Public Policy Institute, Indiana University
Permanent URI for this community
The Indiana University Public Policy Institute was established in 2008 as a multidisciplinary institute with the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA). Its original function was to serve as an umbrella organization for the Center for Urban Policy and the Environment (CUPE), established in 1992, and the Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR), established in 2008. These centers are now represented by research areas within the institute. The IU Public Policy Institute conducts research, policy analysis, program evaluation, facilitated discussions, and long-term planning for clients from the public, private, government, academic, and nonprofit sectors. Its primary areas of research are economic development, tax and finance, criminal justice, public safety, housing and community development, and land use and the environment.
Browse
Browsing Public Policy Institute, Indiana University by Subject "Tax and finance"
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Fiscal Benchmarking for Indiana's Local Governments Comprehensive Report for 2011-2012: Counties, Townships, and Cities and Towns(IU Public Policy Institute, 2014)The Fiscal Benchmarking for Indiana’s Local Governments project, sponsored by the Indiana University Public Policy Institute and the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, aims to provide formal analysis of the fiscal health of Indiana local governments in a comparative context. This document is the first comprehensive report of the project. It covers data for 2011 and 2012 for Indiana’s 92 counties, 1,006 townships, and 568 cities and towns. For ease of use, we provide the document in one full PDF that includes the entire report, and then four volumes containing parts of the report (volume I -- intro and technical appendices, volume II -- County data, volume III -- Township data, and volume IV -- City and Town data. The full document contains: • a brief description of the project and the selected fiscal indicators; • a data summary and analysis highlighting important changes between 2011 and 2012 for the median county, township, and city or town government; • a series of data tables documenting 36 indicators of fiscal health organized by type of unit; • technical documentation with additional detail on the sources of data and indicator calculations; • a glossary of terms; • enterprises by local government (Appendix A); and • proceeds from borrowing other than tax anticipation warrants (Appendix B).Item Hendricks County Stormwater Finance(IU Public Policy Institute, 2008-08) Palmer, Jamie L.; Sapp, DonaThe Center prepared a stormwater financial analysis to assist Hendricks County (unincorporated urbanized area), Danville, and Pittsboro in choosing mechanisms to finance the newly required management activities. This report has a community-specific executive summary.Item Implications of Inflation-Adjusted Fuel Taxes on Government Revenue(IU Public Policy Institute, 2014-05) Marron, John; Dumortier, Jerome; Zhang, FengxiuOne potential source for increasing funding for the surface transportation system is to increase gasoline and diesel taxes. As part of a project with the Soy Transportation Coalition, this report outlines the results of an analysis using a model in which fuel taxes are reduced by one cent from the present unit tax in each of 12 states studied and then links fuel taxes to projected inflation. The authors also evaluate the possibility of raising revenue through an annual special registration fee on newly sold battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and conventional hybrids.Item Indiana in Perspective(IU Public Policy Institute, 2015-01) Marron, John; Mulholland, ZacharyThe second project under the Policy Choices Initiative, Thriving Communities, Thriving State, continues the conversation about the challenges to and opportunities for creating a vibrant future for Indiana, but from a place-based context. This issue brief serves as an overview of the typology used in Thriving Communities, (urban areas, mid-sized areas, and small town/rural areas) and presents summary data based on this typology, including demographics, health and well-being data, and economic data. Place is an important unit of analysis in the competition for attracting business and residents. Ultimately, however, the futures of many Hoosier communities are inextricably inked to the successes of surrounding communities. While every place has its own unique set of needs and successes, leaders must think hard about how those things that create identity for their community can continue to add community value as part of a network of places.Item Indiana's Approach to Fiscal Benchmarking(IU Public Policy Institute, 2014-04)This report provides an introduction to fiscal benchmarking and the Fiscal Benchmarking for Indiana’s Local Governments project. Fiscal benchmarking is the assessment of the financial conditions of a local government within the context of the socioeconomic attributes of the jurisdiction. It begins with a description of fiscal benchmarking, a review of general approaches to benchmarking, followed by a discussion of ongoing fiscal benchmarking projects in other states. Next, some background on the Fiscal Benchmarking for Indiana’s Local Governments project, with a discussion of its approach to fiscal benchmarking. The report concludes with a look at the indicators that will be used to gauge the fiscal situation of Indiana’s local governments.Item Indiana's Property Tax Caps: Effects on Equity, Service Delivery, and Tax Competitiveness(IU Public Policy Institute, 2014-12) Ross, Justin; Cheek, CaitlinAs part of the Fiscal Benchmarking for Indiana's Local Governments project, the authors examined concerns for counties, cities and towns, and townships potentially related to Indiana's property tax caps. The tax caps provide tax savings for taxpayers, but a loss of revenue for local governments that provide taxpayers with services. The results of this analysis show the following: Government revenue losses increase as most indicators of wealth and economic well-being decline, and that this is not explained by larger government tax levies. Property tax savings primarily accrue to commercial and industrial property. Revenue losses may have resulted in reduced service delivery and infrastructure provision. Review of other studies demonstrates that property tax caps have not resulted in competitive tax rates for economic development.Item Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana: 2010 IACIR Survey(IU Public Policy Institute, 2011-11) Palmer, Jamie L.; Wyeth, Debbie; Chang, JoiceIntergovernmental Issues in Indiana (2010) is the tenth in a series of periodic surveys of elected officials designed to help the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (IACIR) and the Indiana General Assembly understand issues facing local governments. The 2010 survey included 33 questions and addressed many issues included in previous IACIR surveys, as well as “hot topics” affecting local governments currently. The heart of the survey is a series of questions about 71 community conditions in six categories: health, economics, public safety, local services, land use, and community quality of life.Item Intergovernmental Issues in Indiana: 2012 IACIR Survey(IU Public Policy Institute, 2013-07) Palmer, Jamie L.; Wyeth, Debbie; Barreto, Tami; Jellison, JalynIntergovernmental Issues in Indiana (2012) is the eleventh in a series of periodic surveys of electe4d officials designed to help the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (IACIR) and the General Assembly understand issues facing local governments. The 2012 survey included 42 questions and addressed many issues included in previous IACIR surveys, as well as topics currently affecting local governments. The heart of the survey is a series of questions about 75 community conditions in six categories: health, economics, public safety, local services and infrastructure, land use, and community quality of life. The main findings are: Economic issues, the cost of health insurance, obesity, drug issues, abandoned properties, and local roadways are issues for many communities Local governments respond to fiscal challenges in a variety of ways Local governments contribute to retirement and health insurance benefits for employees, but the proportion making these contributions decreased from 2010 Local governments communicate with residents electronically Perceived trustworthiness decrease with organization's increased distance Officials credit residents with being informed about local government, but think current civic education efforts are lacking Local governments provide training for elected officials Investments in local roadways are important to communities Issues relating to funding are uppermost in the minds of local government officialsItem Managing Local Government Employee Health Insurance Costs(IU Public Policy Institute, 2015-03) Palmer, Jamie L.he IACIR's findings and recommendations on the costs of local government employee health insurance from the 2014 document, Report to the General Assembly: 911-Dispatch Consolidation and Funding, Fiscal Benchmarking, and Managing Local Government Employee Health Care Costs, is summarized in this two-page brief.Item The Opportunities and Challenges of Benchmarking Indiana's Local Governments(IU Public Policy Institute, 2015-09) Spreen, Thomas Luke; Palmer, Jamie; Johnson, CraigAs part of the Fiscal Benchmarking for Indiana's Local Governments project, the Institute and the IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs explores the challenges of efforts to monitor the fiscal health of local governments. SB 106, enacted in 2014, places this responsibility with the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF). This issue brief explores the challenges to the process and insight gained from producing similar indicators of fiscal condition through the Fiscal Benchmarking project, including the following: 1.Using cash accounting for financial reporting instead of accrual accounting 2.An inconsistent and incomplete system of fund codes and transaction coding 3.A lack of complete budget reporting 4.A varied treatment of enterprise operations 5.The unique structure and treatment of Indianapolis 6.Debt reporting issues