Rockford Community Bond Perception and Engagement Survey

RESPONSE RATES

• 2,987 total responses.

  • 911 responses were incomplete (with 218 of those being entirely blank).

• 2,076 respondents answered all multiple-choice questions.

• There were 2 open ended questions (that received 1,145 and 1,220 responses, respectively).

• The question with the highest response rate was “To what extent did Rockford Public Schools clearly explain why a bond was needed rather than using the general fund?” with 2,360 responses.
  
  
  

  • When asked to indicate their relationship to RPS, respondents were allowed to ‘select all that apply’.

    • Thus, many respondents indicated multiple roles within RPS.

  • Still, the majority of respondents indicated they were parents of current RPS students, or Rockford residents.

• Overall, respondents’ preferences for receiving information largely aligned with how they actually received information about the bond proposal.

• Most respondents preferred to, and did receive information from the district website and email updates.

• Overall, respondents’ perceived clarity of various aspects of the bond proposal trended toward the low end of the response scale.

  • Thus, respondents expressed moderate uncertainty regarding most aspects of the proposal, including the monitoring of funds, construction timeline, and long-term costs.

• Respondents indicated the lowest clarity regarding the alternate funding options considered by RPS.

• Conversely, respondents reported the highest clarity regarding why the bond was needed (rather than using the general fund).

• Results suggest that Rockford residents may have concerns regarding transparency, and the way in which district funds are managed.

• Additionally, some respondents felt that the district may not prioritize critical facility needs over new and innovative programming.
  
  

The majority of respondents indicated that:

1. The proposed bond amount did not meet the district’s needs (53.8% answered “Not at all” or “Slightly”).
2. The proposed amount was “too high for the district’s needs” (50.8%).

Most respondents supported some aspects of the proposal, but felt that it should have prioritized on essential repairs and safety needs (41.9%)

Similarly, respondents placed the highest importance on

1. Upgrading safety and security measures (79.4% answered “Quite important” or “Extremely important”)

2. Updating or replacing aging infrastructure (71.6% answered “Quite important” or “Extremely important”)
   
   

Respondents placed the lowest importance on 

1. Updating or expanding athletic facilities (64.7% answered “Not important” or “Slightly important”)

2. Constructing new facilities or additions to expand instructional space (42.5% answered “Not important” or “Slightly important”)
   
   
   

What additional information would you like the district to provide to support decision making about a future bond proposal?

Are there any changes, considerations, or information you believe would be important for the district to take into account when developing a future bond proposal?

In the open-ended responses, several individuals pointed out the indoor athletic facility as a specific point of contention. For example:

• “I think this would have passed with flying colors without the indoor sports facility”

• “The indoor athletic facility seemed like a polarizing item”

Taken together, several pieces of evidence may be synthesized to create a coherent narrative that explains the bond proposal’s failure during the November 2025 election:

1. Most respondents felt the proposed amount was too high

2. Nearly half of all respondents felt the bond should have focused on essential repairs/safety needs

3. Respondents placed the lowest importance on updating athletic facilities, and the highest importance on updating safety/security measures

4. In the open-response questions, many respondents were concerned with the bond’s inclusion of funds for a sports facility