Special Funds Accountability
& Reinvestment Trigger

TL;DR

PPS receives over $220 million in special revenues yearly, yet accountability is murky. New funds are often swallowed by bureaucracy instead of boosting student outcomes. Our policy demands rigorous tracking of every special revenue dollar, enforces a classroom-first rule for any new or unexpected income, and kills failing programs that don’t deliver results.

1. What Does This Combined Policy Aim to Fix?

  • Opaque Special Funds: PPS taps over $220 million from grants, the Student Investment Account (SIA), Measure 98, and the Early Literacy Fund without transparent metrics on their impact (see 2024–25 Budget, "Special Revenue Funds Summary (pg. 200)").

  • Bureaucratic Drain: Even when extra money flows in — like additional SIA dollars or an unexpected state bump — too much gets diverted to central office overhead instead of classroom improvements.

  • Legislative Destiny: Most special revenues stem from the Student Success Act (HB 3427, 2019). It passed with heavy backing from Sen. Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) and Rep. Barbara Smith Warner (D-Portland), who hailed it as "transformative." But they never insisted that these funds be tied to strict performance metrics or a mandatory classroom reinvestment rule. See Bill Info & Votes

2. How Will PPS Ensure Clear "Metrics" for Special Revenue Streams?

  1. SIA "Effectiveness Dashboard": For each major pot (SIA, High School Success/Measure 98, Early Literacy, etc.), publicly report how many FTE are funded and the concrete goals (e.g., improved reading, dropout reductions, more CTE programs). Show year-over-year progress.

  2. Sunset Clauses on Failing Programs: If, for example, a reading pilot backed by Early Literacy dollars doesn't raise reading scores after two years, it's cut or reworked.

  3. Example: The Early Literacy Grant in 2024–25 (see Budget, "Student Investment Account Fund (251)," pp. 122–125) funds additional K–3 reading coaches. We'll require PPS to present yearly standardized reading results to prove ROI.

3. What About the 'Reinvestment Trigger' for New or Unanticipated Revenue?

  • Classroom Priority: Whenever PPS gets an unexpected windfall—like extra SIA funding due to statewide surpluses or enrollment upticks—it must first go to frontline support: special education staff, teacher-librarians, mental health services, or direct student resources.

  • No More Admin Bloat: The district can't use that unplanned money for added central-office staff, inflated executive salaries, or "pet projects" unless it certifies that all classroom needs are fully funded.

4. How Will PPS Enforce Accountability on These Funds?

  • Public Dashboards & Annual Hearings: Show the exact staff hired or programs launched by each special fund. We reconsider the program's renewal if staff can't demonstrate measurable gains (e.g., fewer dropouts and better reading scores).

  • Site-Specific Allocations: Outline precisely how many reading specialists or coaches each elementary school receives under the Early Literacy Fund.

  • Mandatory Sunset Reviews: Any pilot that flops triggers an automatic board review to fix or cut it.

  • No-Bureaucracy Clause: All new or one-time revenues must prioritize direct student services. PPS must publicly certify that the classroom is fully funded before expanding central administration.

5. Could These Funds Be Used Elsewhere Under Current Policy?

  • Absolutely. Under the "Integrated Grant" structure, PPS can shuffle SIA, Early Literacy, and High School Success dollars into a single pool. Without explicit transparency or performance tracking, the district can quickly bury these funds in overhead line items.

  • This policy prevents that by demanding line-by-line clarity: we'll see exactly which staff or programs each dollar supports.