HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda- 05-14-20; Item 1-A - Public School Forum Local School Finance Study PUBLIC SCHOOL ' iL
FORUM of north carolina
INTRODUCTION
For more than 30 years,the Public School instructional expenses,exacerbating face substantially greater financial
Forum of North Carolina's Local School inequities in educational opportunities burden to support public education while
Finance Study has highlighted variations between those with the least and the still finding that their schools are more
and trends in local spending for public greatest need. poorly resourced than those in wealthier
education across our state's 100 counties. counties.
The purpose of this annual study is to In recent years,our annual studies have
isolate local spending from state and consistently identified two key trends that These funding disparities have tangible
federal spending to examine the capacity have led to deepened educational inequity impacts in North Carolina classrooms.
and actual effort of counties to support across districts over time. For instance, local salary supplements
public schools.The Local School Finance for educators are generally substantially
Study focuses not only on the amount First,there is a widening gap between larger in high-wealth and larger districts,
that counties spend on schools, but also wealthier counties and those with lower which better positions them to attract
on each county's investment in relation to levels of wealth.As a result,there is and retain top talent. Many rural districts,
their taxable resources. a growing disparity in the ability of which already face challenges in recruiting
counties to provide their schools with the and retaining highly skilled teachers,are
Under North Carolina's school finance resources they need, particularly given at an even greater disadvantage if they
system,established nearly nine decades the increasing role of local spending are not able to offer competitive pay. In
ago,it is the state's responsibility to over time. low-wealth districts,schools are often
fund instructional expenses(including unable to offer the diversity of course
personnel)while county governments Second,we demonstrate that wealthier offerings found in wealthier counties,
pay for capital expenses(buildings and counties are able to allocate more meaning that many students in these
maintenance). However,cuts to the state local dollars to public schools while districts are unable to access advanced
budget during the most recent Great simultaneously making less taxing courses or electives that are important in
Recession have yet to be restored to effort. Because wealthier counties have developing college and career readiness.
pre-recession spending levels,and more taxable resources,they are able to And while higher wealth districts are
districts across the state are struggling to keep tax rates low while still generating able to tap deeper wallets as they cope
meet their students' needs.This,coupled significant revenue.Conversely, lower with inadequate state-level investments,
with increasing costs for education wealth counties with fewer taxable low-wealth districts must scramble to pull
stemming from population growth and resources have to make greater taxing together scarce local resources to provide
a changing economy, has forced local effort to support their schools.Thus, even the most basic classroom supplies
districts to take on a larger share of residents living in lower wealth districts such as paper, pencils and textbooks.
TABLE
INTRODUCTION 16 APPENDICES
3 2017-2018 TOTAL LOCAL SPENDING PER STUDENT 16 TABLE 1:RANKING OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY
VALUATIONS PER STUDENT
4 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2020 LOCAL SCHOOL
FINANCE • EFFORT• •• • OF CAPITAL •
UTLAY
AND DEBT
-• V.STATE OF NORTH ••
AN INTRODUCTION FUNDING FOR • • SMALL COUNTIES
•• • • PAYS FOR WHAT? 20 TABLE 4:ABILITY TO PAY
10 LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY 2020:GAPS AND TRENDS 21 TABLE 5:RELATIVE EFFORT
13 LOOKING AHEAD 22
GLOSSARY
14 NOTES ON METHODOLOGY
02
INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED)
In 2017-18,counties spent approximately$3.3 billion to fund
instructional expenses,accounting for 24 percent of the There is a a of $2,523 between
combined federal,state,and local spending'Counties provided gap
funding for 887 principals and assistant principals(16.6 the top ten and bottom ten
percent of the total),6,055 teachers(6.4 percent of the total),
2,463 teacher assistants(11.4 percent of the total),and 3,479 counties in local spending,
professional instructional support personnel (22.3 percent of
the total).z the largest gap since we began
Given the increasing burden on all local districts to fund tracking this figure in 198Z
instructional expenses and the rising inequality in funding
capacity across counties,spending disparities between low-
wealth and higher wealth counties have grown steadily and This discrepancy exists primarily because of the variation in
substantially over recent years.This year's study found that property wealth across the state. In 2017-18,every county in
in 2017-18,the state's ten counties that spent the most dollars the top ten spending districts had a per student real estate
per student averaged $3,305 in local spending per student as wealth capacity above$1.6 million,and together had an average
compared with the ten that spent the least,which averaged$782 nearly five times greater than the bottom ten counties.The
per student.That represents a gap of$2,523 between the top ten ten wealthiest counties had an average real estate capacity
and bottom ten counties in local spending,the largest gap since of$1,955,100.31 per student,compared with the ten poorest
we began tracking this figure in 1987.Of the state's 100 counties, counties,which had on average a real estate capacity of
58 fell below the state average of$1,714 local dollars per student. $403,100.75 per student.
TAXABLE REAL ESTATE WEALTH PER CHILD COUNTY-LEVEL SPENDING PER STUDENT
(2017-18) (2017-18)
3,000 •
2,000,000
• • 2,500
1,500,000
2,000
1,000,000 1,500
500,000 1,000
500
TEN TEN
WEALTHIEST POOREST
COUNTIES COUNTIES TEN TEN
HIGHEST-SPENDING LOWEST-SPENDING
The ten wealthiest counties in North Carolina have nearly five times COUNTIES COUNTIES
the taxable property wealth per child available than the ten poorest
counties.As a result,even though the ten poorest counties tax Annual per-student county spending on programs and personnel
themselves at nearly twice the rate of the wealthiest counties,the was$2,523 higher in the ten highest-spending counties than in the
revenue they generate through taxation remains substantially lower. ten lowest-spending counties.This gap is wider than last year,when
(See Table 4). it was$2,445.(See Table 2).
'DPI Statistical Profile,Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
DPI Statistical Profile,Table 16:State Summary of Public School Full-Time Personnel,2017-18
03
2017-18 TOTAL LOCAL SPENDING PER STUDENT
Alamance '1,691
Alexander $1,253
Alleghany E $1,982
Anson $1,355
Ashe 601
Avery $2,331
Beaufort $2,105
Bertie $1,315
Bladen $1,36
Brunswick $2,497
Buncombe $2,703
Burke $1,218
Cabarrus $1,785
Caldwell $1,287
Camden $1,4
Carteret $2,630
Caswell $1,076
Catawba t$1,4
Chatham $3,182
Cherokee $1,948
Chowan
Clay $1,036
Cleveland Columbus $865
Craven Cumberland
Currituck $2,482
Dare $4,274
Davidson $1,370
Davie $1,789
Duplin $918
Durham $3,376
Edgecombe $1,117
Forsyth $2,156
Franklin $1,754
Gaston $1,4
Gates $1,813
Graham $770
Granville 3
Greene $764
Guilford $2,513
Halifax $1,370
Harnett $1,137
Haywood $1,938
Henderson $1,820
Hertford 6
Hoke-$535 STATE AVERAGE
Hyde $2,849
Iredell $1,644 C51,714)
Jackson $1,719
Johnston ,623
Jones $1,725
Lee $1,775
Lenoir $1,145
Lincoln 13
Macon 1$1,758
Madison $1,192
Martin $1,673
McDowell $
Mecklenburg $2,585
Mitchell $1,199
Montgomery $1,281
Moore $2,174
Nash $1,4
New Hanover $2,753
Northampton $1,666
Onslow $1,835
Orange
Pamlico $2,032 $5,256
Pasquotank $1,956
Pender
Perquimans $1,716
Person $1,343
Pitt 96
Polk $2,322
Randolph $1,331
Richmond $1,083
Robeson-$590
Rockingham $1,261
Rowan $1,852
Rutherford $1,331
Sampson $1,224
Scotland $1,823
Stanly $1,201
Stokes $1,861
Surry $1,263
Swain $434
Transylvania $3,195
Tyrrell $978
Union $2,000
Vance $930
Wake $2,509
Warren $2,119
Washington $1,047
Watauga $2,826
Wayne $1,036
Wilkes $1,365
Wilson $1
Yadkin $1,203
Yancey $1,4
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000
04
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2020
LOCAL SCHOOL
LocalWHAT'S NEW
This year,the ..includes new information about charter
schools and their impact on local public
;r
schools,
..
Leandro v.State of North Carolina.
II.,.
THE NEXT
CHAPTER •
• - •In j
I �
past years,we have included . sectionon the Historical Perspective on State
and Local School . • we've '
swapped that out with a more detailed look
at the history of the 25-year-old school
funding case known as Leandro,as well
as a discussion of the recommendations
set forth in the court-ordered report,"Sound Basic Education for All:An Action
I I
f
•lan for North Carolina," published by the
independent • (agreed • byall
parties • • Jf
�I
LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY 2020: RANKINGS AT-A-GLANCE
The chart on the next page provides a summary of key rankings from our analyses,calculated in the five tables included in the
appendices to this report.
Property Value Rank:The first column shows county rankings This column can be analyzed alongside the second column to
based on the real estate wealth available in each county. Most show the impact of supplemental funding on counties' relative
local funding for schools comes from property taxes.Counties rankings.(See Table 3)
ranked higher on this measure have more real property available
for potential taxation to support education.(See Table 1) Ability to Pay Rank:The fourth column's rankings reflect
an analysis of each county's fiscal capacity to support public
Actual Effort Rank: Rankings in the second column reflect the schools,taking into account property values(from the first
actual dollar effort of counties to fund schools,without taking column,adjusted using the state's average effective property
into account property wealth.Counties that spend the most per tax rate)and non-property tax revenues. Large, urban counties
student rank highest on this measure.(See Table 2) that combine high adjusted property valuations with broad-based
economic activity and high per capita incomes tend to receive
Actual Effort Rank II:The rankings in the third column serve high rankings on this measure.(See Table 4)
the same purpose as the second column, but take into account
supplemental state funding provided for low-wealth and small Relative Effort Rank:The final column compares Actual Effort
counties.Counties that spend the most per student based on (from Table 2)and Ability to Pay(from Table 4). Low-wealth
county spending combined with low-wealth and small county counties with comparatively high spending levels tend to rank
supplemental state funding rank highest on this measure. highest in this measure.(See Table 5)
05
LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY RANKINGS-AT-A-GLANCE
FROM TABLE 1 FROM TABLE 2 FROM TABLE 3 FROM TABLE 4 FROM TABLE 5
COUNTY PROPERTY VALUE RANK: ACTUAL EFFORT RANK: ACTUAL EFFORT RANK If: ABILITY TO RELATIVE EFFORT RANK:
Adjusted Property Total Current Spending Total Current Spending Per ADM with PAY RANK: Current Spending as Percentage
Tax Base Per ADM Per ADM Low Wealth and Small County Funding Revenue Per ADM of Revenue per Student
Dare 1 2 4 1 96
Jackson 2 41 69 7 99
Avery 3 16 12 6 92
Watauga 4 7 15 4 89
Brunswick 5 14 26 3 93
Macon 6 37 65 8 98
Carteret 7 10 21 2 94
Cu rrituck 8 15 30 5 91
Uj Hyde 9 6 1 12 74
Transylvania 10 4 9 13 63
Clay 11 91 35 27 95
Ashe 12 50 42 21 90
Polk 13 17 13 18 77
New Hanover 14 8 17 9 85
Bunco 1.2 mbe 15 9 18 10 84
Alleghany 16 24 11 22 73
Pamlico 17 22 7 20 72
Perquimans 18 42 20 26 81
Yancey 19 61 40 32 86
Chatham 20 5 10 11 65
Madison 21 83 55 37 88
Graham 22 96 32 39 97
Henderson 23 32 60 23 82
Haywood 24 27 53 25 69
Durham 25 3 6 15 58
Northampton 26 45 16 48 42
Cherokee 27 26 43 35 35
Moore 28 18 38 19 80
Warren 29 20 14 47 14
Mitchell 30 82 45 52 71
Orange 31 1 2 16 4
Wake 32 13 25 17 78
Ld Mecklenburg 33 11 23 14 83
Lincoln 34 49 81 28 79
Jones 35 40 5 43 41
Person 36 69 94 42 70
Beaufort 37 21 36 34 33
Swain 38 100 99 40 100
Iredell 39 46 79 24 87
Montgomery 40 74 92 53 66
Pender 41 55 58 49 48
Davie 42 34 62 33 61
Chowan 43 39 19 45 36
Catawba 44 48 82 29 75
Rutherford 45 70 80 64 46
Craven 46 58 87 38 68
Stokes 47 28 37 63 9
Guilford 48 12 24 30 19
Rowan 49 29 44 51 20
Forsyth 50 19 39 31 40
McDowell 51 57 54 71 15
Tyrrell 52 92 3 89 56
Wilkes 53 67 76 59 51
Caswell 54 88 46 86 50
Caldwell 55 73 75 70 37
Camden 56 62 28 57 54
Washington 57 89 33 60 76
Lj Berne 58 72 27 87 17
Cabarrus 59 35 63 36 53
Union 60 23 49 41 25
Bladen 61 66 67 83 18
Pasquotank 62 25 34 55 13
Rockingham 63 76 83 67 52
Stanly 64 81 90 56 67
Davidson 65 65 86 61 47
Anson 66 68 51 77 21
Yadkin 67 80 85 73 49
Alamance 68 43 57 44 45
Franklin 69 38 41 81 3
Burke 70 79 77 76 43
Martin 71 44 29 75 8
Alexander 72 77 78 80 28
Cleveland 73 63 70 68 27
Lee 74 36 47 54 23
Gates 75 33 8 90 2
Hertford 76 54 22 79 7
Pitt 77 52 59 50 44
Onslow 78 30 56 46 30
Wilson 79 56 61 62 24
Surry 80 75 88 58 62
Randolph 81 71 72 74 31
LLj Gaston 82 59 89 66 29
Granville 83 53 48 84 6
Halifax 84 64 71 85 16
Oo Edgecombe 85 86 84 91 26
Richmond 86 87 74 88 38
Johnston 87 47 52 78 5
Duplin 88 94 93 92 55
Lenoir 89 84 91 69 59
IX
Nash 90 60 66 65 32
Columbus 91 95 95 93 57
Cumberland 92 51 64 72 12
Wayne 93 90 97 82 60
Sampson 94 78 68 94 10
Harnett 95 85 73 96 11
Hoke 96 99 100 99 64
Scotland 97 31 31 97 1
Vance 98 93 96 95 39
Greene 99 97 50 98 22
Robeson 100 98 98 100 34
06
LEANDRO V. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA:
AN INTRODUCTION
The state of North Carolina has been engaged in litigation schools,the consensus is clear:those state funds are inadequate,
defending its system of school finance for more than twenty-five and as such,the state continues to fail to meet its constitutional
years. In 1994,five school districts in low-wealth counties along obligation to provide a sound basic education to each and every
with families filed a lawsuit against the state(Leandro v.State of child across North Carolina.
North Carolina),arguing that their school districts did not have
enough money to provide an education for their children that In 2018,Judge David Lee,who now presides over the Leandro
was equal to that of higher wealth counties,despite the fact that case,ordered WestEd,an independent educational consultant
they taxed their residents at a higher rate than the state average. that was chosen and agreed upon by all parties to the case,
to analyze North Carolina's school funding history,outcomes
During the course of the Leandro litigation,the North Carolina and structure and recommend ways for the state to comply
Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged these educational with the Leandro rulings. In December 2019,WestEd released
inequities between low-wealth and high-wealth districts,and their findings as well as a sequenced action plan to meet the
the Court has also made clear that it is the state that bears state's constitutional obligation to provide each and every North
responsibility for fulfilling the constitutional obligation to guard Carolinian with a sound basic education.See page 13 of this
and maintain the right of every North Carolina child to receive a report for highlights of WestEd's plan.
"sound basic education."(Leandro v.State of North Carolina,346
N.C.336(1997).) In January 2020,following the release of WestEd's report,
Judge David Lee signed a consent order,agreeing with the
Yet more than two decades later,those counties that were among conclusion by all parties in the Leandro suit that a definite
the lowest funded in the state—Hoke, Halifax, Robeson,Vance, action plan must be implemented this year for the successful
and Cumberland —remain toward the bottom of our rankings provision of the constitutional Leandro rights—a sound basic
in terms of their ability to support public schools on a per education for all.The action plan is expected to be largely in
pupil basis. Robeson County once again ranked dead last in its line with the recommendations contained in the WestEd report.
ability to pay for the 15th year in a row.While state lawmakers We look forward to tracking these school funding developments
do appropriate additional state dollars in the form of the low- throughout 2020 and moving forward throughout the next
wealth and small county school system supplemental funding to decade.
counties that lack the ability to generate local revenues for public
WHY DOES OUR STATE BEAR THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY
PUBLICFUNDING
07
LEANDRO V. STATE OF NORTH ■ O
9940 LAWSUIT FILED
against State of NC by parents, children,
and school districts in Hoke, Halifax,
PLAINTIFFS ARGUED Robeson, Vance, and Cumberland Counties
that the wealth of a child's family and the
child's community should not determine
the quality of that child's education
I 997
NC SUPREME COURT DECLARED
that all students are entitles to receive
"sound basic education"
2 0 0 2 • "a competent,certified, well-trained teacher"
THE LOWER COURT ' "'a well-trained competent principal"
found that the State of NC violated the ' ""the resources necessary to support the
students'right to a sound basic education effective instructional program"
and ordered the State to provide:
2004 NC SUPREME COURT UPHELD
the lower court ruling and retained jurisdiction
01 PLAINTIFFS REQUESTED
that q18
'
remedy the constitutional violation
WestEd RELEASED REPORT
287-pages that compiles findings from
13 research studies and outlines eight
critical needs
JUDGE LEE SIGNS A
CONSENTORDER 2020
that outlines how all parties agree to the
facts of the case and the need to take
systemic action,plus an agreement to
develop a plan of action within 60 days
the duty of • guard and maintain that right."
08
SCHOOL FUNDING: WHO PAYS FOR WHAT?
While the state bears responsibility for fulfilling its constitutional K 12 SPENDING (% OF GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET)
obligation of providing a sound basic education to every child,
North Carolina schools have three sources of funding. In the
2017-18 school year, North Carolina public schools spent nearly
$13.5 billion on instructional expenses,using a combination of 60% K-12 education spending
state,federal,and local resources.State funding accounted for 52.5% represents the largest
part of the state budget,
65 percent of expenditures,federal funding accounted for 11 50% but its share of the overall
percent,and local funding accounted for 24 percent of spending.3 state budget has declined
ao%
39% sharply since 1970.
Source:North Carolina
Department of Public
30% Instruction,Highlights
SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS IN NC, 2017-18 of the North Carolina
Public School Budget,
1970-71 2017-18 February 2018
FEDERAL LOCAL Source:North
$1.45 $3.3 Carolina Department
BILLION BILLION of Public Instruction
(11%) (24%) Statistical
Profile,Table 22:
North Carolina
Ilk, STATE Current Expense$8.75 BILLION WHO PAYS FOR SCHOOL PERSONNEL? 2017-18
Expenditures by
Source of Funds.
100,000
STATE:
82,354
FEDERAL FUNDS LOCAL:
6,055
Resources from the federal government accounted for 11 percent 5708 AL.
of North Carolina public education spending on instructional 80,000
c� TOTAL:
expenses in 2017-18,and totaled $1.45 billion.4 Federal resources z 94,117
are given to states in the form of direct grants,state applications,
state plans,or a combination of the three. 0
W
U
D
STATE FUNDS o 60,000
m
In 2017-18,the state provided$8.75 billions to operate 2,637 W
district,charter,and regional schools in 115 school systems z STATE:
across 100 counties for 1.55 million studentS.6 Approximately 93 Z 15,050
percent of state funds were spent on salaries and benefits for o ao,000 LOCAL:
133,328 state-funded public school personnel? 0 2,463 STATE:
a FEDERAL: 10,796
0 4,008 LOCAL:
State funding for school operations has increased from$3.44 STATE: 3,479
billion in 1992-93. But while the level of funding has increased 2 4,445 TOTAL: FEDERAL:
over time due to enrollment and cost increases,the percentage 7 LOCAL: 21,521
g Z 2 87 1,295
of the state's General Fund dedicated to education has 0,00o FEDERAL: TOTAL:
declined. In 2017-18,39 percent of the state's General Fund was 9 15r570
appropriated for K-12 public education,a significant drop from TOTAL:
1970,when it was 52.5 percent.According to the Department of 5,341
Public Instruction, if public education were funded at the same
percentage of the General Fund as in 1970,districts and schools
would have an additional $3 billion to educate our students.$ PRINCIPALS TEACHERS TEACHER PROFESSIONAL
&ASSISTANT ASSISTANTS INSTRUCTIONAL
PRINCIPALS SUPPORT PERSONNEL
State funding for school buildings has been relatively low
compared with the state's investment in operations,and Source:North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Statistical Profile,
compared with what counties invest in facilities. In 2017-18, Table 16:State Summary of Public School Full-Time Personnel,2017-2018.
the state spent$29 million on capital outlays(2.4 percent of
total spending in this category),compared to$1.2 billion spent
by counties9
f
t
LOCAL FUNDS F
The nearly century-old division of state and local I - - -
responsibility for school funding still shapes the way North } -
Carolina pays for public education today,with approximately
65 percent of instructional expenditures coming from the -
state10 and over 97 percent of capital expenses paid at the
local level11 However,this division has eroded somewhat in
recent years. In 2017-2018,counties funded 16.6 percent of
principal and assistant principal positions,6.4 percent of
teachers,11.4 percent of teacher assistants,and 22.3 percent
of professional instructional support personnel;2 and the
state funded 2.4 percent of capital expenses13
When examining local expenditures on programs and
personnel,in 2017-18 the ten counties that spent the most
per student averaged $3,305 per student compared to the
ten that spent the least,which averaged$782 per student.
That represents a gap of$2,523 between the top and lowest
spending districts-a gap that has grown substantially over
the past twenty years.Of North Carolina's 100 counties,58
fall below the state average of$1,714 in local spending per
student.Orange County alone spent$382 more than the
seven lowest-spending counties combined.These statistics = -
continue the trend of increased responsibility being placed
on counties to fund instructional expenditures as well as
capital outlays.This increased responsibility has resulted in
exacerbated inequities already experienced by students of _ _-
low-wealth counties.
FUNDING FOR SCHOOL BUILDINGS 2017-18
f - -
STATE FEDERAL
$29 MILLION $3 MILLION
(2.4%)
LOCAL
-a
Source:North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Statistical Profile,Table 28:
Capital Outlay Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-2018. +_
' DPI Statistical Profile,Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
" DPI Statistical Profile,Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
5 DPI Statistical Profile,Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
6 Highlights of the North Carolina Public School Budget February 2018
7 DPI Statistical Profile,Table 16:State Summary of Public School Full-Time Personnel,2017-18
and Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
e Highlights of the North Carolina Public School Budget February 2018
s DPI Statistical Profile,Table 28:Capital Outlay Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
10 DPI Statistical Profile,Table 22:Current Expense Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
11 DPI Statistical Profile,Table 28:Capital Outlay Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18
12 DPI Statistical Profile,Table 16:State Summary of Public School Full-Time Personnel,2017-18
13 DPI Statistical Profile,Table 28:Capital Outlay Expenditures by Source of Funds,2017-18 _-
10
LOCAL SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY 2020:
GAPS AND TRENDS
The primary source of revenue for county government is WIDENING REAL ESTATE WEALTH GAP
local property taxes.This year,our study once again revealed
wide variation between the property values and revenues
generated between the state's wealthiest and poorest
counties.This year also saw the continuation of marked 2,500,000
differences in local spending per child across districts.
POOREST COUNTIES TAXED THEMSELVES 2,000,000
AT HIGHER RATES WHILE STILL GENERATING
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS REVENUE
FOR EDUCATION 1,500,000
In 2017-2018,the ten poorest counties taxed themselves at
nearly double the rate of the ten wealthiest counties—$0.81 1,000,000
compared to$0.45,a 36-cent difference. Because of the
disparity in real estate wealth capacity,the revenue the
poorest counties could generate was substantially lower than 500,000
what the wealthier counties could generate.The poorest
counties have raised their tax rates,while the wealthiest
counties have been able to lower theirs,and yet the
substantial revenue disparity persists.
The taxable real estate gap between the top and bottom �A ���0� y��1�0��O�LOB yO�yyO�yO�yO�yO �O���1,yOL01�01��1�O�v�1���
ten districts was$1.55 million in 2017-18.This discrepancy
decreased slightly in the past several years,after peaking
at$1.69 million in 2012-13 following many years of rapidly The difference in real estate wealth capacity between the ten
increasing wealth inequality.Major factors that contributed to wealthiest and ten poorest counties has grown from$480,120
the narrowing gap included reductions in real estate wealth in 1998 to$1,551,999.56 in 2017-2018.(See Table 1).
in the wealthiest counties,some counties'2011 revaluations,
and increases in student enrollment in several counties.Still,
as shown in the graph to the right,the gap is much more
substantial than in earlier years,and increased significantly
in 2017-18,resulting in widening inequality in the ability of
districts to fund schools to adequately serve their
students'needs.
DISPARITIES IN REAL ESTATE WEALTH PER ADM (2017-18)
Warren hampton Gates
.in Vance
Granville Hertford
'1
TOP QUARTILE
SECOND QUARTILE
❑ THIRD QUARTILE
❑ BOTTOM QUARTILE
LARGE SPENDING DISPARITIES
CONTINUE TO INCREASE
The gap between the highest and
lowest spending counties has increased
dramatically since the mid-1990s. Keeping
with recent trends,this year's study found
a slightly larger gap than in previous
years:$2,523 per student,compared '
with$2,445 in 2016-2017,and$2,364 in
2015-2016.Orange County,the highest
spending district in the state,spent more
than twelve times more per student than
Swain County at the bottom.The ten
highest-spending counties spent over 4.2
times more($3,305 per child)than the ten
lowest-spending counties($782 per child).
In 2017-18, Orange County -
alone spent $382 more
per student than the
seven lowest-spending -
districts combined." =-
LOCAL SPENDING DISPARITIES (2017-18) WIDENING LOCAL SPENDING GAP
2,500
$5,000
$4,000 COLUMBUS
2,000
GRAHAM •
$3,000
$2,000 ROBESON $590 1,500
•
$1,000
WAIN$434
BOTTOM SEVEN COUNTIES �q��11011
19
.(O01.6 Off'100
If the bottom seven counties'total current spending per student were combined,they The spending gap between the top ten spending and bottom ten spending counties
would still spend$380 less per student than Orange County spends by itself.(See has grown from$1,161 in 1998 to$2,523 per student in 2018.(See Table 2).
Table 2).
- � • • • - • •
CHARTER SCHOOLS HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
North Carolina's first charter school opened in 1997,and as cope with decreased state funds as a result of fewer
for nearly 15 years no more than 100 charter schools students in our traditional public schools:'
could operate in the state. In 2011 the NC General
Assembly lifted that cap,and since then,the number of That scenario presents a considerable challenge because
charter schools has nearly doubled.In a report published traditional public schools must accept all students,said
by Duke University researchers Helen Ladd and John Curtis—yet the charter school is not required to do so.
Singleton,the authors found that charter schools now
produce large and negative fiscal impacts on traditional "That means we are generally left with the higher cost
public school students.These negative fiscal externalities students,such as Exceptional Children (EC)students who
on public school districts come to pass,say the authors, require much more in the way of services,"said Curtis.
because districts are unable to reduce spending in line The state funding formula is already insufficient for EC
with the revenue losses they experience as a result students, requiring Pamlico to meet those students' needs
of charter schools without reducing services to the by supplementing their services with local funds.Overall,
remaining public school students" the impact of charter schools has resulted in the reality
that Pamlico can't provide all of the programs to students
Steve Curtis,Chief Financial Officer for Pamlico County that they would like or reduce class sizes even further to
Schools,explains the impact of just one charter school on meet the needs of every child.
his district.
Statewide policies could ease the adverse fiscal impact
"We only have approximately 1,500 students in our small of charter schools on traditional public schools, Duke
district,and 15 percent of all Pamlico students attend the researchers suggest.As charter schools expand,the state
district's one charter school. Each month,we must send could provide transitional aid to mitigate revenue losses;
that charter school nearly$50,000 in local funds,as well however,they caution,that is not a long-term solution.
LOOKING AHEAD
LEANDRO V. STATE OF NC: PROVIDING EACH
AND EVERY NC CHILD WITH A SOUND BASIC
EDUCATION
In December 2019, independent consultant WestEd, in
collaboration with the Learning Policy Institute and the Friday
Institute at NC State University, released their 287- page report `
"Sound Basic Education For All:An Action Plan for North
Carolina," more commonly referred to as the Leandro report 15
The authors compiled findings from 13 extensive, multi-method
research studies and issued a series of recommendations to
ensure that every child in North Carolina has equitable access
to a sound basic education.The report focuses on eight critical
needs:
• Finance and resource allocation
• A qualified and well-prepared teacher in every classroom
• A qualified and well-prepared principal in every school
• Early childhood education Below are somehighlight • ' of ''•
• High-poverty schools recommendations that are mostto addressing
• State assessment system and school accountability system the inequities • •• funding and educational
• Regional and statewide supports for school improvement opportunity" • districts in NorthCarolina.
• Monitoring the state's compliance. Provide$3.2 billion (about$395 million per year) in
The researchers present findings consistent with what the . education over
Forum and other groups have highlighted in recent years.Citing the next 8 years,which wouldbe withdrawn
the decline in adjusted per-pupil spending over the last ten years student achievement benchmarks are reached.
(approximately 6 percent between 2009-2010 and 2017-2018), Provide 7 billion _
r the next 8 the overall inadequate level of funding to meet student needs, _r year)in ongoing state funding to maintain
(aboutears •
and the inequitable distribution across local districts,the report millionstudent growth.
calls for nearly$7 billion in additional state funding for public
education over the next 8 years. Revise the current school - formula and
phase in a weighted-student
The authors also note that attention to how the additional Account for -• • differences in costand needed
state funding is spent is essential to ensuring that it has the adjustments for • and small districts.
greatest impact possible,and they argue that it is critical for allotments,Maintain position
the students,schools and districts with the greatest need to eliminatewith district finance officers, but
receive the most additional support.They report that as of transferrestrictions across allotment categories to provide
2016-2017,33 percent of traditional public schools in the state exceptmore flexibility.Collapse all other allotments
qualified as high-poverty schools, most of which are located for those that serve higher-need students.
in high-poverty communities.The majority(53 percent)of
high-poverty communities were located in rural areas,with the Add" weights to position ' for ' "'
highest concentrations of poverty located in the northeast, student groups,inclu' ' those who
are
north central, and Sandhills regions.Their research found, economically disadvantaged.
unsurprisingly,that students in high-poverty schools and teacherIncrease salaries across - ... • •
districts are far less likely to receive a sound basic education • • allotments . . districts
than those in wealthier and better resourced schools. to allow . offer more competitive
supplements.
Provide incentives for teachers and principals to
Sound Basic work in high needs '•
Education Fund charter schoolsdirectly . instead
of . through localdistricts.
1 in • • •
J
Increase transparency• • ..•
ut the extent
WestEd�. • funding offsetting . ••
1
nin9 P01,nsiiu
TheWAliam&idafrtlay',11.elog ational lnmvavon -•
15 Access the full report at:https://www.ncforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Sound-Basic-Education-for-AII-An-Action-Plan-for-North-Carolina.pdf
14
NOTES ON METHODOLOGY
CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPITAL SPENDING
The Department of Public Instruction's Division of School Data from the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer's
Business' Report on Average Daily Membership and Membership Report on County Spending on Public School Capital Outlays was
Last Day by LEA (ADM&MLD)provides estimates of charter used to calculate a six-year average of county appropriations
school enrollment in each county.Adding charter school for capital outlay, interest on debt for school construction,and
enrollments to the ADM of the county in which each charter the net change in capital reserves.Withdrawals from the Public
school is located produces a base calculation of total ADM for School Building Capital Fund,Grants from the Public School
each county. However,charter schools may enroll students Building Bond Fund,and the North Carolina Education Lottery
from across county lines,with local funding flowing from each Funds have been removed from the county total.The debt
student's district of residence to the charter school he or she service includes expenditures for school bond repayment and
attends(this is different from state ADM funding for charter lease purchase agreements.The capital outlay is actual spending
schools).These cross-district enrollments are not captured by on capital projects or equipment for buildings.
the ADM&MLD report.
Therefore,the 2020 Local School Finance Study relies on results
of a survey of districts conducted by the Division of School
Business in 2018 to account for all students within each district
who attend charter schools.Survey data are provided at the
Office of Charter Schools website for information only and are
not used for any financial or budget purposes.
lr
[� L k.
15
SALES/ASSESSMENT RATIO adjusted property valuation.This approach is intended to result
in more accurate valuations for small, rural counties where
In North Carolina, most residential and commercial property is relatively few land transactions might have taken place during
revalued once every eight years. Prior to 1984 it was difficult any given year.
to compare tax wealth and effort because of this impediment
to estimating the market value of property valuations. In 1984 OTHER REVENUE SOURCES
the Department of Revenue completed its first statewide Sales/
Assessment Ratio Study,comparing the market value of recently The primary source of local revenue is property taxes. In addition
sold property with its assessed value. Using the ratio of assessed to property taxes,this study includes a county's share of local
property value to market value,the Department calculated an option sales taxes and fines and forfeitures.Allotments from the
adjusted property tax rate for each county.The longer it has ADM fund and grants for school construction have been removed
been since a county has undergone reevaluation,the more likely to isolate capital spending. Finally,11 counties have supplemental
it is that the market value of property in the county exceeds its school taxes,with additional revenue totaling over$69 million in
assessed valuation. 2017-18(See table 2).
Rapidly growing communities have numerous demands on public
services,and the demands tend to outstrip land value increases.
Therefore,to meet the increase in demands for additional
services, local officials must either revalue property more often
or raise taxes. In an effort to make this study as accurate as
possible,a three-year weighted average is used to calculate the
rrr.owr�irrr�rrwArwNwwl�ww ,,,Y",
`sP
16
TABLE 1: RANKING OF ADJUSTED PROPERTY VALUATIONS PER STUDENT
This table reflects the real estate wealth available to counties to support education.The ranking is based on the total adjusted property valuation for each county,divided by
the number of students attending public school in the county.The property valuation was adjusted using a three-year weighted average of the Sales/Assessment Ratios.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS LAST YEAR EFFECTIVE COUNTY 2017-18 ADJUSTED 2017-18 ADJUSTED PROPERTY
YEAR'S RANK REVALUED TAX RATE TAX BASE FINAL ADM TAX BASE PER ADM
Dare 1 1 2013 $0.43 $14,393,541,400 5,081 $2,832,816.65
Jackson 2 2 2016 $0.38 $9,116,952,541 3,994 $2,282,662.13
Avery 3 4 2014 $0.50 $4,101,625,819 1,991 $2,060,083.28
Watauga 4 3 2014 $0.36 $9,130,356,481 4,655 $1,961,408.48
Brunswick 5 6 2015 $0.48 $25,419,693,406 13,657 $1,861,294.09
Macon 6 8 2015 $0.36 $7,857,374,739 4,383 $1,792,693.30
Carteret 7 7 2015 $0.31 $14,959,234,187 8,360 $1,789,382.08
Currituck 8 9 2013 $0.45 $6,680,415,594 4,020 $1,661,794.92
Hyde 9 5 2017 $0.76 $938,991,523 571 $1,644,468.52
Transylvania 10 10 2016 $0.50 $5,974,061,593 3,706 $1,611,997.19
Clay 11 13 2010 $0.49 $1,720,409,244 1,303 $1,320,344.78
Ashe 12 12 2015 $0.46 $3,935,667,300 2,988 $1,317,157.73
Polk 13 11 2017 $0.53 $2,901,879,727 2,209 $1,313,662.17
New Hanover 14 15 2017 $0.53 $35,834,861,845 27,299 $1,312,680.39
Buncombe 15 17 2017 $0.50 $38,444,763,833 30,432 $1,263,300.60
Alleghany 16 14 2015 $0.53 $1,665,539,080 1,344 $1,239,240.39
Pamlico 17 16 2012 $0.59 $1,773,362,142 1,500 $1,182,241.43
Perquimans 18 30 2016 $0.59 $1,818,925,498 1,617 $1,124,876.62
Yancey 19 18 2016 $0.57 $2,415,649,769 2,172 $1,112,177.61
Chatham 20 19 2017 $0.62 $10,753,115,946 9,827 $1,094,241.98
Madison 21 20 2012 $0.44 $2,482,750,934 2,293 $1,082,752.26
Graham 22 23 2015 $0.58 $1,152,570,736 1,130 $1,019,974.10
Henderson 23 24 2015 $0.54 $14,101,725,470 14,017 $1,006,044.48
Haywood 24 21 2017 $0.58 $7,501,221,160 7,561 $992,093.79
Durham 25 28 2016 $0.72 $38,275,728,091 39,197 $976,496.37
Northampton 26 27 2015 $0.92 $2,049,707,025 2,101 $975,586.40
Cherokee 27 29 2012 $0.51 $3,216,545,602 3,361 $957,020.41
Moore 28 26 2015 $0.46 $12,483,574,030 13,232 $943,438.18
Warren 29 22 2017 $0.85 $2,197,234,145 2,335 $940,999.63
Mitchell 30 25 2014 $0.60 $1,717,765,794 1,868 $919,574.84
Orange 31 31 2017 $0.83 $18,339,633,594 20,439 $897,286.25
Wake 32 32 2016 $0.58 $151,449,278,168 171,241 $884,421.83
Mecklenburg 33 33 2011 $0.68 $145,896,975,513 164,967 $884,400.97
Lincoln 34 42 2015 $0.58 $9,475,477,557 11,329 $836,391.35
Jones 35 39 2014 $0.80 $882,457,108 1,069 $825,497.76
Person 36 34 2013 $0.70 $4,557,278,009 5,528 $824,399.06
Beaufort 37 35 2010 $0.60 $5,659,498,795 6,931 $816,548.66
Swain 38 36 2013 $0.37 $1,611,940,678 2,022 $797,201.13
Iredell 39 37 2015 $0.51 $23,292,179,130 29,290 $795,226.33
Montgomery 40 38 2012 $0.61 $3,183,944,686 4,079 $780,569.92
Pender 41 40 2011 $0.65 $7,357,495,848 9,487 $775,534.50
Davie 42 41 2017 $0.73 $4,602,693,935 6,132 $750,602.40
. Chowan 43 43 2014 $0.72 $1,457,650,253 2,036 $715,938.24
Catawba 44 44 2015 $0.57 $16,768,953,650 23,440 $715,399.05
Rutherford 45 45 2012 $0.59 $6,198,217,986 9,102 $680,973.19
Craven 46 46 2016 $0.53 $9,397,105,724 13,900 $676,050.77
Stokes 47 49 2017 $0.66 $3,936,976,264 5,969 $659,570.49
Guilford 48 48 2017 $0.72 $51,365,660,202 77,935 $659,083.34
Rowan 49 51 2015 $0.66 $12,357,526,955 19,449 $635,381.10
Forsyth 50 53 2017 $0.72 $36,074,045,892 56,981 $633,089.03
McDowell 51 50 2011 $0.54 $3,813,248,890 6,031 $632,274.73
Tyrrell 52 47 2017 $1.02 $373,989,878 596 $627,499.80
Wilkes 53 52 2013 $0.63 $5,720,121,038 9,368 $610,602.16
Caswell 54 55 2016 $0.74 $1,657,026,415 2,747 $603,213.11
Caldwell 55 54 2013 $0.61 $6,934,481,966 11,503 $602,841.17
Camden 56 64 2015 $0.70 $1,102,404,606 1,849 $596,216.66
Washington 57 56 2013 $0.87 $911,978,386 1,531 $595,674.97
Bartle 58 63 2012 $0.81 $1,344,326,989 2,284 $588,584.50
Cabarrus 59 62 2016 $0.67 $23,175,183,578 39,743 $583,126.18
Union 60 67 2015 $0.76 $26,009,243,675 44,636 $582,696.56
Bladen 61 57 2015 $0.82 $2,788,920,528 4,793 $581,873.68
Pasquotank 62 74 2014 $0.76 $3,308,718,453 5,709 $579,561.82
Rockingham 63 60 2011 $0.72 $7,202,838,598 12,558 $573,565.74
Stanly 64 58 2017 $0.64 $4,992,410,855 8,708 $573,313J4
Davidson 65 59 2015 $0.54 $14,063,315,314 24,603 $571,609.78
Anson 66 65 2010 $0.79 $1,889,585,869 3,329 $567,613.66
Yadkin 67 61 2017 $0.67 $2,973,458,614 5,283 $562,835.25
Alamance 68 69 2017 $0.60 $13,442,402,461 24,059 $558,726.57
Franklin 69 75 2012 $0.81 $5,181,608,294 9,329 $555,430.20
Burke 70 68 2013 $0.67 $6,827,563,122 12,300 $555,086.43
Martin 71 76 2017 $0.83 $1,917,151,658 3,461 $553,929.98
Alexander 72 71 2015 $0.76 $2,683,228,416 4,847 $553,585.40
Cleveland 73 70 2016 $0.69 $8,627,902,280 15,626 $552,150.41
Lee 74 72 2013 $0.78 $5,404,452,922 9,868 $547,674.60
Gates 75 66 2017 $0.84 $866,411,244 1,625 $533,176.15
Hertford 76 78 2011 $0.98 $1,476,160,860 2,806 $526,073.01
Pitt 77 77 2016 $0.69 $12,789,233,297 24,424 $523,633.86
Onslow 78 73 2014 $0.68 $13,930,355,825 26,615 $523,402.44
Wilson 79 79 2016 $0.75 $6,709,285,891 13,090 $512,550.49
Surry 80 80 2016 $0.57 $5,770,895,462 11,268 $512,149.05
Randolph 81 81 2014 $0.62 $11,213,540,408 22,140 $506,483.31
Gaston 82 82 2015 $0.86 $16,532,084,071 33,422 $494,646.76
Granville 83 83 2010 $0.86 $4,331,157,320 8,848 $489,506.93
Halifax 84 84 2015 $0.76 $3,637,092,199 7,480 $486,242.27
Edgecombe 85 86 2017 $0.95 $3,154,229,855 6,670 $472,898.03
Richmond 86 89 2016 $0.77 $3,347,398,206 7,166 $467,122.27
Johnston 87 91 2011 $0.73 $17,129,796,946 37,027 $462,629.89
Duplin 88 88 2017 $0.66 $4,412,246,338 9,588 $460,184.22
Lenoir 89 85 2017 $0.86 $4,005,439,462 8,732 $458,708.14
Nash 90 87 2017 $0.67 $7,368,066,244 16,134 $456,679.45
Columbus 91 92 2013 $0.78 $3,911,931,014 8,636 $452,979.51
Cumberland 92 90 2017 $0.82 $22,504,185,672 50,701 $443,860.79
Wayne 93 93 2011 $0.66 $8,332,080,487 19,120 $435,778.27
Sampson 94 96 2011 $0.84 $4,550,727,015 11,161 $407,734.70
Harnett 95 95 2017 $0.77 $8,224,740,233 20,759 $396,201.18
Hoke 96 94 2014 $0.76 $3,488,626,673 9,020 $386,765.71
Scotland 97 97 2011 $1.06 $2,166,170,904 5,676 $381,636.88
Vance 98 99 2016 $0.87 $2,734,830,872 7,416 $368,774.39
Greene 99 98 2013 $0.79 $1,118,574,111 3,034 $368,679.67
Robeson 100 100 2010 $0.76 $6,694,331,060 22,567 $296,642.49
17
TABLE 2: ACTUAL EFFORT
This table reflects the actual dollar effort of communities to fund schools,without taking into account property wealth.This ranking is based on 2017-18 total current
spending for each county(including supplemental school taxes)divided by the number of students attending public school in the county.High-wealth communities with
corresponding high levels of spending tend to rank highest in this measure.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS 2017-18 CURRENT 2017-18 CURRENT 2017-18 SUPPLEMENTAL 2017-18 TOTAL 2017-18 2017-18 TOTAL
YEAR'S RANK SPENDING SPENDING PER ADM SCHOOL TAXES CURRENT SPENDING FINAL ADM CURRENT SPENDING
(WITH SUPPLEMENTAL) PER ADM
Orange 1 1 $84,073,145 $4,113 $23,362,157 $107,435,302 20,439 $5,256
Dare 2 2 $21,717,945 $4,274 $21,717,945 5,081 $4,274
Durham 3 3 $132,314,848 $3,376 $132,314,848 39,197 $3,376
Transylvania 4 4 $11,842,443 $3,195 $11,842,443 3,706 $3,195
Chatham 5 5 $31,266,303 $3,182 $31,266,303 9,827 $3,182
Hyde 6 7 $1,627,037 $2,849 $1,627,037 571 $2,849
Watauga 7 6 $13,156,954 $2,826 $13,156,954 4,655 $2,826
New Hanover 8 8 $75,141,652 $2,753 $75,141,652 27,299 $2,753
Buncombe 9 11 $73,340,681 $2,410 $8,928,186 $82,268,867 30,432 $2,703
Carteret 10 9 $21,990,118 $2,630 $21,990,118 8,360 $2,630
Mecklenburg 11 10 $426,444,699 $2,585 $426,444,699 164,967 $2,585
Guilford 12 13 $195,860,398 $2,513 $195,860,398 77,935 $2,513
Wake 13 14 $429,719,331 $2,509 $429,719,331 171,241 $2,509
Brunswick 14 15 $34,107,559 $2,497 $34,107,559 13,657 $2,497
Currituck 15 12 $9,976,717 $2,482 $9,976,717 4,020 $2,482
Avery 16 17 $4,641,552 $2,331 $4,641,552 1,991 $2,331
Polk 17 16 $5,129,788 $2,322 $5,129,788 2,209 $2,322
Moore 18 22 $28,764,418 $2,174 $28,764,418 13,232 $2,174
Forsyth 19 21 $122,871,771 $2,156 $122,871,771 56,981 $2,156
Warren 20 20 $4,948,003 $2,119 $4,948,003 2,335 $2,119
Beaufort 21 18 $14,587,005 $2,105 $14,587,005 6,931 $2,105
Pamlico 22 23 $3,048,746 $2,032 $3,048,746 1,500 $2,032
Union 23 19 $89,274,797 $2,000 $89,274,797 44,636 $2,000
Alleghany 24 24 $2,664,412 $1,982 $2,664,412 1,344 $1,982
Pasquotank 25 34 $11,164,000 $1,956 $11,164,000 5,709 $1,956
Cherokee 26 26 $6,546,803 $1,948 $6,546,803 3,361 $1,948
Haywood 27 25 $14,655,217 $1,938 $14,655,217 7,561 $1,938
Stokes 28 41 $11,110,594 $1,861 $11,110,594 5,969 $1,861
Rowan 29 30 $36,012,400 $1,852 $36,012,400 19,449 $1,852
Onslow 30 29 $48,829,997 $1,835 $48,829,997 26,615 $1,835
Scotland 31 28 $10,344,897 $1,823 $10,344,897 5,676 $1,823
Henderson 32 32 $25,513,001 $1,820 $25,513,001 14,017 $1,820
Gates 33 27 $2,946,500 $1,813 $2,946,500 1,625 $1,813
Davie 34 36 $10,967,848 $1,789 $10,967,848 6,132 $1,789
Cabarrus 35 33 $70,942,002 $1,785 $70,942,002 39,743 $1,785
Lee 36 37 $17,512,278 $1,775 $17,512,278 9,868 $1,775
Macon 37 31 $7,704,610 $1,758 $7,704,610 4,383 $1,758
Franklin 38 42 $16,365,283 $1,754 $16,365,283 9,329 $1,754
Chowan 39 35 $3,550,000 $1,744 $3,550,000 2,036 $1,744
Jones 40 43 $1,844,029 $1,725 $1,844,029 1,069 $1,725
Jackson 41 38 $6,866,476 $1,719 $6,866,476 3,994 $1,719
Perquimans 42 39 $2,775,000 $1,716 $2,775,000 1,617 $1,716
Alamance 43 45 $40,681,907 $1,691 $40,681,907 24,059 $1,691
Martin 44 58 $5,790,158 $1,673 $5,790,158 3,461 $1,673 -
Northampton 45 40 $3,500,000 $1,666 $3,500,000 2,101 $1,666
Iredell 46 44 $41,201,284 $1,407 $6,940,456 $48,141,740 29,290 $1,644
Johnston 47 47 $60,104,953 $1,623 $60,104,953 37,027 $1,623
Catawba 48 48 $37,911,067 $1,617 $37,911,067 23,440 $1,617
Lincoln 49 60 $18,270,288 $1,613 $18,270,288 11,329 $1,613 .
Ashe 50 50 $4,784,744 $1,601 $4,784,744 2,988 $1,601
Cumberland 51 49 $81,090,751 $1,599 $81,090,751 50,701 $1,599
Pitt 52 46 $38,970,807 $1,596 $38,970,807 24,424 $1,596
Granville 53 51 $14,004,385 $1,583 $14,004,385 8,848 $1,583
Hertford 54 53 $4,423,524 $1,576 $4,423,524 2,806 $1,576
Pander 55 54 $14,952,460 $1,576 $14,952,460 9,487 $1,576
Wilson 56 56 $20,456,543 $1,563 $20,456,543 13,090 $1,563
McDowell 57 61 $9,413,136 $1,561 $9,413,136 6,031 $1,561
Craven 58 52 $20,631,059 $1,484 $20,631,059 13,900 $1,484
Gaston 59 64 $47,751,704 $1,429 $47,751,704 33,422 $1,429
Nash 60 57 $22,508,581 $1,395 $463,164 $22,971,745 16,134 $1,424
Yancey 61 59 $3,087,574 $1,422 $3,087,574 2,172 $1,422
Camden 62 72 $2,600,000 $1,406 $2,600,000 1,849 $1,406
Cleveland 63 63 $10,200,000 $653 $11,760,316 $21,960,316 15,626 $1,405
Halifax 64 85 $5,202,249 $695 $5,048,153 $10,250,402 7,480 $1,370
Davidson 65 65 $30,728,164 $1,249 $2,978,001 $33,706,165 24,603 $1,370
Bladen 66 62 $6,560,576 $1,369 $6,560,576 4,793 $1,369
Wilkes 67 75 $12,786,320 $1,365 $12,786,320 9,368 $1,365
Anson 68 66 $4,510,357 $1,355 $4,510,357 3,329 $1,355
Person 69 67 $7,425,979 $1,343 $7,425,979 5,528 $1,343
Rutherford 70 55 $12,113,786 $1,331 $12,113,786 9,102 $1,331
Randolph 71 71 $23,880,914 $1,079 $5,576,951 $29,457,865 22,140 $1,331
Bertie 72 74 $3,003,000 $1,315 $3,003,000 2,284 $1,315
Caldwell 73 69 $14,809,121 $1,287 $14,809,121 11,503 $1,287
Montgomery 74 68 $5,224,000 $1,281 $5,224,000 4,079 $1,281
Surry 75 78 $12,262,110 $1,088 $1,966,487 $14,228,597 11,268 $1,263
Rockingham 76 73 $15,834,840 $1,261 $15,834,840 12,558 $1,261
Alexander 77 70 $6,071,900 $1,253 $6,071,900 4,847 $1,253
Sampson 78 82 $11,829,006 $1,060 $1,833,125 $13,662,131 11,161 $1,224
Burke 79 79 $14,981,050 $1,218 $14,981,050 12,300 $1,218
Yadkin 80 81 $6,355,824 $1,203 $6,355,824 5,283 $1,203
Stanly 81 76 $10,458,275 $1,201 $10,458,275 8,708 $1,201
Mitchell 82 77 $2,238,883 $1,199 $2,238,883 1,868 $1,199
Madison 83 80 $2,733,120 $1,192 $2,733,120 2,293 $1,192
Lenoir 84 83 $10,000,358 $1,145 $10,000,358 8,732 $1,145
Harnett 85 84 $23,350,891 $1,125 $241,725 $23,592,616 20,759 $1,137
Edgecombe 86 86 $7,451,618 $1,117 $7,451,618 6,670 $1,117
Richmond 87 88 $7,763,448 $1,083 $7,763,448 7,166 $1,083
Caswell 88 87 $2,955,000 $1,076 $2,955,000 2,747 $1,076
Washington 89 90 $1,603,000 $1,047 $1,603,000 1,531 $1,047
Wayne 90 89 $19,816,052 $1,036 $19,816,052 19,120 $1,036
Clay 91 92 $1,350,000 $1,036 $1,350,000 1,303 $1,036
Tyrrell 92 93 $582,595 $978 $582,595 596 $978
Vance 93 94 $6,894,148 $930 $6,894,148 7,416 $930
Duplin 94 91 $8,800,000 $918 $8,800,000 9,588 $918
Columbus 95 95 $7,471,391 $865 $7,471,391 8,636 $865
Graham 96 99 $869,769 $770 $869,769 1,130 $770
Greene 97 96 $2,317,000 $764 $2,317,000 3,034 $764
Robeson 98 98 $13,305,000 $590 $13,305,000 22,567 $590
Hoke 99 97 $4,824,884 $535 $4,824,884 9,020 $535
Swain 100 100 $877,215 $434 $877,215 2,022 $434
18
TABLE 2A: SIX-YEAR AVERAGE OF CAPITAL OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE
This table provides a six-year average of capital outlay and debt service,ordered according to the rankings from Table 2.In previous years'studies,this data was included in
Table 2.
COUNTY RANK 2017-18 TOTAL CURRENT SIX-YEAR CAPITAL SIX-YEAR CAPITAL DEBT 2017-18 FINAL ADM CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE
SPENDING PER ADM OUTLAY AVERAGE SERVICE AVERAGE SPENDING PER ADM PER ADM
Orange 1 $5,256 $10,843,430 $14,710,223 20,439 $530.53 $719.71
Dare 2 $4,274 $2,623,897 $7,637,891 5,081 $516.41 $1,503.23
Durham 3 $3,376 $16,361,700 $12,282,594 39,197 $417.42 $313.36
Transylvania 4 $3,195 $1,615,120 $1,810,592 3,706 $435.81 $488.56
Chatham 5 $3.182 $5,538,063 $4,643,425 9,827 $563.56 $472.52
Hyde 6 $2,849 $203,429 $221,476 571 $356.27 $387.87
Watauga 7 $2,826 $636,935 $6,155,284 4,655 $136.83 $1,322.30
New Hanover 8 $2,753 $18,049,332 $19,555,578 27,299 $661.17 $716.35
Buncombe 9 $2,703 $36,659,088 $15,607,327 30,432 $1,204.62 $512.86
Carteret 10 $2,630 $3,850,979 $6,518,986 8,360 $460.64 $779.78
Mecklenburg 11 $2,585 $93,892,446 $141,855,730 164,967 $569.16 $859.90
Guilford 12 $2,513 $42,425,624 $56,477,580 77,935 $544.37 $724.68
Wake 13 $2,509 $203,143,645 $184,438,369 171,241 $1,186.30 $1,077.07
Brunswick 14 $2,497 $6,627,455 $6,274,970 13,657 $485.28 $459.47
Currituck 15 $2,482 $1,280,247 $425,333 4,020 $318.47 $105.80
Avery 16 $2,331 $841,045 $1,139,268 1,991 $422.42 $572.21
Polk 17 $2,322 $488,345 $946,370 2,209 $221.07 $428.42
Moore 18 $2,174 $4,068,224 $5,165,512 13,232 $307.45 $390.38
Forsyth 19 $2,156 $20,196,236 $34,932,646 56,981 $354.44 $613.06
Warren 20 $2,119 $389,310 $95,939 2,335 $166.73 $41.09
Beaufort 21 $2,105 $1,246,587 $2,380,783 6,931 $179.86 $343.50
Pamlico 22 $2,032 $171,496 $376,122 1,500 $114.33 $250.75
Union 23 $2,000 $12,915,007 $42,026,818 44,636 $289.34 $941.55
Alleghany 24 $1,982 $625,688 $713,607 1,344 $465.54 $530.96
Pasquotank 25 $1,956 $1,382,312 $2,752,471 5,709 $242.13 $482.13
Cherokee 26 $1,948 $583,320 $706,940 3,361 $173.56 $210.34
Haywood 27 $1,938 $971,176 $2,066,516 7,561 $128.45 $273.31
Stokes 28 $1,861 $1,796,027 $3,449,522 5,969 $300.89 $577.91
Rowan 29 $1,852 $7,134,564 $8,709,144 19,449 $366.83 $447.79
Onslow 30 $1,835 $7,405,818 $9,293,326 26,615 $278.26 $349.18
Scotland 31 $1,823 $1,582,864 $804,844 5,676 $278.87 $141.80
Henderson 32 $1,820 $4,471,432 $5,951,279 14,017 $319.00 $424.58
Gates 33 $1,813 $240,190 $485,716 1,625 $147.81 $298.90
Davie 34 $1,789 $11,688,901 $4,352,502 6,132 $1,906.21 $709.80
Cabarrus 35 $1,785 $31,969,414 $30,220,486 39,743 $804.40 $760.40
Lee 36 $1,775 $1,966,825 $6,842,628 9,868 $199.31 $693.42
Macon 37 $1,758 $1,675,520 $4,091,079 4,383 $382.28 $933.40
Franklin 38 $1,754 $1,792,486 $9,187,580 9,329 $192.14 $984.84
Chowan 39 $1,744 $405,243 $538,928 2,036 $199.04 $264.70
Jones 40 $1,725 $2,755,356 $91,915 1,069 $2,577.51 $85.98
Jackson 41 $1,719 $4,250,496 $1,941,248 3,994 $1,064.22 $486.04
Perquimans 42 $1,716 $398,696 $780,555 1,617 $246.57 $482.72
. Alamance 43 $1,691 $1,094,440 $5,764,529 24,059 $45.49 $239.60
Martin 44 $1,673 $753,283 $1,017,584 3,461 $217.65 $294.01
Northampton 45 $1,666 $430,243 $685,242 2,101 $204.78 $326.15
Iredell 46 $1,644 $18,561,036 $25,085,712 29,290 $633.70 $856.46
Johnston 47 $1,623 $14,112,674 $31,661,350 37,027 $381.15 $855.09
Catawba 48 $1,617 $10,891,466 $11,102,409 23,440 $464.65 $473.65
Lincoln 49 $1,613 $3,288,271 $7,507,536 11,329 $290.25 $662.68
Ashe 50 $1,601 $848,687 $1,488,528 2,988 $284.03 $498.17
Cumberland 51 $1,599 $8,253,696 $8,462,803 50,701 $162.79 $166.92
Pitt 52 $1,596 $1,178,230 $8,415,292 24,424 $48.24 $344.55
Granville 53 $1,583 $3,529,217 $5,263,284 8,848 $398.87 $594.86
Hertford 54 $1,576 $719,908 $0 2,806 $256.56 $0.00
Pender 55 $1,576 $6,989,017 $4,916,952 9,487 $736.69 $518.28
Wilson 56 $1,563 $1,933,362 $3,031,816 13,090 $147.70 $231.61
McDowell 57 $1,561 $2,786,584 $1,029,737 6,031 $462.04 $170.74
Craven 58 $1,484 $1,147,375 $4,515,595 13,900 $82.54 $324.86
Gaston 59 $1,429 $16,911,477 $25,239,346 33,422 $506.00 $755.17
Nash 60 $1,424 $2,315,038 $1,987,172 16,134 $143.49 $123.17
Yancey 61 $1,422 $463,163 $0 2,172 $213.24 $0.00
Camden 62 $1,406 $124,370 $674,597 1,849 $67.26 $364.84
Cleveland 63 $1,405 $2,746,936 $1,824,466 15,626 $175.79 $116.76
Halifax 64 $1,370 $2,504,779 $2,049,338 7,480 $334.86 $273.98
Davidson 65 $1,370 $12,669,011 $8,611,525 24,603 $514.94 $350.02
Bladen 66 $1,369 $409,030 $1,631,989 4,793 $85.34 $340.49
Wilkes 67 $1,365 $2,206,073 $3,600,897 9,368 $235.49 $384.38
Anson 68 $1,355 $509,461 $61,807 3,329 $153.04 $18.57
Person 69 $1,343 $1,817,789 $1,792,707 5,528 $328.83 $324.30
Rutherford 70 $1,331 $756,590 $3,962,506 9,102 $83.12 $435.34
Randolph 71 $1,331 $4,034,128 $9,600,485 22,140 $182.21 $433.63
Bertie 72 $1,315 $533,731 $1,139,894 2,284 $233.68 $499.08
Caldwell 73 $1,287 $2,598,732 $1,392,695 11,503 $225.92 $121.07
Montgomery 74 $1,281 $2,592,879 $1,316,570 4,079 $635.67 $322.77
Surry 75 $1,263 $2,118,783 $4,725,903 11,268 $188.04 $419.41
Rockingham 76 $1,261 $1,417,570 $3,265,816 12,558 $112.88 $260.06
Alexander 77 $1,253 $427,828 $995,997 4,847 $88.27 $205.49
Sampson 78 $1,224 $3,342,623 $4,335,700 11,161 $299.49 $388.47
Burke 79 $1,218 $5,364,321 $3,860,235 12,300 $436.12 $313.84
Yadkin 80 $1,203 $496,722 $1,917,477 5,283 $94.02 $362.95
Stanly 81 $1,201 $2,243,707 $1,673,788 8,708 $257.66 $192.21
Mitchell 82 $1,199 $548,786 $142,857 1,868 $293.78 $76.48
Madison 83 $1,192 $1,459,289 $268,552 2,293 $636.41 $117.12
Lenoir 84 $1,145 $981,115 $2,774,087 8,732 $112.36 $317.69
Harnett 85 $1,137 $10,531,465 $9,156,486 20,759 $507.32 $441.09
Edgecombe 86 $1,117 $739,113 $867,497 6,670 $110.81 $130.06
Richmond 87 $1,083 $2,373,045 $980,519 7,166 $331.15 $136.83
Caswell 88 $1,076 $355,000 $275,058 2,747 $129.23 $100.13
Washington 89 $1,047 $428,192 $0 1,531 $279.68 $0.00
Wayne 90 $1,036 $12,951,667 $2,307,172 19,120 $677.39 $120.67
Clay 91 $1,036 $314,128 $97,674 1,303 $241.08 $74.96
Tyrrell 92 $978 $86,655 $125,366 596 $145.39 $210.35
Vance 93 $930 $1,693,467 $1,481,780 7,416 $228.35 $199.81
Duplin 94 $918 $19,194,073 $1,946,882 9,588 $2,001.88 $203.05
Columbus 95 $865 $2,794,826 $446,669 8,636 $323.63 $51.72
Graham 96 $770 $33,378 $374,940 1,130 $29.54 $331.80
Greene 97 $764 $778,320 $551,562 3,034 $256.53 $181.79
Robeson 98 $590 $3,910,817 $164,553 22,567 $173.30 $7.29
Hoke 99 $535 $843,026 $1,816,456 9,020 $93.46 $201.38
Swain 100 $434 $246,216 $914,545 2,022 $121.77 $452.30
19
TABLE 3: ACTUAL EFFORT WITH SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR LOW-WEALTH AND SMALL COUNTIES
This table uses many of the same figures as Table 2,but adds state supplemental funding for low-wealth and small counties to the total current spending.Counties are
ranked based on their total current spending combined with low-wealth and small county supplemental funding.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS 2017-18 2017-18 2017-18 20 -18 SMALL 2017-18 TOTAL 2017-18 2017-18 TOTAL CHANGE IN
YEAR'S TOTAL CURRENT TOTAL CURRENT LOW-WEALTH COUNTY FUNDING CURRENT SPENDING FINAL ADM CURRENT SPENDING SPENDING
RANK SPENDING SPENDING FUNDING W/LOW WEALTH& PER ADM W/LOW WEALTH PER ADM
PER ADM SMALL COUNTY &SMALL COUNTY/ADM
Hyde 1 1 $1,627,037.00 $2,849 $1,820,000 $3,447,037.00 571 $6,037 $3,187
Orange 2 2 $107,435,302.00 $5,256 $107,435,302.00 20,439 $5,256 $0
Tyrrell 3 4 $582,595.00 $978 $221,369 $1,820,000 $2,623,964.00 596 $4,403 $3,425
Dare 4 3 $21,717,945.00 $4,274 $21,717,945.00 5,081 $4,274 $0
Jones 5 5 $1,844,029.00 $1,725 $166,411 $1,820,000 $3,830,440.00 1,069 $3,583 $1,858
Durham 6 7 $132,314,848.00 $3,376 $132,314,848.00 39,197 $3,376 $0
Pamlico 7 11 $3,048,746.00 $2,032 $1,820,000 $4,868,746.00 1,500 $3,246 $1,213
Gates 8 6 $2,946,500.00 $1,813 $755,157 $1,548,700 $5,250,357.00 1,625 $3,231 $1,418
Transylvania 9 8 $11,842,443.00 $3,195 $11,842,443.00 3,706 $3,195 $0
Chatham 10 9 $31,266,303.00 $3,182 $31,266,303.00 9,827 $3,182 $o
Alleghany 11 10 $2,664,412.00 $1,982 $1,548,700 $4,213,112.00 1,344 $3,135 $1,152
Avery 12 13 $4,641,552.00 $2,331 $1,560,000 $6,201,552.00 1,991 $3,115 $784
Polk 13 12 $5,129,788.00 $2,322 $1,560,000 $6,689,788.00 2,209 $3,028 $706
Warren 14 15 $4,948,003.00 $2,119 $255,332 $1,560,000 $6,763,335.00 2,335 $2,897 $777
Watauga 15 14 $13,156,954.00 $2,826 $13,156,954.00 4,655 $2,826 $o
Northampton 16 16 $3,500,000.00 $1,666 $817,791 $1,600,000 $5,917,791.00 2,101 $2,817 $1,151
New Hanover 17 17 $75,141,652.00 $2,753 $75,141,652.00 27,299 $2,753 $0
Buncombe 18 23 $82,268,867.00 $2,703 $82,268,867.00 30,432 $2,703 $0
Chowan 19 20 $3,550,000.00 $1,744 $381,799 $1,560,000 $5,491,799.00 2,036 $2,697 $954
Perquimans 20 18 $2,775,000.00 $1,716 $1,548,700 $4,323,700.00 1,617 $2,674 $958
Carteret 21 19 $21,990,118.00 $2,630 $21,990,118.00 8,360 $2,630 $0
Hertford 22 21 $4,423,524.00 $1,576 $1,382,838 $1,548,000 $7,354,362.00 2,806 $2,621 $1,044
Mecklenburg 23 22 $426,444,699.00 $2,585 $426,444,699.00 164,967 $2,585 $0
Guilford 24 26 $195,860,398.00 $2,513 $195,860,398.00 77,935 $2,513 $0
Wake 25 27 $429,719,331.00 $2,509 $429,719,331.00 171,241 $2,509 $0
Brunswick 26 28 $34,107,559.00 $2,497 $34,107,559.00 13,657 $2,497 $0
Bertie 27 30 $3,003,000.00 $1,315 $1,131,104 $1,560,000 $5,694,104.00 2,284 $2,493 $1,178
Camden 28 31 $2,600,000.00 $1,406 $407,104 $1,600,000 $4,607,104.00 1,849 $2,492 $1,086
Martin 29 47 $5,790,158.00 $1,673 $1,270,994 $1,548,000 $8,609,152.00 3,461 $2,487 $815
Currituck 30 24 $9,976,717.00 $2,482 $9,976,717.00 4,020 $2,482 $0
Scotland 31 25 $10,344,897.00 $1,823 $3,602,387 $13,947,284.00 5,676 $2,457 $635
Graham 32 36 $869,769.00 $770 $76,060 $1,820,000 $2,765,829.00 1,130 $2,448 $1,678
Washington 33 29 $1,603,000.00 $1,047 $562,957 $1,548,700 $3,714,657.00 1,531 $2,426 $1,379
Pasquotank 34 42 $11,164,000.00 $1,956 $1,810,538 $12,974,538.00 5,709 $2,273 $317
Clay 35 32 $1,350,000.00 $1,036 $1,548,700 $2,898,700.00 1,303 $2,225 $1,189
Beaufort 36 35 $14,587,005.00 $2,105 $815,672 $15,402,677.00 6,931 $2,222 $118
Stokes 37 43 $11,110,594.00 $1,861 $2,096,674 $13,207,268.00 5,969 $2,213 $351
Moore 38 48 $28,764,418.00 $2,174 $28,764,418.00 13,232 $2,174 $0
Forsyth 39 46 $122,871,771.00 $2,156 $122,871,771.00 56,981 $2,156 $0
Yancey 40 33 $3,087,574.00 $1,422 $1,560,000 $4,647,574.00 2,172 $2,140 $718
Franklin 41 45 $16,365,283.00 $1,754 $3,538,655 $19,903,938.00 9,329 $2,134 $379
Ashe 42 38 $4,784,744.00 $1,601 $1,548,000 $6,332,744.00 2,988 $2,119 $518
Cherokee 43 39 $6,546,803.00 $1,948 $570,698 $7,117,501.00 3,361 $2,118 $170
Rowan 44 40 $36,012,400.00 $1,852 $4,781,978 $40,794,378.00 19,449 $2,098 $246
Mitchell 45 34 $2,238,883.00 $1,199 $35,180 $1,600,000 $3,874,063.00 1,868 $2,074 $875
Caswell 46 44 $2,955,000.00 $1,076 $1,170,324 $1,498,000 $5,623,324.00 2,747 $2,047 $971
Lee 47 53 $17,512,278.00 $1,775 $2,479,810 $19,992,088.00 9,868 $2,026 $251
Granville 48 49 $14,004,385.00 $1,583 $3,833,889 $17,838,274.00 8,848 $2,016 $433
Union 49 41 $89,274,797.00 $2,000 $89,274,797.00 44,636 $2,000 $0
Greene s0 50 $2,317,000.00 $764 $2,160,375 $1,548,000 $6,025,375.00 3,034 $1,986 $1,222
Anson 51 37 $4,510,357.00 $1,355 $1,757,683 $323,221 $6,591,261.00 3,329 $1,980 $625 .
Johnston 52 52 $60,104,953.00 $1,623 $12,997,732 $73,102,685.00 37,027 $1,974 $351
Haywood 53 51 $14,655,217.00 $1,938 $14,655,217.00 7,561 $1,938 $0
McDowell 54 60 $9,413,136.00 $1,561 $2,212,987 $11,626,123.00 6,031 $1,928 $367
Madison 55 54 $2,733,120.00 $1,192 $149,099 $1,470,000 $4,352,219.00 2,293 $1,898 $706
Onslow 56 55 $48,829,997.00 $1,835 $1,100,023 $49,930,020.00 26,615 $1,876 $41
Alamance 57 62 $40,681,907.00 $1,691 $3,935,782 $44,617,689.00 24,059 $1,855 $164
Pender 58 57 $14,952,460.00 $1,576 $2,628,775 $17,581,235.00 9,487 $1,853 $277
Pitt 59 56 $38,970,807.00 $1,596 $6,086,784 $45,057,591.00 24,424 $1,845 $249
Henderson 60 64 $25,513,001.00 $1,820 $25,513,001.00 14,017 $1,820 $0
Wilson 61 67 $20,456,543.00 $1,563 $3,334,690 $23,791,233.00 13,090 $1,818 $255
Davie 62 66 $10,967,848.00 $1,789 $86,327 $11,054,175.00 6,132 $1,803 $14
Cabarrus 63 63 $70,942,002.00 $1,785 $312,395 $71,254,397.00 39,743 $1,793 $8
Cumberland 64 70 $81,090,751.00 $1,599 $8,829,321 $89,920,072.00 50,701 $1,774 $174
Macon 65 59 $7,704,610.00 $1,758 $7,704,610.00 4,383 $1,758 $0
Nash 66 65 $22,971,745.00 $1,424 $5,308,349 $28,280,094.00 16,134 $1,753 $329
Bladen 67 61 $6,560,576.00 $1,369 $1,819,639 $8,380,215.00 4,793 $1,748 $380
Sampson 68 71 $13,662,131.00 $1,224 $5,818,246 $19,480,377.00 11,161 $1,745 $521
Jackson 69 69 $6,866,476.00 $1,719 $6,866,476.00 3,994 $1,719 $0
Cleveland 70 68 $21,960,316.00 $1,405 $4,885,526 $26,845,842.00 15,626 $1,718 $313
Halifax 71 96 $10,250,402.00 $1,370 $2,499,108 $12,749,510.00 7,480 $1,704 $334
Randolph 72 73 $29,457,865.00 $1,331 $8,218,282 $37,676,147.00 22,140 $1,702 $371
Harnett 73 75 $23,592,616.00 $1,137 $11,711,947 $35,304,563.00 20,759 $1,701 $564
Richmond 74 77 $7,763,448.00 $1,083 $4,208,616 $11,972,064.00 7,166 $1,671 $587
Caldwell 75 72 $14,809,121.00 $1,287 $4,372,640 $19,181,761.00 11,503 $1,668 $380
Wilkes 76 87 $12,786,320.00 $1,365 $2,789,001 $15,575,321.00 9,368 $1,663 $298
Burke 77 81 $14,981,050.00 $1,218 $5,402,762 $20,383,812.00 12,300 $1,657 $439
Alexander 78 74 $6,071,900.00 $1,253 $1,946,118 $8,018,018.00 4,847 $1,654 $402
Iredell 79 76 $48,141,740.00 $1,644 $48,141,740.00 29,290 $1,644 $0
Rutherford 80 58 $12,113,786.00 $1,331 $2,805,575 $14,919,361.00 9,102 $1,639 $308
Lincoln 81 92 $18,270,288.00 $1,613 $216,746 $18,487,034.00 11,329 $1,632 $19
Catawba 82 82 $37,911,067.00 $1,617 $37,911,067.00 23,440 $1,617 $0
Rockingham 83 79 $15,834,840.00 $1,261 $4,401,745 $20,236,585.00 12,558 $1,611 $351
Edgecombe 84 88 $7,451,618.00 $1,117 $3,211,945 $10,663,563.00 6,670 $1,599 $482
Yadkin 85 85 $6,355,824.00 $1,203 $2,015,932 $8,371,756.00 5,283 $1,585 $382
Davidson 86 83 $33,706,165.00 $1,370 $4,946,275 $38,652,440.00 24,603 $1,571 $201
Craven 87 78 $20,631,059.00 $1,484 $1,097,937 $21,728,996.00 13,900 $1,563 $79
Surry 88 86 $14,228,597.00 $1,263 $3,344,429 $17,573,026.00 11,268 $1,560 $297
Gaston 89 90 $47,751,704.00 $1,429 $3,576,423 $51,328,127.00 33,422 $1,536 $107
Stanly 90 84 $10,458,275.00 $1,201 $2,738,179 $13,196,454.00 8,708 $1,515 $314
Lenoir 91 91 $10,000,358.00 $1,145 $3,000,382 $13,000,740.00 8,732 $1,489 $344
Montgomery 92 80 $5,224,000.00 $1,281 $814,313 $6,038,313.00 4,079 $1,480 $200
Duplin 93 89 $8,800,000.00 $918 $5,139,191 $13,939,191.00 9,588 $1,454 $536
Person 94 93 $7,425,979.00 $1,343 $605,352 $8,031,331.00 5,528 $1,453 $110
Columbus 95 95 $7,471,391.00 $865 $4,886,796 $12,358,187.00 8,636 $1,431 $566
Vance 96 94 $6,894,148.00 $930 $3,648,118 $10,542,266.00 7,416 $1,422 $492
Wayne 97 97 $19,816,052.00 $1,036 $6,965,757 $26,781,809.00 19,120 $1,401 $364
Robeson 98 98 $13,305,000.00 $590 $17,753,219 $31,058,219.00 22,567 $1,376 $787
Swain 99 99 $877,215.00 $434 $157,834 $1,600,000 $2,635,049.00 2,022 $1,303 $869
Hoke 100 100 $4,824,884.00 $535 $5,184,933 $10,009,817.00 9,020 $1,110 $575
20 TABLE 4: ABILITY TO PAY
This is a measure of a county's per student fiscal capacity to support public schools.It is a combined measure of revenue that would have been generated at the state
average tax rate based on 2017-18 property valuations per student(adjusted to reflect current market prices and to account for differences in income levels)and the value
of non-property tax revenues.Each county's mandated social services payments were also subtracted from total adjusted revenues.Large,urban counties combining high
adjusted property valuations with broad-based economic activity and high per capita incomes tend to rank highest on this measure.
COUNTY RANK PREVIOUS 2017-18 2017-18 ADJUSTED 2017-18 2017-18 2017-18 TOTAL 2017 PER PERCENT 2017-18 INCOME 2017-18 2017-18
YEAR'S ADJUSTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE NON-PROPERTY MANDATED REVENUES LESS CAPITA OF STATE ADJUSTED ADM REVENUE
RANK TAX BASE (BASED ON STATE AVG. TAX REVENUE SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME** AVERAGE TOTAL PER ADM
EFFECTIVE PROPERTY PAYMENTS* PAYMENTS PER CAPITA REVENUES
TAX RATE OF$0.666) INCOME
Dare 1 1 $14,393,541,400 $95,860,985.72 $35,196,433.04 $5,892,414.43 $125,165,004 $53,415 120.8% $151,184,675 5,081 $29,754.91
Carteret 2 2 $14,959,234,187 $99,628,499.69 $27,377,127.97 $5,184,502.92 $121,821,125 $47,871 108.3% $131,873,255 8,360 $15,774.31
Brunswick 3 4 $25,419,693,406 $169,295,158.08 $41,043,653.56 $7,462,166.23 $202,876,645 $41,092 92.9% $188,517,189 13,657 $13,803.70
Watauga 4 3 $9,130,356,481 $60,808,174.16 $20,299,837.63 $2,434,849.57 $78,673,162 $35,542 80.4% $63,231,006 4,655 $13,583.46
Currituck 5 5 $6,680,415,594 $44,491,567.86 $11,866,904.20 $2,405,766.78 $53,952,705 $44,149 99.8% $53,863,642 4,020 $13,398.92
Avery 6 8 $4,101,625,819 $27,316,827.95 $6,401,545.95 $1,466,851.24 $32,251,523 $34,885 78.9% $25,441,960 1,991 $12,778.48
Jackson 7 7 $9,116,952,541 $60,718,903.92 $13,341,823.08 $3,372,889.38 $70,687,838 $31,782 71.9% $50,802,787 3,994 $12,719.78
Macon 8 9 $7,857,374,739 $52,330,115.76 $12,571,640.76 $1,913,412.01 $62,988,345 $38,516 87.1% $54,860,908 4,383 $12,516.75
New Hanover 9 10 $35,834,861,845 $238,660,179.89 $109,886,014.53 $19,094,753.15 $329,451,441 $44,236 100.0% $329,555,740 27,299 $12,072.08
Buncombe 10 13 $38,444,763,833 $256,042,127.13 $122,847,872.29 $34,616,463.06 $344,273,536 $46,102 104.3% $358,909,560 30,432 $11,793.82
Chatham 11 11 $10,753,115,946 $71,615,752.20 $15,283,951.98 $3,991,075.56 $82,908,629 $60,127 136.0% $112,727,762 9,827 $11,471.23
Hyde 12 6 $938,991,523 $6,253,683.54 $1,472,587.66 $838,408.29 $6,887,863 $41,283 93.4% $6,430,095 571 $11,261.11
Transylvania 13 12 $5,974,061,593 $39,787,250.21 $8,455,689.50 $2,494,518.62 $45,748,421 $40,264 91.0% $41,653,802 3,706 $11,239.56
Mecklenburg 14 14 $145,896,975,513 $971,673,856.92 $529,889,295.80 $82,041,617.71 $1,419,521,535 $57,368 129.7% $1,841,506,748 164,967 $11,162.88
Durham 15 16 $38,275,728,091 $254,916,349.09 $168,955,213.98 $28,609,807.00 $395,261,756 $47,825 108.1% $427,465,820 39,197 $10,905.57
Orange 16 15 $18,339,633,594 $122,141,959.74 $45,242,325.87 $12,112,223.39 $155,272,062 $62,202 140.7% $218,403,347 20,439 $10,685.62
Wake 17 17 $151,449,278,168 $1,008,652,192.60 $448,784,536.68 $49,216,011.86 $1,408,220,717 $56,162 127.0% $1,788,442,222 171,241 $10,444.01
Polk 18 18 $2,901,879,727 $19,326,518.98 $3,809,533.49 $1,387,490.42 $21,748,562 $43,278 97.9% $21,284,299 2,209 $9,635.26
Moore 19 19 $12,483,574,030 $83,140,603.04 $29,787,599.73 $4,357,166.05 $108,571,037 $49,286 111.5% $121,003,847 13,232 $9,144.79
Pamlico 20 20 $1,773,362,142 $11,810,591.87 $2,503,735.56 $1,311,724.35 $13,002,603 $40,637 91.9% $11,948,505 1,500 $7,965.67
Ashe 21 22 $3,935,667,300 $26,211,544.22 $6,797,049.60 $3,736,504.48 $29,272,089 $35,707 80.7% $23,635,713 2,988 $7,910.21
Alleghany 22 21 $1,665,539,080 $11,092,490.27 $2,079,079.68 $952,801.74 $12,218,768 $37,836 85.6% $10,454,283 1,344 $7,778.48
Henderson 23 24 $14,101,725,470 $93,917,491.63 $30,815,202.29 $9,080,166.17 $115,652,528 $41,179 93.1% $107,694,257 14,017 $7,683.12
Iredell 24 25 $23,292,179,130 $155,125,913.01 $57,261,736.70 $11,066,410.22 $201,321,239 $48,606 109.9% $221,279,457 29,290 $7,554.78
Haywood 25 23 $7,501,221,160 $49,958,132.93 $19,462,206.62 $6,477,268.10 $62,943,071 $38,873 87.9% $55,329,610 7,561 $7,317.76
Perquimans 26 32 $1,818,925,498 $12,114,043.82 $1,722,951.73 $767,068.94 $13,069,927 $39,512 89.3% $11,677,874 1,617 $7,221.94
Clay 27 26 $1,720,409,244 $11,457,925.57 $1,992,058.26 $1,238,499.80 $12,211,484 $32,610 73.7% $9,004,941 1,303 $6,910.93
Lincoln 28 33 $9,475,477,557 $63,106,680.53 $19,701,659.90 $4,906,758.71 $77,901,582 $43,453 98.3% $76,546,909 11,329 $6,756.72
Catawba 29 30 $16,768,953,650 $111,681,231.31 $58,298,725.67 $17,382,885.61 $152,597,071 $43,651 98.7% $150,626,719 23,440 $6,426.05
Guilford 30 28 $51,365,660,202 $342,095,296.95 $175,015,648.22 $32,182,765.11 $484,928,180 $45,034 101.8% $493,832,383 77,935 $6,336.46
Forsyth 31 29 $36,074,045,892 $240,253,145.64 $122,539,004.69 $22,279,141.86 $340,513,008 $46,888 106.0% $361,041,426 56,981 $6,336.17
Yancey 32 27 $2,415,649,769 $16,088,227.46 $3,344,806.05 $1,826,598.91 $17,606,435 $34,449 77.9% $13,715,437 2,172 $6,314.66
Davie 33 31 $4,602,693,935 $30,653,941.61 $8,335,979.42 $2,307,848.60 $36,682,072 $45,625 103.2% $37,845,858 6,132 $6,171.86
Beaufort 34 34 $5,659,498,795 $37,692,261.97 $12,179,612.78 $4,965,892.94 $44,905,982 $40,926 92.5% $41,559,003 6,931 $5,996.10
Cherokee 35 41 $3,216,545,602 $21,422,193.71 $8,228,680.12 $2,808,303.57 $26,842,570 $31,207 70.6% $18,942,519 3,361 $5,635.98
Cabarrus 36 39 $23,175,183,578 $154,346,722.63 $80,377,964.42 $12,353,512.14 $222,371,175 $43,920 99.3% $220,852,562 39,743 $5,557.02
Madison 37 36 $2,482,750,934 $16,535,121.22 $2,907,067.63 $2,163,118.51 $17,279,070 $32,453 73.4% $12,680,514 2,293 $5,530.10
Craven 38 35 $9,397,105,724 $62,584,724.12 $24,721,347.56 $7,307,521.19 $79,998,550 $42,367 95.8% $76,642,816 13,900 $5,513.87
Graham 39 43 $1,152,570,736 $7,676,121.10 $1,809,000.32 $730,612.38 $8,754,509 $31,087 70.3% $6,154,209 1,130 $5,446.20
Swain 40 38 $1,611,940,678 $10,735,524.92 $3,824,991.91 $1,492,833.43 $13,067,683 $37,110 83.9% $10,966,074 2,022 $5,423.38
Union 41 44 $26,009,243,675 $173,221,562.88 $50,896,995.55 $13,678,691.88 $210,439,867 $49,648 112.3% $236,260,651 44,636 $5,293.05
Person 42 42 $4,557,278,009 $30,351,471.54 $8,622,955.08 $4,046,355.48 $34,928,071 $36,722 83.0% $29,004,311 5,528 $5,246.80
Jones 43 48 $882,457,108 $5,877,164.34 $1,281,864.37 $1,002,042.03 $6,156,987 $38,924 88.0% $5,419,351 1,069 $5,069.55
Alamance 44 45 $13,442,402,461 $89,526,400.39 $58,528,796.13 $9,396,463.18 $138,658,733 $38,839 87.8% $121,780,257 24,059 $5,061.73
Chowan 45 47 $1,457,650,253 $9,707,950.68 $3,043,320.92 $1,131,436.31 $11,619,835 $39,125 88.5% $10,280,540 2,036 $5,049.38
Onslow 46 37 $13,930,355,825 $92,776,169.79 $51,933,066.91 $13,100,328.64 $131,608,908 $44,972 101.7% $133,840,980 26,615 $5,028.78
Warren 47 40 $2,197,234,145 $14,633,579.41 $5,042,419.69 $2,239,968.29 $17,436,031 $29,453 66.6% $11,612,849 2,335 $4,973.38
Northampton 48 54 $2,049,707,025 $13,651,048.79 $2,713,759.89 $2,652,318.84 $13,712,490 $33,205 75.1% $10,296,306 2,101 $4,900.67
Pender 49 49 $7,357,495,848 $49,000,922.35 $12,388,319.06 $4,674,152.00 $56,715,089 $35,619 80.5% $45,681,669 9,487 $4,815.19
Pitt 50 50 $12,789,233,297 $85,176,293.76 $54,988,229.44 $12,050,290.21 $128,114,233 $39,900 90.2% $115,593,096 24,424 $4,732.77
Rowan 51 52 $12,357,526,955 $82,301,129.52 $34,828,310.36 $8,158,667.89 $108,970,772 $36,994 83.7% $91,159,711 19,449 $4,687.12
Mitchell 52 46 $1,717,765,794 $11,440,320.19 $3,693,858.82 $3,890,193.48 $11,243,986 $34,415 77.8% $8,750,436 1,868 $4,684.39
Montgomery 53 51 $3,183,944,686 $21,205,071.61 $5,648,264.05 $1,774,758.06 $25,078,578 $33,662 76.1% $19,089,934 4,079 $4,680.05
Lee 54 53 $5,404,452,922 $35,993,656.46 $19,780,457.31 $3,788,852.13 $51,985,262 $38,638 87.4% $45,420,979 9,868 $4,602.86
Pasquotank 55 56 $3,308,718,453 $22,036,064.90 $11,451,616.00 $3,447,945.09 $30,039,736 $38,174 86.3% $25,931,366 5,709 $4,542.19
Stanly 56 55 $4,992,410,855 $33,249,456.29 $15,113,209.49 $3,383,636.55 $44,979,029 $37,989 85.9% $38,639,328 8,708 $4,437.22
Camden 57 58 $1,102,404,606 $7,342,014.68 $1,329,177.62 $559,978.42 $8,111,214 $44,290 100.2% $8,123,686 1,849 $4,393.56
Surry 58 57 $5,770,895,462 $38,434,163.78 $23,159,632.01 $4,098,614.72 $57,495,181 $37,856 85.6% $49,218,434 11,268 $4,367.98
Wilkes 59 60 $5,720,121,038 $38,096,006.11 $16,649,157.35 $5,889,961.41 $48,855,202 $35,736 80.8% $39,480,112 9,368 $4,214.36
Washington 60 79 $911,978,386 $6,073,776.05 $3,723,784.76 $1,733,413.98 $8,064,147 $35,133 79.4% $6,406,713 1,531 $4,184.66
Davidson 61 59 $14,063,315,314 $93,661,679.99 $34,137,174.01 $7,768,041.17 $120,030,813 $37,913 85.7% $102,906,431 24,603 $4,182.68
Wilson 62 62 $6,709,285,891 $44,683,844.03 $24,124,394.36 $8,163,442.76 $60,644,796 $39,301 88.9% $53,896,276 13,090 $4,117.36
Stokes 63 63 $3,936,976,264 $26,220,261.92 $6,948,946.86 $2,786,295.45 $30,382,913 $35,584 80.5% $24,448,139 5,969 $4,095.85
Rutherford 64 61 $6,198,217,986 $41,280,131.79 $15,146,267.29 $4,794,821.15 $51,631,578 $31,572 71.4% $36,862,018 9,102 $4,049.88
Nash 65 64 $7,368,066,244 $49,071,321.19 $26,808,686.78 $5,980,584.31 $69,899,424 $40,299 91.1% $63,698,541 16,134 $3,948.09
Gaston 66 66 $16,532,084,071 $110,103,679.91 $54,723,175.80 $18,838,428.51 $145,988,427 $39,578 89.5% $130,657,364 33,422 $3,909.32
Rockingham 67 65 $7,202,838,598 $47,970,905.06 $18,045,469.55 $6,335,168.59 $59,681,206 $36,323 82.1% $49,020,859 12,558 $3,903.56
Cleveland 68 68 $8,627,902,280 $57,461,829.18 $24,173,599.57 $9,167,672.27 $72,467,756 $36,281 82.0% $59,454,631 15,626 $3,804.85
Lenoir 69 72 $4,005,439,462 $26,676,226.82 $14,398,230.92 $4,672,261.01 $36,402,197 $39,636 89.6% $32,627,142 8,732 $3,736.50
Caldwell 70 70 $6,934,481,966 $46,183,649.89 $15,578,707.42 $5,589,098.27 $56,173,259 $33,815 76.5% $42,953,705 11,503 $3,734.13
McDowell 71 69 $3,813,248,890 $25,396,237.61 $9,040,663.06 $4,063,977.09 $30,372,924 $32,673 73.9% $22,440,743 6,031 $3,720.90
Cumberland 72 67 $22,504,185,672 $149,877,876.58 $101,841,145.75 $29,895,116.79 $221,823,906 $37,406 84.6% $187,633,870 50,701 $3,700.79
Yadkin 73 71 $2,973,458,614 $19,803,234.37 $6,522,904.27 $2,622,437.16 $23,703,701 $36,233 81.9% $19,421,469 5,283 $3,676.22
Randolph 74 73 $11,213,540,408 $74,682,179.12 $31,324,306.61 $7,319,256.13 $98,687,230 $36,339 82.2% $81,095,275 22,140 $3,662.84
Martin 75 75 $1,917,151,658 $12,768,230.04 $5,669,624.64 $2,202,846.64 $16,235,008 $34,415 77.8% $12,634,612 3,461 $3,650.57
Burke 76 74 $6,827,563,122 $45,471,570.39 $18,128,531.37 $6,515,278.24 $57,084,824 $34,304 77.6% $44,281,982 12,300 $3,600.16
Anson 77 84 $1,889,585,869 $12,584,641.89 $4,368,437.30 $1,753,535.32 $15,199,544 $33,379 75.5% $11,472,696 3,329 $3,446.29
Johnston 78 80 $17,129,796,946 $114,084,447.66 $45,054,515.68 $12,906,555.64 $146,232,408 $38,278 86.6% $126,576,910 37,027 $3,418.50
Hertford 79 85 $1,476,160,860 $9,831,231.33 $5,701,014.11 $2,395,204.94 $13,137,040 $32,102 72.6% $9,536,549 2,806 $3,398.63
Alexander 80 81 $2,683,228,416 $17,870,301.25 $5,612,004.25 $3,158,713.17 $20,323,592 $35,839 81.0% $16,470,925 4,847 $3,398.17
Franklin 81 83 $5,181,608,294 $34,509,511.24 $10,836,305.34 $4,478,143.15 $40,867,673 $34,302 77.6% $31,700,125 9,329 $3,398.02
Wayne 82 77 $8,332,080,487 $55,491,656.04 $28,938,291.67 $7,189,237.10 $77,240,711 $37,126 84.0% $64,846,425 19,120 $3,391.55
Bladen 83 78 $2,788,920,528 $18,574,210.72 $5,840,675.43 $3,644,707.41 $20,770,179 $34,439 77.9% $16,175,302 4,793 $3,374.78
Granville 84 82 $4,331,157,320 $28,845,507.75 $9,615,958.35 $2,740,202.10 $35,721,264 $36,924 83.5% $29,826,149 8,848 $3,370.95
Halifax 85 87 $3,637,092,199 $24,223,034.05 $12,843,444.66 $5,824,321.70 $31,242,157 $35,105 79.4% $24,801,138 7,480 $3,315.66
Caswell 86 86 $1,657,026,415 $11,035,795.92 $2,212,199.81 $1,667,485.62 $11,580,510 $34,704 78.5% $9,088,011 2,747 $3,308.34
Bertie 87 90 $1,344,326,989 $8,953,217.75 $2,299,173.17 $1,774,589.72 $9,477,801 $34,212 77.4% $7,332,426 2,284 $3,210.34
Richmond 88 88 $3,347,398,206 $22,293,672.05 $9,919,538.71 $3,190,118.25 $29,023,093 $34,494 78.0% $22,638,563 7,166 $3,159.16
Tyrrell 89 76 $373,989,878 $2,490,772.59 $713,972.99 $552,974.59 $2,651,771 $30,876 69.8% $1,851,478 596 $3,106.51
Gates 90 89 $866,411,244 $5,770,298.89 $1,160,167.53 $759,823.10 $6,170,643 $35,404 80.1% $4,940,198 1,625 $3,040.12
Edgecombe 91 91 $3,154,229,855 $21,007,170.83 $9,969,061.95 $5,042,797.89 $25,933,435 $33,761 76.3% $19,798,713 6,670 $2,968.32
Duplin 92 92 $4,412,246,338 $29,385,560.61 $10,813,658.47 $3,372,819.11 $36,826,400 $33,440 75.6% $27,847,560 9,588 $2,904.42
Columbus 93 95 $3,911,931,014 $26,053,460.55 $10,941,862.82 $4,105,106.38 $32,890,217 $31,955 72.3% $23,766,607 8,636 $2,752.04
Sampson 94 94 $4,550,727,015 $30,307,841.92 $12,892,005.83 $5,605,706.31 $37,594,141 $36,035 81.5% $30,634,184 11,161 $2,744.75
Vance 95 93 $2,734,830,872 $18,213,973.61 $11,440,268.37 $3,581,040.29 $26,073,202 $34,271 77.5% $20,206,112 7,416 $2,724.66
Harnett 96 96 $8,224,740,233 $54,776,769.95 $23,737,053.50 $7,273,240.09 $71,240,583 $32,947 74.5% $53,076,828 20,759 $2,556.81
Scotland 97 97 $2,166,170,904 $14,426,698.22 $8,084,664.87 $3,212,409.09 $19,298,954 $31,680 71.6% $13,825,491 5,676 $2,435.78
Greene 98 99 $1,118,574,111 $7,449,703.58 $2,101,422.48 $1,417,369.05 $8,133,757 $32,234 72.9% $5,928,803 3,034 $1,954.12
Hoke 99 98 $3,488,626,673 $23,234,253.64 $5,321,957.98 $3,186,804.91 $25,369,407 $29,997 67.8% $17,208,767 9,020 $1,907.85
Robeson 100 100 $6,694,331,060 $44,584,244.86 $28,006,272.52 $14,285,172.52 $58,305,345 $28,895 65.3% $38,097,167 22,567 $1,688.18
*Beginning with 2016 study,includes only WC302 report.Medicaid payments from WD667 no longer included. **County and state averages from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
21
TABLE 5: RELATIVE EFFORT
This is a measure comparing Actual Effort(from Table 2)and Ability to Pay(from Table 4).Actual effort includes county appropriations for current expenses,and,when
appropriate,supplemental tax levies for schools.Low-wealth counties with comparatively high spending levels have tended to rank highest on this measure.
COUNTY RELATIVE EFFORT ABILITY RANK REVENUE PER ADM EFFORT RANK TOTAL CURRENT EFFORT AS PERCENTAGE
RANK:CURRENT SPENDING PER ADM OF REVENUE PER STUDENT:
SPENDING CURRENT SPENDING
Scotland 1 97 $2,522.19 31 $1,823 72.28%
Gates 2 90 $3,147.97 33 $1,813 57.59%
Franklin 3 81 $3,518.56 38 $1,754 49.85%
Orange 4 16 $11,064.68 1 $5,256 47.50%
Johnston 5 78 $3,539.77 47 $1,623 45.85%
Granville 6 84 $3,490.53 53 $1,583 45.35%
Hertford 7 79 $3,519.19 54 $1,576 44.78%
Martin 8 75 $3,780.07 44 $1,673 44.26%
Stokes 9 63 $4,241.15 28 $1,861 43.88%
Sampson 10 94 $2,842.12 78 $1,224 43.07%
Harnett 11 96 $2,647.51 85 $1,137 42.95%
Cumberland 12 72 $3,832.08 51 $1,599 41.73%
Pasquotank 13 55 $4,703.32 25 $1,956 41.59%
Warren 14 47 $5,149.81 20 $2,119 41.15%
McDowell 15 71 $3,852.90 57 $1,561 40.51%
Halifax 16 85 $3,433.28 64 $1,370 39.90%
Bertie 17 87 $3,324.23 72 $1,315 39.56%
Bladen 18 83 $3,494.49 66 $1,369 39.18%
Guilford 19 30 $6,561.25 12 $2,513 38.30%
Rowan 20 51 $4,853.39 29 $1,852 38.16%
Anson 21 77 $3,568.54 68 $1,355 37.97%
Greene 22 98 $2,023.44 97 $764 37.76%
Lee 23 54 $4,766.14 36 $1,775 37.24%
Wilson 24 62 $4,263.42 56 $1,563 36.66%
Union 25 41 $5,480.82 23 $2,000 36.49%
Edgecombe 26 91 $3,073.62 86 $1,117 36.34%
Cleveland 27 68 $3,939.83 63 $1,405 35.66%
Alexander 28 80 $3,518.72 77 $1,253 35.61%
Gaston 29 66 $4,048.00 59 $1,429 35.30%
Onslow 30 46 $5,207.17 30 $1,835 35.24%
Randolph 31 74 $3,792.78 71 $1,331 35.09%
Nash 32 65 $4,088.15 60 $1,424 34.83%
Beaufort 33 34 $6,208.81 21 $2,105 33.90%
Robeson 34 100 $1,748.07 98 $590 33.75%
Cherokee 35 35 $5,835.91 26 $1,948 33.38%
Chowan 36 45 $5,228.50 39 $1,744 33.36%
Caldwell 37 70 $3,866.60 73 $1,287 33.29%
Richmond 38 88 $3,271.23 87 $1,083 33.11%
Vance 39 95 $2,821.32 93 $930 32.96%
Forsyth 40 31 $6,560.94 19 $2,156 32.86%
Jones 41 43 $5,249.39 40 $1,725 32.86%
Northampton 42 48 $5,074.52 45 $1,666 32.83%
Burke 43 76 $3,727.87 79 $1,218 32.67%
Pitt 44 50 $4,900.66 52 $1,596 32.57%
Alamance 45 44 $5,241.30 43 $1,691 32.26% -
Rutherford 46 64 $4,193.55 70 $1,331 31.74%
Davidson 47 61 $4,331.06 65 $1,370 31.63%
Pander 48 49 $4,986.00 55 $1,576 31.61%
Yadkin 49 73 $3,806.63 80 $1,203 31.60%
Caswell 50 86 $3,425.70 88 $1,076 31.41%
Wilkes 51 59 $4,363.86 67 $1,365 31.28%
Rockingham 52 67 $4,042.03 76 $1,261 31.20% .
Cabarrus 53 36 $5,754.15 35 $1,785 31.02%
Camden 54 57 $4,549.42 62 $1,406 30.91%
Duplin 55 92 $3,007.45 94 $918 30.52%
Tyrrell 56 89 $3,216.71 92 $978 30.40%
Columbus 57 93 $2,849.67 95 $865 30.35%
Durham 58 15 $11,292.44 3 $3,376 29.90%
Lenoir 59 69 $3,869.05 84 $1,145 29.59%
Wayne 60 82 $3,511.86 90 $1,036 29.50%
Davie 61 33 $6,390.80 34 $1,789 27.99%
Surry 62 58 $4,522.93 75 $1,263 27.92%
Transylvania 63 13 $11,638.27 4 $3,195 27.45%
Hoke 64 99 $1,975.53 99 $535 27.08%
Chatham 65 11 $11,878.16 5 $3,182 26.79%
Montgomery 66 53 $4,846.07 74 $1,281 26.43%
Stanly 67 56 $4,594.63 81 $1,201 26.14%
Craven 68 38 $5,709.47 58 $1,484 25.99%
Haywood 69 25 $7,577.36 27 $1,938 25.58%
Person 70 42 $5,432.93 69 $1,343 24.72%
Mitchell 71 52 $4,850.56 82 $1,199 24.72%
Pamlico 72 20 $8,248.25 22 $2,032 24.64%
Alleghany 73 22 $8,054.42 24 $1,982 24.61%
Hyde 74 12 $11,660.59 6 $2,849 24.43%
Catawba 75 29 $6,654.01 48 $1,617 24.30%
Washington 76 60 $4,333.11 89 $1,047 24.16%
Polk 77 18 $9,977.07 17 $2,322 23.27%
Wake 78 17 $10,814.50 13 $2,509 23.20%
Lincoln 79 28 $6,996.41 49 $1,613 23.05%
Moore 80 19 $9,469.19 18 $2,174 22.96%
Perquimans 81 26 $7,478.13 42 $1,716 22.95%
Henderson 82 23 $7,955.67 32 $1,820 22.88%
Mecklenburg 83 14 $11,558.87 11 $2,585 22.36%
Buncombe 84 10 $12,212.20 9 $2,703 22.13%
New Hanover 85 9 $12,500.33 8 $2,753 22.02%
Yancey 86 32 $6,538.67 61 $1,422 21.75%
Iredell 87 24 $7,822.78 46 $1,644 21.02%
Madison 88 37 $5,726.27 83 $1,192 20.82%
Watauga 89 4 $14,065.32 7 $2,826 20.09%
Ashe 90 21 $8,190.82 50 $1,601 19.55%
Currituck 91 5 $13,874.23 15 $2,482 17.89%
Avery 92 6 $13,231.79 16 $2,331 17.62%
Brunswick 93 3 $14,293.38 14 $2,497 17.47%
Carteret 94 2 $16,333.90 10 $2,630 16.10%
Clay 95 27 $7,156.09 91 $1,036 14.48%
Dare 96 1 $30,810.44 2 $4,274 13.87%
Graham 97 39 $5,639.40 96 $770 13.65%
Macon 98 8 $12,960.77 37 $1,758 13.56%
Jackson 99 7 $13,171.00 41 $1,719 13.05%
Swain 100 40 $5,615.77 100 $434 7.73%
zz
GLOSSARY
Ability to Pay:A measure of a county's per student fiscal Average Daily Membership (ADM):The sum of the number of
capacity to support local public schools. It is a combined measure days in membership for all students in each county's local public
of revenue that would have been generated at the state average schools,divided by the number of school days in the term. City
tax rate based on 2017-18 property valuations per student school districts are combined with the county system and charter
(adjusted to reflect current market prices and to account for school enrollment is included(see Charter School Enrollment
differences in income levels)and the value of non-property under"Notes on Methodology").
tax revenues,such as the county's share of local option sales
tax, local tax aid(including reimbursements for inventory tax
revenues, homestead exclusions,food stamp distribution,and Capital Outlay:A six-year average of public school capital outlay
the intangibles tax),and fines and forfeitures. Each county's using proceeds from local option sales taxes and other sources
mandated social service payments were subtracted from the to fund actual spending on capital projects or equipment for
total adjusted revenues.(See Table 4.) buildings.Withdrawals from the Public School Building Capital
Fund,Grants from the Public School Building Bond Fund,and the
North Carolina Education Lottery Funds have been removed from
Actual Effort:Includes 2017-18 current expenses(including the county total.
supplemental school taxes); reflects the actual dollar effort of
counties to fund local public schools without taking into account
property wealth.(See Tables 2 and 3.) Capital Outlay per ADM:Six-year average of capital outlay
spending for a county divided by the ADM for the county.
Adjusted Tax Base:The total valuation of real,tangible,and
public utility property for a county,adjusted using a three-year Current Spending:The most recent current expense
weighted average of the sales assessment ratio. Notes about appropriation by the county to the public schools,as reported in
adjustment and weighted average: In North Carolina, residential the audited financial statement of the local board(s)of education.
and commercial property typically is revalued once every eight
years.The longer it has been since properties in a county have
been revalued,the more likely it is that the market value of Current Spending per ADM:The total amount of spending for a
property exceeds the assessed valuation.To help remedy this county divided by the ADM for the county.
difficulty of estimating the market value of property valuations,
the Department of Revenue computes an adjusted property tax
rate for each county by using the ratio of assessed property Debt Service:A six-year average of public school debt service
value to market value.Typically,the longer the gap between outlay using proceeds from local option sales taxes and other
revaluations,the larger the difference between market and sources to fund school bond repayments and lease purchase
assessed value. In an effort to be as accurate as possible,this agreements.Using the Public School Capital Outlay report,
study uses a three-year weighted average to calculate the withdrawals from the Public School Building Capital Fund and
adjusted property valuation. North Carolina Education Lottery Funds have been removed from
the county total.
�f"
23
Debt Service per ADM:Six-year average of debt service Non-Property Tax Revenue:Sources of revenue for the county
spending for a county divided by the ADM for the county. other than property taxes.Examples include the sales tax,fines/
forfeitures,and local tax aid.
Income-Adjusted Total Revenues:The total revenues for a
county, minus the amount paid in mandated social security Relative Effort:A measure comparing the Actual Effort of a
payments, multiplied by the percent of state average per capita county to its Ability to Pay. In general, low-wealth districts with
income. comparatively high spending levels rank highest in this measure.
(See Table 5)
Low-Wealth Funding:Supplemental state funding intended to
enhance instructional programs in counties designated as low- Small County Funding: In 2017-18 supplemental state funding
wealth based on a formula that identifies systems whose ability was provided to county school districts with ADM less than 3,200.
to generate revenue per student falls below the state average. This is a change from previous years,when funding was provided
In addition,the formula takes into account county adjusted to two categories of local education agencies:those with less
property tax base,square miles in the county and per capita than 3,239 ADM,and those with 3,239-4,080 ADM who have an
income. In 2017-18,67 counties received low-wealth funding. adjusted property tax base less than the state average. In 2017-
18,26 counties were eligible for small county funding.
Mandated Social Services Payments:The amount of money
each county pays in the health and human services categories State Average Effective Property Tax:The average of all 100
mandated by the state. These categories include public counties'adjusted tax rates.
assistance and Work First services. In previous studies,the
Mandated Social Services Payments reported in Table 4 included
county Medicaid payments in addition to other required social Supplemental School Taxes:According to GS 115C-501(a), "a
services payments. For the last two years the Local School special tax to supplement the funds from State and county
Finance Study has not included Medicaid payments as part of the allotments and thereby operate schools of a higher standard by
overall Mandated Social Services Payments.The WD667 report supplementing any item of expenditure in the school budget."
from the NC Department of Health and Human Services Office of
the Controller,which includes county Medicaid payments, has not
been available since 2012-13. In almost every county,the Medicaid Total Current Spending per ADM:The sum of the current
total from the WD667 in previous years was less than 0.5%of expense and the supplemental school taxes for a county,divided
the total Mandated Social Services Payments,which itself is a by the county's ADM.
small piece of the revenue calculation in Table 4.
24
DATA SOURCES
The 2020 Local School Finance Study examines data from the 2017-18
school year. Every effort has been made to verify that the data included
in this year's study is accurate and reflects what it intends to measure. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The primary source of financial information is the Division of School authoredThis s study was
Business at the Department of Public Instruction,which provided data Fox, Lindsay Wagner and Emma Swift Lee.
on non-property tax revenue, low-wealth and small county supplemental The authors thank Ashley funding information,final average daily membership(except as noted Policy
above for charter school enrollments),effective county tax rate,adjustedAnalyst; Elizabeth Program Coordinator;
Michael D. Priddy,Acting President
revenue tax base,current expense,and other data found in the Division's Executiveand Director;
Highlights of the NC Public School Budget and online Statistical Profile. J.Williams, Forum Board
Other sources include the North Carolina Department of Revenue's guidance and thought partnership throughout
County Property Tax Rates and Revaluation Schedules and Sales the research and drafting processes.
Assessment Ratio Studies,which provided the 2017-18 property tax The 2020 Local School Finance Study and
valuations and tax rates;the Department of Revenue's data on Local prior years'versions are Government Sales and Use Tax Distribution;and the North Carolina availableontact - Forum'
Department of State Treasurer's Report on County Spending on Public
out pricing information for hard
School Capital Outlays.The North Carolina Department of Health �copies�uire h�
and Human Services provided data for the mandated social services
expenditures,and the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts
provided data on fines and forfeitures.Per capita income was obtained
through the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
PUBLIC SCHOOL
FO R U M of north
Public School Forum of North Carolina
3725 National Drive,Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27612
Phone:919.781.6833 Fax:919.781.6527
www.ncforum.org