A County in Idaho Offered Spanish-Language Ballots for the First Time and Here’s What Happened

On the morning of Election Day, the top trending search on Google was “donde votar,” which means “where to vote” in Spanish

West Central Mountains Regional Creative District 2021

The Idaho Commission on the Arts (ICA) commissioned Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) to gain a better understanding of the role and impact of the creative community in Idaho’s West Central Mountains (WCM)—covering Valley County, Cascade, Donnelly, McCall, and the Meadows Valley—and provide context for the establishment of a creative district pilot in the region. IPI hosted two focus groups with local stakeholders and conducted a survey of individuals affiliated with the creative community. This feedback provided qualitative insight into the experience of creatives such as artists, makers, and retailers, as well as the perceptions of arts supporters, educators, and administrators. Findings indicate: The local creative community is largely perceived as strong or at least moderately strong, while few believe it is weak. There is overwhelming optimism regarding creatives’ opportunity for economic growth and prosperity. Artists, makers, and retailers want to be more connected with other WCM creatives. Respondents are divided on knowing where to find information about creatives. Based on focus group and survey data, the WCM creative community’s strengths include its community, value and impact, and optimism; weaknesses are lack of awareness and access; opportunities involve creating an online tool, expanding resources, and strengthening connections; and the creative community is threatened by growth and erosion of local character. The implementation of creative districts in other states, particularly in Colorado and California, offer roadmaps for the establishment of a WCM district, including potential best practices, benefits, local partnerships, resources, and state-level assistance

Idaho\u27s Communities of Excellence Charter School Grant Year 4 Evaluation 2023

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Education awarded Idaho’s Communities of Excellence (COE) consortium, led by the Boise-based nonprofit, Bluum, a $17.1 million Charter Schools Program (CSP) grant. The amount of the award increased to$22.47 million in 2019. Grant funds have been distributed over five years with the intent to achieve Idaho’s COE objectives

Idaho\u27s Communities of Excellence Charter School Grant Year 2 Evaluation 2021

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Education awarded Idaho’s Communities of Excellence (COE) consortium a $17.1 million Charter Schools Program (CSP) grant. The amount of the award increased to$22.5 million in 2019. Grant funds will be distributed over five years with the intent to achieve Idaho’s COE objectives. The following questions drive Idaho Policy Institute (IPI)’s evaluation of Idaho’s COE: How are subgrantee schools using funds for school-site implementation? How do students and parents perceive the quality of schools vis-a-vis their prior school experience? What are school and staff perceptions of the successes, improvements, and chal¬lenges at subgrantee schools? Performance data is omitted from this report as standardized testing was not completed in the 2019/20 school year. This evaluation uses: Demographic data received from the Idaho State Board of Education. Financial data received from Bluum (the non-profit organization that serves as a fiscal agent for the grant). Parent and teacher survey data from the Farkas-Duffett Research (FDR) Group. Key findings include: All Cohort 1 schools dedicated most year two spending to staffing; however, all schools continue to dedicate money to technology and furniture and fixtures. Despite the precarity of COVID-19, parents are satisfied with their school. Parents plan to continue sending their children to their CSP school. Teachers are satisfied with their school but also feel overwhelmed by their workload

Ada County Highway District Public Opinion Survey 2022

The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) public opinion survey, developed in partnership with Idaho Policy Institute (IPI), was conducted April 28 through May 5, 2022 and surveyed 600 adults who live in Ada County, Idaho. The sample is representative of the county’s population both geographically and demographically. Survey responses were collected by cell phone (50%), landline phone (33%) and online via email (17%). The survey addressed a variety of issues including road safety, road quality, traffic congestion, and spending priorities. Respondents were selected via a simple random sampling method with a margin of error of +/- 4%. The survey was conducted by GS Strategy Group. KEY FINDINGS A majority of respondents (58%) approve of ACHD’s performance in regard to planning, designing, and managing efficient traffic flow and traffic safety throughout Ada County. Nearly half of respondents (48%) rate the quality of roads as excellent or good, while only 10% rated it as poor. The safety of roads receive similar marks (50% to 7%). Among various priorities, respondents’ most popular choice for increasing safety is roadway expansion (39%), followed by intersection improvements (21%). 59% of respondents indicate they trust ACHD to spend taxpayer dollars wisely

Creative District Programs

The Idaho Commission on the Arts commissioned Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) to review best practices related to the establishment of state creative district (CD) programs. Specifically, IPI sought to answer the following research questions: Where are creative district efforts typically housed? What is the most effective role for state arts agencies? How do communities seek and receive creative district certification? What baseline metrics are used to evaluate creative districts? What other data elements are identified at the beginning of cultural planning efforts? Drawing on existing research and a review of all active programs in 18 states, this report identifies several creative district best practices and lessons learned. Certification process: States require potential districts to meet various eligibility criteria involving entity types, public involvement, funding, staff and leadership, planning, assets, and boundaries. Certification processes also vary in terms of program benefits, application process and materials, review process, and reporting requirements. District governance: Creative district leadership can involve governmental, quasigovernmental, nonprofit (non-arts or arts), private for-profit, and artist-led efforts. These models come with different funding sources and types of community representation. Research suggests that certain models may work better for different districts. State leadership: State arts agencies typically manage the entire creative district process, but some agencies only oversee district authorization or program administration. To administer creative district programs, arts agencies have partnered with a range of other state agencies, including ones focused on tourism, transportation, economic and business development, housing, recreation, and humanities. Evaluation metrics: States use various evaluation metrics to measure the impact and success of individual creative districts. Metrics suggested in previous research and covered in program materials include a range of data categories and types, while some states allow districts to report progress through narrative responses or give communities the flexibility to choose their own data

Idaho Educational Policy Review

Kestrel West and yes. every kid. partnered with Idaho Policy Institute (IPI) to better understand the implementation of state and local-level education policies in school districts across the state of Idaho. IPI reviewed district policy handbooks and conducted surveys with superintendents and teachers in the state to answer research questions spanning several topics including class sizes, open enrollment, and alternative schools

Motor Vehicle Service Delivery: Analysis of Idaho\u27s Model and Policy Alternatives

This report analyzes Idaho’s DMV service delivery model, compares it to DMV arrangements in other states, and considers potential policy alternatives by conducting surveys of front-line agents in Idaho and DMV administrators in other states, as well as interviews of officials in counties and other states. The report discusses the benefits and challenges of Idaho’s arrangement and other service delivery models. The state’s current arrangement enables local access, flexibility, and autonomy, but it also leads to a lack of standardization, blurred responsibilities between state and county decision makers, funding challenges, and unnecessary layers in delivering DMV services. Each service delivery model features tradeoffs: more centralized arrangements typically enable more standardization and economies of scale but come with fewer points of access, while less centralized ones grant more local access but create inconsistencies in service delivery. Private partners can expand DMV access and ease of use but can also widen inequities and require oversight from the state agency. Finally, policy options are identified for Idaho’s framework that relate to communication, revenue, planning, and access

College & Career Advising & Mentoring Program Evaluation 2020

Idaho’s College and Career Advising and Mentoring Program (Program) is intended to support Idaho’s Local Educational Agencies’ (LEAs) efforts to support Idaho students’ preparation for college and career readiness. In 2019, for the second consecutive year, the Idaho Legislature requested an independent evaluation of the Program. This evaluation, authored by the Idaho Policy Institute (IPI), builds on IPI’s 2019 report and considers the Program’s design, use of funds, effectiveness and other relevant metrics. It also presents an analysis of the Program’s internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as its external opportunities and threats (also known as a SWOT analysis). DESIGN Efforts by the Idaho Office of the State Board of Education (OSBE) to streamline and improve the LEA College and Career Advising Plan (the Plan) submission process resulted in a higher quality of Plans submitted in 2019. However, not all Plans are up to date and some Plans do not include direct college and career counselor and advisor input. In addition, reporting requirements limit LEA’s ability to fully represent their use of funds, suggesting need for more contextual and purposeful reporting measures. USE OF FUNDS It is difficult to track or confirm LEA use of funds or determine funding impact on program effectiveness, as statute does not require LEAs to submit budgets with their plans nor provide expense reports. The funding allocation formula itself relies on student population and does not account for student or school need, which may hinder the Program’s ability to affect outcomes for students with the most potential for improvement. In addition, funding distribution does not incentivize goal attainment which may impede Program progress. EFFECTIVENESS The current use of college go-on rates to measure Program success does not account for career readiness or success in college, preventing a comprehensive analysis of Program outcomes. This Program was also created alongside other statewide programs intended to improve post-high school outcomes, making it difficult to separate effects of individual programs. For example, there is significant overlap in many LEAs between College and Career Advising and Student Mentoring Programs and the Advanced Opportunities Programs

Advanced Opportunities Program Evaluation 2020

In 2019, the Legislature commissioned an evaluation of the Advanced Opportunities (AO) Program (Idaho Code § 33-4601 – 4602). This evaluation considers the AO Program’s use of funds as well as program design and effectiveness. Data for the evaluation came from three primary sources: enrollment and spending data collected by the Idaho State Department of Education, an online survey of 133 AO personnel, and in-depth interviews with eight AO staff across the state. Major findings of this report are summarized below: Use of Funds Idaho spent $19.2 million to fund AO courses in school year (SY) 2018-19, up from$4 million in SY 2015-16. 37,268 Idaho students used AO funding in SY 2018-19, up from 15,294 students in SY 2015-16. Dual credit courses account for 72 percent of total AO funding. Overload courses accounted for 7.4 percent of AO funding, while AP, CTE, CLEP and IB exams made up 8 percent. Program Design Almost all local education agencies (LEAs) across the state offer dual credit courses to their students. AP exams are only taken in 34 percent of LEAs across the state and rural areas are much less likely to offer AP exams. AO staff report dual credit courses and CTE exams as priorities for the expansion AO offerings in their schools because of their high demand. There is significant overlap between the AO Program and College and Career Advising and Mentoring but the extent of overlap varies by LEA. Program Effectiveness The AO Program’s financial support provides equitable access to AO courses statewide, increases student confidence and college preparedness and individualizes learning. The AO Program struggles with the importance of career preparation and an overemphasis on college attendance. The state should continue to streamline enrollment and administrative processes across dual credit institutions and AO programs. Ongoing evaluation and data collection are essential to better understand how the AO Program affects Idaho students. Participation in advanced coursework has increased significantly across the state, yet the effects of this increase on go-on rates and degree completion are unknown. Future evaluations would benefit from student performance data including final grades and exam scores for AO funded courses as well as post-secondary achievement metrics