas

Transcription

1 Govrnmnt Spnding or Tax Cuts for Education in Taylor County, Txas Ian Shphrd Abiln Christian Univrsity D Ann Shphrd Abiln Christian Univrsity On Fbruary 17, 2009, Prsidnt Barack Obama signd into law th Amrican Rcovry and Rinvstmnt Act. Th Education sctor in Taylor County, Txas, rcivd $17,251,899 in grants ovr 16 months for 17 projcts. This papr will modl th impact of th stimulus packag on Taylor County, Txas, and its ffct on ducation, and thn compar this modl with an altrnat tax rlif modl to gaug indirct and inducd changs in th Education sctor within th county. This papr will xamin th sustainability of on tim govrnmnt grants vrsus community gnratd funding. Ths modls will b compard with actual changs in th Education sctor, whr boom and bust spnding has forcd significant layoffs as funding runs out. INTRODUCTION On Fbruary 17, 2009, Prsidnt Barack Obama signd into law th Amrican Rcovry and Rinvstmnt Act ("Th conomic stimulus," 2009). Taylor County, Txas, rcivd $47,904,582 ovr a priod of 16 months for 78 projcts. Th Education sctor alon in Taylor County, Txas, rcivd $17,251,899 in grants ovr 16 months for 17 projcts. At th fdral lvl, th Dpartmnt of Education s budgt doubld to $105.9 billion. It dirctd funds to public schools, univrsitis, and childcar cntrs ovr two yars. A littl mor than half of th funds ($53.6 billion) wr givn to th stats to stabiliz thir ducational funds and offst plannd cuts in ducation. Stat budgt shortfalls at th national lvl wr approximatly $132 billion; th infusion of fdral dollars mant that tachr layoffs would b curtaild. Additionally, th stimulus allocatd $650 million to a program, Enhancd Education through Tchnology Funding (EETTF), aimd at improving tchnology outcoms in th classroom (Elctronic Education Rport, 2009). This papr will modl, firstly, th impact of th stimulus packag on ducation in Taylor County, Txas, and thn compar this outcom with an altrnat tax rlif modl to gaug indirct and inducd changs in th Education sctor within th county. Funds dirctd to spcific non-ducation sctors of th county driv th positions and othr ducational rquirmnts to support nw activity cratd within ducation. Thrfor, in ordr to undrstand th full impact of th stimulus packag on ducation, this papr will modl, scondly, th ntir stimulus packag for Taylor County, Txas. Thirdly, svral tax rlif packags wr dvlopd to modl th support rquird to sav ducation positions qual to th numbr of actual ducation positions lost in Taylor County. 88 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

2 This papr offrs comparisons of on-tim govrnmnt grants vrsus community-gnratd funding for ducation. It also compars th first two modls to actual changs in th Education sctor (whr boom-and-bust spnding has forcd significant layoffs). Modls in this analysis wr dvlopd using th IMPLAN systm (IMPLAN, 2012). Th comparison of tax rlif and govrnmnt spnding outputs from IMPLAN allows us to modl funding policy and its ffctivnss on Taylor County s Education sctor. By constructing Social Accounts that dscrib th structur and function of a spcific conomy, IMPLAN crats a highly localizd modl to invstigat th consquncs of projctd conomic transactions on gographic rgions. Ovr on thousand public and privat institutions us IMPLAN. It is th most widly mployd and accptd rgional conomic analysis softwar for prdicting conomic impacts. IMPLAN s Social Accounting Matrics (SAMs) captur th actual dollar amounts of all businss transactions occurring in a rgional conomy as rportd ach yar by businsss and govrnmntal agncis. SAM accounts ar a bttr masur of conomic flow than traditional input-output accounts bcaus thy includ non-markt transactions. Exampls of ths non-markt transactions ar taxs and unmploymnt bnfits (IMPLAN, 2004). Th comparison of tax rlif and govrnmnt spnding outputs from IMPLAN allows us to xamin funding policy and its ffctivnss on ducation in Taylor County. On of th statd goals of th stimulus packag was to crat or sav jobs in ducation. Th thr modl outcoms ar compard for diffrncs in job cration for th Education sctor in Taylor County. This papr is intndd to improv th conomic choics mad by Indpndnt School Districts and policy makrs in Taylor County, Txas, and th city of Abiln. EDUCATION FUNDING IN TAYLOR COUNTY Taylor County funding follows stat guidlins. Txas currntly uss a wightd funding approach, whr a basic allotmnt is basd on avrag daily attndanc. This allotmnt is thn adjustd basd on subgroups such as giftd and talntd, vocational, bilingual, and compnsatory or spcial ducation studnts. Educational funding formulas at thir bst ar confusing. Th authors intnt is to offr suggstd altrnativs to funding, not to qustion th currnt mthodology in us. In , Taylor County funds wr sourcd 5% from fdral, 57% from stat, and 38% from local funds (Funding Information, 2011). In 2004, th avrag county in Amrica sourcd 7.3% from fdral, 49.7% from stat, and 43% from local funds (Th Indx of Education Effort, 2004). In 2006, Txas changd th funding formulas to b lss locally orintd and mor rliant on stat and fdral funds. Funds for ducation ar sourcd prdominantly from proprty taxs. Strobl points out that part of th stimulus packag providd tax law changs to ncourag th conomy (Strobl, 2009). For proprtis placd into srvic aftr Dcmbr of 2008, taxpayrs wr allowd an additional dprciation dduction qual to 50 prcnt of th adjustd basis of th qualifid proprty. This dprciation allowanc is intndd to stimulat local growth in proprty taxs in th long trm. As businss and proprty valus improv, tax rvnus for local schools could incras. MODEL DEVELOPMENT W obtaind stimulus data for Taylor County, Txas, from th wb sit ("Stimulus packag accountability," 2009). Taylor County zip cods wr usd to find total xpnditurs in Taylor County (rfr Tabl 1). Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

3 TABLE 1 TAYLOR COUNTY STIMULUS BY TYPE, NUMBER OF AWARDS AND ZIP CODES Projcts rqusting funding ar listd in Appndix A, dtailing th Taylor County stimulus projcts by th Funding Agncy (.g., Abiln Christian Univrsity), Award Ara (.g., Dpartmnt of Education), th amount of th funding, th IMPLAN sctor associatd with ach projct, and th Projct Titl givn by th Funding Agncy. Th Stimulus Packag Accountability Wb Sit rvald th funding months and yars for ach projct. Projct funding dats and IMPLAN sctors wr usd to crat a tabl summarizing th projct dscriptions, sctors, and total xpnditurs by yar (rfr Tabl 2). It should b notd that funds allocatd to monitor and continu govrnmnt srvics wr assignd to thos govrnmnt sctors bing monitord. Funds allocatd to provid social srvics wr assignd to th appropriat non-govrnmnt sctors. TABLE 2 IMPLAN DESCRIPTION, SECTORS, AND TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY YEAR In prparation for th comparativ tax rbat modl, th authors rviwd th currnt dmographic statistics for Taylor County, Txas, availabl from th U.S. Cnsus Burau, 2009, Amrican Community Survy, to obtain a cross sction of housholds by incom brackt. W found that th IMPLAN data analysis has an uppr salary incom stratum of ovr $200,000; thrfor, any numbr ovr $200,000 was 90 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

4 accumulatd into th top stratum. Onc th population stimats wr stablishd for ach stratum, w rcordd th midpoint of ach salary rang to srv as th avrag of th possibl incoms in ach stratum. Using th Intrnal Rvnu Srvic s wb sit 2009 ("Intrnal rvnu srvic," 2009) marginal tax rats for ach incom lvl, th marginal tax rats wr multiplid by th midpoint incom of ach incom lvl to dtrmin th amount of fdral tax rvnu pr houshold in Taylor County by incom lvl. Th stimatd fdral tax rvnu pr houshold was thn multiplid by th stimatd numbr of housholds at ach incom lvl to stimat total tax rvnu pr incom lvl. A proposd $47,904,582 tax rbat pr incom lvl was apportiond by calculating th prcntag of total fdral tax rvnu by incom lvl ovr total fdral tax rvnu. Rfr to Tabl 3 - Dtrmination of Total Tax Rbat pr Incom Lvl - to rviw th apportiond funds. TABLE 3 DETERMINATION OF TOTAL TAX REBATE PER INCOME LEVEL ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY Thr ar two widly usd conomic impact modling softwar packags availabl for conomic analysis: th REMI modl, dvlopd by Rgional Economic Modls, Inc. and IMPLAN (Impact Planning), dvlopd by th Forst Srvic of th Dpartmnt of Agricultur and distributd by MIG, Inc. (Formrly Minnsota IMPLAN Group, Inc.). Crihfild and Campbll (1991) compard ths two modls and found significant and sizabl diffrncs in th two systm outputs. Crihfild and Campbll found th REMI systm multiplirs to b 32% to 57% largr than IMPLAN. Givn a choic in packag slction for modling, th authors usd th mor consrvativ modling packag of th two with rgard to multiplirs th IMPLAN systm. Using IMPLAN softwar, th authors calculatd th impact of th stimulus packag data on businss activity basd on invstmnt in projcts and grants during ach of th yars 2009 and Spcifically, this analysis masurs th anticipatd conomic impacts of th 2009 Stimulus Packag using th IMPLAN input-output conomic systm and RIMS II (a similar systm producd by th Cnsus Burau). W customizd th modls by catgorizing th industry invstmnts into IMPLAN Sctors. W usd rgional purchasing cofficints found in th modl to dtrmin th prcntag of projcts xpndd within Taylor County. In any businss transaction, funds flow away from th study ara through normal businss channls and do not affct it. Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

5 An conomy can b masurd in any numbr of ways. Th thr most common ar: Output, which dscribs total conomic activity and is closly linkd to a firm s gross sals; Employ Earnings, which corrsponds to wags and bnfits; and Employmnt, which rfrs to prmannt jobs that hav bn cratd in th local conomy. In an input-output analysis of ths typs of activitis, it is usful to distinguish thr typs of xpnditur ffcts: dirct, indirct, and inducd. Dirct ffcts ar production changs associatd with th immdiat ffcts on final dmand. Th paymnts mad by an out-of-town visitor to a hotl oprator ar an xampl of a dirct ffct, and so is th mony spnt by that sam visitor at a rstaurant. Indirct ffcts ar production changs in backward-linkd industris causd by th changing input nds of dirctly affctd industris typically, additional purchass to additional output. Satisfying th dmand for an ovrnight stay will rquir th hotl oprator to purchas claning supplis to clan th room. Ths paymnts affct th conomic status of othr local mrchant workrs (.g., grocry and claning supplirs). Inducd ffcts ar th changs in rgional houshold spnding pattrns causd by changs in houshold incom gnratd from th dirct and indirct ffcts. Both th hotl oprator and rstaurant xprinc incrasd incom from th visitor s stay, for xampl, as do th claning supplis outlt and th food srvic vndor. Inducd ffcts captur th way in which local mrchants spnd this incrasd incom in th local conomy. FIGURE 1 THE FLOW OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS Th intrdpndnc btwn diffrnt sctors of th conomy is rflctd in th concpt of a multiplir. Th output multiplir divids th total (dirct, indirct, and inducd) ffcts of an initial spnding injction by th valu of that injction. Th highr th multiplir, th gratr th intrdpndnc among diffrnt sctors of th conomy. An output multiplir of 1.3, for xampl, mans that for vry $1,000 injctd into th conomy, anothr $300 in output is producd in all othr sctors. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND EDUCATION FUNDING POLICY Impact analysis can hlp focus ducation funding policy dbats on facts rathr than motions. Impact analysis modls tax rvnus basd on actual consumr spnding pattrns for ach county. It is ths spnding pattrns that gnrat funding for ach of th tax sgmnts at th stat and local lvls. Impact analysis is usd xtnsivly in privat sctor analysis but has sn littl us in th govrnmnt sctor. Impact analysis is problmatic for govrnmnt analysts in that it could actually disprov th bnfits of th politically motivatd projct, whil proving th bnfits of altrnat projcts in th long-trm. Whn givn a choic of dirct or inducd funding for ducation thr is th problm of moral hazard. Th Education sctor is In it to win it! so givn a known quantity of funds vrsus an unknown modl for funds (waiting on proprty tax incrass from othr stimulus), th Education sctor would likly choos th sur option - dirctd funding. From a local county standpoint, modling allows commissionrs to prdict tax rvnus gnratd by various tax rlif packags. In most cass, countis will choos th option that gnrats th highst gnral rvnus for th county. Th county can fund mor ducational spnding through highr proprty taxs brought about by improvmnts in th local conomy, whil th school will choos dirctd funding which lowrs possibl county rsidnt spnding. Tabl 4 sts out th dirctd funds by Education sctor in Taylor County. 92 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

6 TABLE 4 STIMULUS FUNDS FOR TAYLOR COUNTY EDUCATION MODEL OUTPUT THE 2009 STIMULUS PLAN Th original stimulus plan to driv $47,904,582 into th Taylor County conomy has an actual impact of only $43,046,960 in 2009 dollars. Thr ar two rasons for th loss of impact on Taylor County. First, xpnditurs wr carrid out ovr ightn months (so thos dollars that wr xpndd in 2010 ar discountd back to 2009 dollars) and scond, th impact of rgional purchasing cofficints tlls us that funds flow out of Taylor County through purchass of goods and srvics by contractors to provid th in-county goods and srvics. S Tabl 5 Th Modl Output, Employmnt, Tax, and Sctor Impact. TABLE 5 THE MODEL OUTPUT, EMPLOYMENT, TAX, AND SECTOR IMPACT TOTAL MODEL OUTPUT ALTERNATE MODEL TAX REBATE Th ffct of a tax rbat on th county is significantly diffrnt. Again, two factors influnc th Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

7 outcom. First, a tax rbat can b issud all at onc (a momnt in tim), and th xpnditurs occur quickly ovr multipl sctors as consumrs spnd xtra incom that bcoms availabl. Thr is no multiyar lag to dlay th ffct of th stimulus. A scond major factor is that ths dirct tax rbat dollars ar spnt locally in Taylor County. Th tax rbat modl gnrats $64,880,216 in output for th county, a 50.7% incras ovr th govrnmnt s dirctd stimulus packag. MODEL COMPARISON A tax rbat dirctly to th popl of Taylor County has an output impact 50.7% gratr than a dirctd stimulus packag to spcific industris in that county. Comparison of th numbr of sctors dirctly impactd is significantly diffrnt, with a 752.4% incras in thos sctors impactd by a tax rbat by natur of consumr spnding pattrns rathr than industry spnding pattrns. Th dirct tax rbat ffct infuss funds into th county mor quickly than a dirctd stimulus packag. With th tax rbat option, thr is a 32% improvmnt in mploymnt. Employmnt is sprad out mor significantly ovr a gratr numbr of sctors - initial impact in th dirct round of spnding impacts 752.4% mor sctors than a dirctd stimulus plan. TABLE 6 JOB CREATION BY INCOME LEVEL FIGURE 2 JOB CREATION BY INCOME LEVEL GRAPHIC 94 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

8 Tabl 6 and Figur 2 illustrat job cration rsulting from th 2009 stimulus and th tax rbat modls. Th tax rbat modl crats 163 jobs whil th stimulus modl crats only 113. Th tax rbat modl crats mor jobs in th $15,000 to $50,000 rang, which implis that th typs of jobs cratd ar of highr valu and longr-trm than in cyclical construction or othr minimum wag aras. Tax rvnus for Taylor County incras by 246.4% whn a tax rbat is givn rathr than dirctd stimulus funds. Th data indicats that ths tax rvnus ar rcivd arlir as tax rbat xpnditurs influnc 752.4% mor sctors in th initial round of spnding. Du to th difficulty in stablishing th cost of command and control structurs in th 2009 stimulus plan, no ovrsight costs wr includd in both IMPLAN modls. Including ths costs would rduc th ffctivnss of th stimulus plan and improv th prformanc of th tax rbat modl, sinc most suprvision and monitoring is conductd outsid of Taylor County. TWO MODEL IMPACTS ON EDUCATION IN TAYLOR COUNTY Both modls crat ducation impacts. Tabl 7 Modl Comparison of Education Sctors - shows a comparison of ducation positions cratd by ach modl. Th 2009 stimulus plan has both dirct and inducd ffcts as th 2009 stimulus dirctly cratd positions in ach Education sctor through grants to spcific ducation aras. Funds dirctly infusd into ducation also add to inducd incrass as spnding impacts mploymnt. TABLE 7 MODEL COMPARISON OF EDUCATION SECTORS A total of 15.3 ducation positions wr cratd with a tax rbat modl. All positions in this modl wr inducd by spnding within th local conomy. A total of positions wr cratd by dirct grants crating positions and inducd spnding from th community. This comparison points out th bnfits of dirct funding for ducation rathr than a tax rbat policy for local Education sctors. Taylor County School Districts Th allocation of stimulus funds within th stat of Txas provd problmatic from th start. As funds bcam availabl through th stimulus program, rgions bgan to subrogat funds from normal sourcs and rplac thm with stimulus funds. So rathr than improving th lot of many school districts as prsntd, th stimulus funds mrly rducd th stat funds supplid to th schools. Th rsulting mploymnt ffct was a nt zro chang in positions. Whn tim cam to rport stimulus fund us, th school districts bcam awar that th proposals put forward for th funds had agrd to add or maintain positions in ducation. In actuality, many school districts wr rporting no additions and no chang. Aftr svral rounds of rporting that showd no gains, th school districts wr askd to not rport how many jobs wr savd and addd but how many jobs wr now supportd by ths stimulus funds rathr than stat funds. An analysis of (AISD Abiln Txas, 2011) nt job changs throughout th fiv Indpndnt School Districts in Taylor County for th 2010/11 and 2011/12 school yars is summarizd in Tabl 8. Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

9 TABLE 8 TAYLOR COUNTY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS NET JOB CHANGES 2009/ /11 Not: Ths numbrs ar sourcd from tlphon intrviws with Indpndnt School District administrators and ar dpndnt on ths administrators frly divulging ths changs. Th 2010/11 school yar funding through th tax rbat modl approximats th changs shown in Tabl 8. Ral changs of a nt positiv 14 (Tabl 8) closly approximat th inducd numbr of 15.3 positions cratd by th tax rbat modl (Tabl 7). UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF STIMULUS FUNDS Funds intndd to incras ducational srvics in Taylor County lad to subjugation whr stat funds wr droppd and rplacd by th amount fdral funds incrasd. Jffry Lds, who runs ducation-focusd privat quity firm Lds Equity Partnrs, said th following rgarding th stimulus packag for ducation: A lot of th stimulus mony going in [to ducation] is dsignd to prsrv what alrady xists. Most of it wouldn t b considrd nw spnd. If thr is $120 billion that s allocatd for ducation broadly, a good portion of that is simply rplacing th stat and local contributions (MacFaydn, 30 March, 2009). Figurs 3, 4, and 5 attmpt to visually display th squnc of vnts and unintndd consquncs lading to a drop in positions in 2011 and Stat funds onc subrogatd ar hard to rplac, rsulting in xtra prssurs on ducational funding in subsqunt yars. Lost fdral funds in th school yars rsultd in th rportd loss of 135 positions in Taylor County schools. 96 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

10 FIGURE 3 INTENT OF STIMULUS FUNDING Funding Intnt B u d g t P r c n t Local Months Stat Fdral FIGURE 4 STIMULUS FUNDING EFFECT Funding Actual Subrogation B u d g t P r c n t Local Months Stat Fdral FIGURE 5 STIMULUS FUNDING RESULT Funding Post Subrogation B u d g t P r c n t Local Months Stat Fdral Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

11 Dodaro was concrnd with accountability of funds in such a volatil and changing nvironmnt as ducation (Dodaro, 2009). Dodaro stats, Basd on its xprinc in auditing Txas us of prvious fdral awards and rporting intrnal control dficincis or matrial waknsss, th Stat Auditor s Offic notd that rlativly high risks gnrally can b anticipatd with crtain typs of programs such as (1) nw programs with compltly nw procsss and intrnal controls, (2) programs that lack clar guidanc on allowabl uss of Rcovry Act funds, (3) programs that distribut significant amounts of funds to local govrnmnts or boards, and (4) programs that rly on sub-rcipints for intrnal controls and monitoring. Th Stat Auditor s Offic also notd that gnral conomic stability and public ducation programs ar considrd to b high risk bcaus thy ar nw programs and fdral guidanc rgarding th stat s appropriat us of th funds is uncrtain. Intrviws with Taylor County school officials confirmd that all four aras of concrn wr problmatic for local schools. Rapoport rportd that last spring th Txas Lgislatur ndd to clos a $27 billion shortfall and rsistd protstrs as thy fought to stop dp cuts to ducation (Rapoport, 2012). Aftr much dbat, th cuts finally totald $5.4 billion, forcing districts to lay off tns of thousands of tachrs and staffrs. Th fallout for Taylor County was that at last 135 positions wr lost. Subrogation had takn its toll. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS REPLACING LOST FUNDS Snsitivity analysis allows us to stimat changs in ducation positions using modld changs. Givn th dvlopd modls, w can stimat th rquird Tax Rlif or Dirct Stimulus rquird to gnrat funds to support th lost positions. TABLE 9 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Using this analysis, a tax rbat stimulus of $422,687,488 is rquird for Taylor County to gnrat 135 positions through inducd spnding. This indicats that a tax rbat for ach of th 47,221 familis in Taylor County would nd to b $8,951 in ithr a tax rduction or tax rbat. Th original stimulus of $47,902,582 would only hav bn a tax rbat of $1,014 pr family. A similar analysis for th dirctd stimulus shows that to crat 135 positions th dirctd stimulus would nd to b incrasd to $60,159,243 (a 25.6% incras in dirctd funding for th county) or $1,274 pr family. In summary, to crat on position in th schools th dirctd modl nds $445,624 pr position, whras th tax rbat modl rquirs $3,131,018 pr position (a ratio of 7 to 1 favoring dirctd stimulus). STATE AND COUNTY TAX REVENUES Stat and local county rvnus ar significantly improvd through th slction of a tax rbat rathr than dirctd funding. Tabls 10, 11, and 12 compar th two modl outputs with rgard to stat and local 98 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

12 tax rvnus not usd to fund ducation. A tax rbat gnrats 564% mor rvnu at th local lvl than dirctd funds. TABLE 10 TAX SNAPSHOT FOR DIRECTED STIMULUS TABLE 11 TAX SNAPSHOT FOR TAX REBATE Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

13 TABLE 12 TAX REBATE STIMULUS TO REBATE VARIANCE CONCLUSIONS Output from th modls indicats that local countis should lobby for tax rbats rathr than accpt dirctd stimulus dollars for ducation projcts. Basd on modl outputs, dirctd spnding dos not rprsnt th spnding pattrns of th popl within Taylor County. Tax rbat xpnditurs occur arlir in th rounds of spnding as consumrs ract quickly to tax rbats through incrasd local spnding. Th fact that local purchass ar highr with tax rbats incrass tax rvnus for th county. Mor middlincom jobs ar cratd with th tax rbat modl, and ths jobs appar to b of a mor long-trm natur. Whil job cration at th county lvl is significant, within th Education sctor it dos not match th dirct infusion of funds. Schools will always opt for dirct fdral funds whil countis should always opt for tax rbats. Th modl rsults prsntd abov plac prssur on stat and local govrnmnts to avoid th problms associatd with traditional spnding dcisions. Th findings of this papr ncourag th following practics: 1. Schools and county officials should focus on facts rathr than motions, modl xpnditurs to gaug outcoms, and thn choos th outcom that bst fulfills th nds of th community, not th fundd ntity. 2. Rsarching funding mthods allows us to b mor informd of moral, hazard-basd dcisions. Rsarchd outcoms can hlp in ngotiation of diffrnt typs of funding for local rgions. 3. Rcogniz th bnfit of impact analysis; privat ntrpris has basd financial fortuns on th practic of impact analysis and has provn its fficacy. REFERENCES "Education Stimulus Funding Will Prvnt Layoffs, Fund Tchnology. (Covr Story)." Elctronic Education Rport 16.4 (2009): 1-2. Businss Sourc Complt. Wb. 9 Apr Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012

14 "Th Indx Of Education Effort." District Administration (2004): 62. Mastr FILE Prmir. Wb. 29 Fb AISD Abiln Txas. (2011). Abiln indpndnt school district. Rtrivd from Congrssional Digst, (2009). Th conomic stimulus packag highlights of th Amrican rcovry and rinvstmnt act (88.4: ) Crihfild, J. B. & Campbll, H. S. (1991). Evaluating Altrnativ Rgional Planning Modls. Growth and Chang, 22: Dodaro, G. GAO, (2009). As initial implmntation unfolds in stats and localitis, continud attntion to accountability issus is ssntial. GAO Rports. IMPLAN. (2004). Implan usr guid. Minnsota IMPLAN Group. IMPLAN. (2012). Implan company wbsit. Rtrivd from Intrnal rvnu srvic wb sit. (2009). Rtrivd from MacFadyn, K. (30 March, 2009). Th grat quilizr. Rlatd Itms, Rtrivd from Rapoport, A. (2012). No funds lft bhind. Th Amrican Prospct, Pag 9(Volum 23 Numbr 2), March Stimulus packag accountability wb sit. (2009). Rtrivd from Strobl, C. (2009). Amrican rcovry and rinvstmnt act of Journal of Corporat Accounting & Financ, July/August Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5)

15 APPENDIX A TAYLOR COUNTY STIMULUS PROJECTS 102 Journal of Managmnt Policy and Practic vol. 13(5) 2012