INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY SCHOOLS IN
INDIANAPOLIS THROUGH THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING

TAX CREDIT QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN

KATIE WHITLEY*

INTRODUCTION

Countless children in the greater Indianapolis metropolitan area lack access
to high-quality public schools due to the median income and racial makeup of
their neighborhood. School and residential racial segregation in our country,
coupled with inequitable distribution of resources across neighborhoods and
schools, creates a system in which students of color often lack access to high-
quality schools compared to white students in the same region.1 In fact, Black and
Latinx students are the least likely to have access to high-quality schools
nationally.2 They are even less likely to attend high-quality schools in
metropolitan areas, like Indianapolis, where higher levels of racial residential
segregation persist.3 

Access to high performing schools for low-income students is increasingly
important. The concentration of poverty is deepening which is increasing the
achievement gap nationwide. “[T]he difference in standardized math and reading
test scores between rich and poor students is 40 percent greater today than it was
three decades ago.”4 In Indiana specifically, “the achievement gap between
students from poor families and their more economically-advantaged peers
persists. The average gap in passing rates between students on paid lunch and
those receiving free or reduced-price meals on [2018]’s [standardized] test was
21[percent].”5

* J.D., 2022, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law; M.A. in Teaching,

2016, Marian University; B.S. 2014, Indiana University. Prior to law school, the Author spent five

years teaching in Indianapolis—she is grateful to her students for all they taught her and their

lasting impact on her life. The Author would like to thank Professor Florence Roisman for her

invaluable wisdom and guidance. The Author would also like to thank Philip Tegeler from the

Poverty and Race Research Action Council for his helpful comments.

1. Ruth Gourevitch, Federal and Fair Housing Data Can Tell Us About Access to Quality

Schools, HOUSING MATTERS AN URBAN INSTITUTE INITIATIVE, (Aug. 22, 2018), https://

housingmatters.urban.org/articles/federal-fair-housing-data-can-tell-us-about-access-quality-schools

[https://perma.cc/BW7T-CRCH].

2. Id.

3. Id.

4. Katherine Michelmore & Susan Dyanarski, Income Differences in Education: The Gap

Within the Gap, ECONOFACT (Apr. 20, 2017), https://econofact.org/income-differences-in-education-

the-gap-within-the-gap [https://perma.cc/6DCR-KHKN].

5. Akira Herron, Indiana May be Under-funding Students Most in Need, Study Says,

INDYSTAR (Oct. 21, 2019), https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/10/21/indiana-

public-education-poverty-underfunding-at-risk-students/4013376002/ [https://perma.cc/QJF7-

WNUM]. 



880 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Reforming Indiana’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) for selecting Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments can reduce this achievement
gap by incentivizing developers to build affordable housing near high-
performing schools in lower poverty areas. Evidence shows that doing so
“significantly improves college attendance rates and earnings for children who
were young . . . . when their families moved.”6 The increased earnings result in
a “significant benefits to taxpayers.”7 Conversely, “[p]oorly educated people
limit economies’ capacity to produce, grow and innovate.”8 Individuals who do
not receive a high-quality education are at risk for higher rates of unemployment,
employment instability, and they typically earn less over their lifetime.9 

This note examines how housing policy in Indiana can be used to improve
educational outcomes in Indianapolis for students of color, particularly Black
students, by increasing access to high-quality schools through the LIHTC
program. Part I offers a brief historical background of neighborhood and school
segregation in Indianapolis. Part II describes the LIHTC program and its
implementation through Indiana’s Qualified Allocation Plan, the role of the
Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, and the Housing
Choice Voucher Program. Part III evaluates recent family LIHTC developments
for their proximity to high-quality schools. Part IV demonstrates that revisions to
Indiana’s QAP could decrease the concentration of poverty and increase access
to high-performing schools.

I. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND SCHOOL
SEGREGATION IN INDIANAPOLIS

Numerous causes of neighborhood and school segregation coupled with lack
of investments created concentrations of poverty in minority communities in
Indianapolis. This part provides a brief overview of both the private and state
sanctioned efforts to keep Indianapolis segregated and the enduring consequences
of segregation on Indianapolis area schools. 

A. Residential Segregation

More than fifty years since the passing of the Fair Housing Act, Indianapolis
remains residentially segregated. Housing disparities are prevalent—nearly half
of Marion County’s Black residents live in neighborhoods that are “under-
resourced,” and the value of homes in majority-Black neighborhoods are on

6. RAJ CHETTY ET AL., THE EFFECT S OF EXPOSURE TO BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS ON

CHILDREN: NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY EXPERIMENT Abstract (Harvard

Univ. & NBER eds., 2015), https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/mto_paper.pdf [https://

perma.cc/QR2C-QGW5].

7. Id. at 6. 

8. OECD, EQUITY AND QUALITY IN EDUCATION: SUPPORTING DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

AND SCHOOLS 3 (OECD Publishing 2012), https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf

[https://perma.cc/W7SR-A7PF].

9. Id. at 25.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

881

average $41,000 lower than the county average.1 0 This results in a staggering
statistic—“[m]ore than 88 percent of majority-[B]lack neighborhoods have a
median home value less than Marion County’s median home value.”1 1

Discrimination, exclusion from government sponsored mortgage loan programs,
racial covenants, racial zoning restrictions, and predatory lending drive these
statistics.12

Black people were kept from purchasing homes in predominantly white
neighborhoods through several practices. White realtors would not show Black
people homes in those areas. To the extent they were shown the homes, “a two-
price system was used: a realistic market price to whites and a ridiculously
inflated price” to Black folks.13 If people of color overcame those hurdles, private
lending institutions refused to finance homes sought to be purchased by Black
people “regardless of the applicants’ creditworthiness” because the Federal
Housing Administration refused to insure mortgages for Black applicants.1 4

Additionally, residential segregation was often enforced by law, most frequently
through racial covenants which “limited ownership of the lot to persons of the
white race.”15

Redlining caused Indianapolis neighborhoods to become deeply segregated.
In the 1930s, government appraisers coded neighborhoods based on their risk.1 6

Neighborhoods coded red were considered high risk and “hazardous”; therefore,
residents of those neighborhoods were unlikely to qualify for mortgages and
property values fell.17 A neighborhood was coded red if it had Black residents,
even if it was a middle-class neighborhood.18 Black neighborhoods were

10. Jill Sheridan, New Housing Report Sheds Light on Disparity, WFYI NEWS (Feb. 17, 2020),

h t t ps://w w w .w fyi. o r g / n e w s / a r t ic le s / n e w -h o u s in g -r e p o r t -s h e d s -lig h t -o n -d is p a r it y

[https://perma.cc/58W2-LK57]; see also Breanca Merritt et al., Homeownership & Home Values

Among Black Neighborhoods in Marion County (2018), IND. UNIV. PUB. POL. INST. CTR. FOR

RESEARCH ON INCLUSION & SOC. POLICY (Feb. 2020).

11. Merritt et al., supra note 10, at 1.

12. Id.; see generally RICHARD ROTHSTEIN, THE COLOR OF LAW: A FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF

HOW OUR GOVERNMENT SEGREGATED AMERICA (2017).

13. United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 332 F. Supp. 655, 662 (S.D. Ind. 1971).

14. ROTHSTEIN, supra note 12, at 67. Loan denials continue to plague minority applicants in

2020, “Black and Hispanic-White applicants experienced denial rates . . . of 17.2 percent and 11.2

percent respectively, while the denial rates for Asian and non-Hispanic-White applicants were 9.1

and 6.1 respectively.” FFIEC Announces Availability of 2020 Data on Mortgage Lending, FED. FIN.

INST. EXAMINATION COUNCIL (June 21, 2021) (https://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr061721.htm).

15. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 332 F. Supp. at 662.

16. Sarah Bowman, The White River: Boundaries of 'Redlining' Maps Still Etched in

Indianapolis Neighborhoods, INDYSTAR (May 2, 2020), https://www.indystar.com/in-depth/news/

e n v i r o n m e n t / 2 0 2 0 / 0 5 / 0 2 / r e d l i n e d - i n d i a n a p o l i s - a r e a s - s t ill - s e e - p o v e r t y - p o o r -

health/3017810001[https://perma.cc/R279-NLM3].

17. Id. 

18. ROTHSTEIN, supra note 12, at 64.



882 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

disproportionately affected by redlining and the program “explicitly denied to
back loans for [B]lack people or even residents of majority [B]lack
neighborhoods.”19 The areas deemed high-risk in Indianapolis in the 1930s
remain areas of concentrated poverty that lack access to high-quality schools.20

B. School Segregation

In addition to redlining and efforts to segregate neighborhoods, Indianapolis
Public Schools historically drew the school boundaries to take advantage of
segregated housing and ensure that schools would remain segregated too.21 These
boundary drawing issues stemmed from the unified government, or “Unigov” law
that consolidated the majority of the smaller communities in Marion County into
a single large city.22 The merger of cities and counties to conserve resources was
common in other areas of the country at the time, but Indianapolis was the only
city to leave schools out of their consolidated city-county government plan.23

Leaving schools out of the consolidated government plan “accentuated school
segregation.”24 Indianapolis Public Schools served 98.5 percent of the county’s
Black residents at the time of the merger.25 The Board of School Commissioners
constructed schools, transferred students, and changed school boundary lines to
perpetuate discrimination.26

In United States v. Board of School Commissioners, the Department of
Justice brought a lawsuit against school boards in the greater metropolitan area
because of this state sanctioned segregation. The major state action surrounding
the first case was the state’s failure to extend the boundaries of the Indianapolis
Public School (IPS) District when the municipal government of Indianapolis and
other governmental units in Marion County consolidated in Uni-Gov.2 7 In 1971,
Judge Dillin of the Southern District of Indiana found that there was “a
segregated school system wherein segregation was imposed and enforced by
operation of law.”28 

19. Rebecca Denne, Inequality Remade: Residential Segregation, Indianapolis Public Schools,

and Forced Busing, INDIANA HISTORY BLOG (Feb. 16, 2017), https://blog.history.in.gov/inequality-

r e m a d e -r e s id e n t ia l-s e g r e g a t io n -in d ia n a p o l i s - p u b l i c - s c h o o ls -a n d -f o r c e d -b u s in g /

[https://perma.cc/CT4N-KQTY].  

20. Bowman, supra note 16. 

21. Denne, supra note 19. 

22. Shaina Cavazos, Racial Bias and the Crumbling of a City, THE ATLANTIC (Aug. 17, 2016),

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/indianapolis-school-districts/496145/

[https://perma.cc/RM74-DAD9]. 

23. C. JAMES OWEN & YORK WILLBERN, GOVERNING METROPOLITAN INDIANAPOLIS: THE

POLITICS OF UNIGOV 13 (1985).

24. Id. at 168.

25. United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 332 F. Supp. 655, 663 (S.D. Ind. 1971).

26. Id. at 667-71.

27. Id. at 658, 673.

28. Id. at 678.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

883

The court permanently enjoined the school district from discriminating on the
basis of race in the operation of the public school system and ordered that all
Marion County school districts be consolidated to one.29 The district was ordered
to create a plan to remedy the segregation for the following school year.30

The Indianapolis Board submitted an Indianapolis-only plan for
desegregation to the court which was subsequently rejected by Judge Dillin for
fear that “white flight” would leave schools segregated if the plan was only put
in place for IPS.31 The court held that in order to result in actual desegregation,
the plan must include the surrounding districts too.32 Judge Dillin also created an
interim plan for the following school year.33 The court of appeals affirmed in part
to keep the interim plan in place.34 But, the court reversed “the district court's
findings, rulings, orders[,] and discussion relating to a metropolitan remedy
beyond the Uni-Gov boundaries”.35 Additionally, the court held that the order to
consolidate to one school district within Uni-Gov was vacated and remanded.36

The result was that schools outside of Marion County could not be involved in
the remedy and that Marion County could remain fragmented into numerous,
unequal districts. 

On remand, Judge Dillin held that an interdistrict remedy was necessary for
desegregation to occur.37 A plan was put in place to desegregate the schools by
bussing Black students to districts within the consolidated city-county
government boundaries, but outside of the IPS boundaries.38 He also enjoined the
local housing authority from building any additional public housing units in the
IPS district because the confinement of all low-rent public housing projects
(which were 98 percent Black) to areas within the boundaries of IPS “had a major
influence toward keeping black students confined within IPS, while at the same
time keeping the suburban school systems virtually all white.”39 But this was not
the end of the litigation.

On yet another appeal, the Seventh Circuit, held that the Uni-Gov
“interdistrict remedy ordered by the district court was proper” and that “the
district court did not abuse its discretion in enjoining the Housing Authority from
building additional projects within IPS..”40 There was subsequent litigation to
determine the permitted scope of the bussing remedy. The court of appeals

29. Id. at 680.

30. Id. at 681.

31. United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 368 F. Supp. 1191, 1198 (S.D. Ind. 1973).

32. Id. at 1199.

33. Id. at 1208-10.

34. United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 503 F.2d 68, 80 (7th Cir. 1976).

35. Id.

36. Id.

37. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 419 F. Supp. at 184-86 (S.D. Ind. 1975).

38. Id.

39. Id. at 186.

40. United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 541 F.2d 1211, 1222-23 (7th Cir. 1976).



884 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

modified the plan and excluded Speedway Schools and Beech Grove City
Schools but kept the remainder of the bussing plan intact.41 The mandate lasted
from 1981 to 2016; however, the goal of the mandate, to desegregate the schools,
was left largely unfulfilled.42 

Notably, the Indianapolis Housing Agency, the State of Indiana, and the
United States also entered into an agreement that supported the larger settlement
with the school districts in 1998.43 The agreement stated that all parties “have an
interest in achieving diversity in schooling and housing throughout Marion
County.”44 The agreement stipulated that the housing agency establish and fund
housing counseling and assistance with facilitating residential desegregation.45

Unfortunately, “Indianapolis Public Schools elementary buildings [we]re
more segregated [in 2016] than they were when the busing program began in
1981.”46 Additionally, the agreement with the Indianapolis Housing Agency was
not particularly fruitful as residential segregation persists, and as this note
discusses, affordable housing is still primarily funded in IPS territory. Worse,
Judge Dillin’s fear that not incorporating all districts in the metropolitan area
would result in a failed remedy was realized—Indianapolis schools with high
minority populations are significantly underperforming relative to predominantly
white schools and are found in areas with higher concentrations of poverty.47 

C. 2019-2020 School District Demographics

The past segregation and lack of access to equal opportunity had lasting
implications. In the 2019-2020 school year, Indianapolis Public Schools included
72.1 percent Black and Latinx students and 65.4 percent of all students were
economically disadvantaged.48 The surrounding township school districts had
much different demographics, typically with lower levels of students who were
economically disadvantaged and lower minority populations.4 9 These
demographics are important because concentrated poverty largely correlates with

41. United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 637 F.2d 1101, 1115 (7th Cir. 1980).

42. Shaina Cavazos, The End of Busing in Indianapolis, THE ATLANTIC (July 5, 2016),

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-end-of-busing-in-indianapolis/489962/

[https://perma.cc/Z55W-5ER7].

43. Wilma L. Moore, Indianapolis Pub. Sch. Segregation Case Collection (May 2011),

https://indianahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/indianapolis-public-schools-desegregation-case.pdf

[https://perma.cc/L8KL-JRAZ].

44. Agreement on the Return of Transfer Areas to IPS, United States v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs

of Indianapolis (No. 1:68-cv-00225), available at https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/SD-

IN-0001-0001.pdf [https://perma.cc/829U-L563].

45. Id.

46. Cavazos, supra note 42.

47. See infra Appendix A (providing information on greater Indianapolis metropolitan area

school district demographics).

48. Id.

49. Id.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

885

decreased student performance and lower school grades.50 For example, the
overall grade for the Indianapolis Public Schools district is a “D” with 65.4
percent of the students classified as “economically disadvantaged,” compared to
a “C” for Washington Township with 53.7 percent, and an “A” for Franklin
Township Community School Corporation with 42.7 percent.51 

The correlation is even more prominent in relation to the surrounding
counties. Hamilton County, for example, directly north of Marion County,
includes four cities with “A” school districts.52 Carmel Clay Schools were rated
as an “A” school district with only 10.6 percent economically disadvantaged;53

Hamilton Southeastern Schools were also rated as an “A” and were comprised of
15 percent of students who were economically disadvantaged;54 another “A”
district, Noblesville Schools, with 22.2 percent economically disadvantaged
students;55 and finally, Westfield-Washington Schools were rated as an “A” and
included 14.7 percent students who were economically disadvantaged.56 All four
of these school districts had less than 16 percent Black and Latinx students;
Carmel Clay Schools had 7 percent, Hamilton Southeastern Schools 15.6 percent,
Noblesville Schools 11.7 percent, and Westfield-Washington Schools 12.5
percent.57 

Several other cities contiguous to Indianapolis have school districts with
overall lower concentrations of poverty, lower concentrations of Black and Latinx
students, and ultimately higher state grades.58 Greenwood Community School
Corporation was an “A” district with 48.2 percent economically disadvantaged
and 14.2 percent Black and Latinx; Brownsburg Community School Corporation
was an “A” district with 24.9 percent economically disadvantaged and 20.8
percent Black and Latinx; Zionsville Community Schools was 5.4 percent
economically disadvantaged and 7 percent Black and Latinx and rated an “A”
district; Plainfield Community School corporation was also an “A” with 27.4
percent economically disadvantaged and 10.9 percent Black and Latinx; and
Avon Community School Corporation was a “B” district with 33.4 percent and
27.5 percent respectively.59

50. Id.

51. Id. 

52. Id. 

53. Id.

54. Id.

55. Id. 

56. Id. 

57. Id.

58. Id.

59. Id.



886 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Figure 1: IPS Demographics Compared to Surrounding Cities (by Author).

Of the twenty-two school districts in the greater Indianapolis metropolitan
area analyzed for this note, there were ten with “A” state grades.60 The average
percentage of students economically disadvantaged for these ten districts was
26.45 percent and the average percentage of non-white students was 28.6
percent.61 The only “D” rated school district in the metropolitan area was
Indianapolis Public Schools with over double the percentage of minority students
and nearly three times the percent of students economically disadvantaged.62

In addition to interdistrict disparities, there were immense intradistrict
performance disparities between schools in majority white neighborhoods and
schools in majority Black and Latinx neighborhoods within Indianapolis Public
Schools, the largest school district in the area.63 For example, one of the highest
performing schools in the Indianapolis Public Schools district is Center for
Inquiry School 84, which is only 5.8 percent economically disadvantaged and
82.7 percent white.6 4 It is an A school which “Exceeds Expectations” federally.65

Center for Inquiry School 84 is far below the district average for students who are
economically disadvantaged (66 percent) and far below the average percent Black

60. Id.

61. Id. (averages were calculated based on information in the table).

62. Id.

63. See Indianapolis Public Schools, IND. DEP’T OF EDUC., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053850000/school-list [https://perma.cc/K8Z9-5F2P].

64. Center for Inquiry School 84, IND. DEP’T OF EDUC., https://inview.doe.in.gov/schools/

1053855659/profile [https://perma.cc/4GFW-WCSD].

65. Id. 



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

887

and Latinx students (73.4), yet far above the district average in school
performance—an “A” rating as opposed to the district’s average, “D”.66 
This background underlines the severity of the issue regarding access to high-
quality schools for low-income students and students of color in the greater
Indianapolis metropolitan area. 

II. RELEVANT PROGRAMS

A. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, the Indiana Housing and
Community Development Authority, and the 2020-2021

Qualified Allocation Plan

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is a federal program
created by statute that operates through the federal tax code to give private
investors a federal income tax credit as an incentive to invest in affordable rental
housing.67 This program supplies and preserves nearly all new affordable housing
units in the United States each year.68 According to the LIHTC database, there
were over “3.23 million housing units placed in service between 1987 and
2018.”69 This is a massive federal program that gives state and local agencies
“approximately $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to
lower-income households.”70

The program requires developers to include a certain number of units with
affordable rents, defined as a “household . . . paying no more than 30 percent of
its income for housing costs.”71 The development can target specific populations
such as families, elderly, or disabled individuals7 2; however, this note discusses
only the family LIHTC developments. 

In Indiana, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority
(IHCDA) acts as the housing credit agency to administer the LIHTC program.73

66. Id.; see infra Appendix A (providing information on greater Indianapolis metropolitan area

school district demographics).

67. CORIANNE P. SCALLY ET AL., THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT HOW IT WORKS

AND WHO IT SERVES, URBAN INSTITUTE 1 (2018). 

68. Id. at 12.

69. OFF. OF POL’Y DEV. & RSCH., LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, https://www.huduser.

gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html [https://perma.cc/X3HB-5VBU].

70. Id. 

71. SCALLY ET AL., supra note 67, at 2. 

72. Raphael Bostic, The LIHTC Program, OFF. OF POL’Y DEV. & RSCH. (last visited March 14,

2021), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_frm_asst_sec_022312.html [https://

perma.cc/ETZ5-93PP].

73. IND. HOUS. & COMTY. AUTH., STATE OF IND. 2020-2021 QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN

1, 6 (2019), https://www.in.gov/ihcda/files/Final-2020-2021-QAP.pdf [https://perma.cc/94K7-

8V39] [hereinafter IND. HOUS. & COMTY. AUTH.].



888 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

It is “a quasi-public financially self-sufficient statewide government agency.”74

IHCDA is overseen by a seven-member board of directors which includes the
Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Public Finance Director from the Indiana
Finance Authority, and four gubernatorial appointees.75 The Governor appoints
the chairman and vice-chairman of the board and also appoints the Executive
Director who “serves at the pleasure of the Governor.”76 IHCDA is also subject
to oversight by federal agencies to ensure program compliance.77 

IHCDA’s mission is to “provide[] housing opportunities, promote[] self-
sufficiency, and strengthen[] communities.”78 To accomplish this mission,
IHCDA “promote[s], finance[s], and support[s] a broad range of housing
solutions . . . .”79 The LIHTC program is the primary way that affordable housing
is built, renovated, and redeveloped in Indiana.80 In 2019, the IHCDA awarded
$31.5 million to thirty-seven developments through the LIHTC program.81 Each
state develops its own Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) through a housing credit
agency to decide which proposals get the tax credit awards.8 2 IHCA revises the
QAP every two years to outline the goals and the threshold and scoring criteria.83

The IHCDA establishes “set-aside categories” within the QAP to achieve
housing goals in Indiana.84 Each application for a LIHTC development must be
for a particular set-aside category.85 In 2020-2021, available credits were divided
into categories and each category received ten percent of the share of credits: (1)
Development by qualified not-for-profit organizations; (2) Stellar Community
Designation; (3) Integrated housing—which served persons with intellectual and
developmental disabilities; (4) Development location in a large city; (5)
Development location in a small city; (6) Development location in a rural area;
(7) Preservation of existing affordable housing; (8) Developments that added
workforce housing; and (9) Developments that provided supportive housing to
end homelessness.86 The remaining ten percent of credits are allocated with “sole
discretion” to “further IHCDA’s mission, goal, initiatives, and priorities.”87

The 2020-2021 Qualified Allocation Plan contained five categories of scoring

74. 2019 ANNUAL REPORT 4 (2019), https://www.in.gov/ihcda/4045.htm [https://perma.cc/

49L8-MRWD].

75. Id. at 5.

76. Id.

77. Id. at 4. 

78. Id.

79. Id. at 9.

80. Id. at 13-19.

81. Id. at 14. 

82. NAT’L HOUS. CONF., LOW-INCOME HOUS. TAX CREDIT: THE BASICS, https://nhc.org/

policy-guide/low-income-housing-tax-credit-the-basics/ [https://perma.cc/AS25-K224].

83. IND. HOUS. & CMTY. DEV. AUTH., supra note 73, at 16. 

84. Id. at 1. 

85. Id.

86. Id.

87. Id. at 17.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

889

criteria.88 If an application satisfied all threshold requirements, then it was
evaluated and scored based on the categories: (1) Rents charged; (2) Development
Characteristics; (3) Sustainable Development Characteristics; (4) Financing &
Market; and (5) Other.89 The total number of points a development can receive
under the plan was 148.90 The majority of the points came from development
characteristics (sixty-three points) and the “other” category (thirty-five points);
the other three categories total fifty points combined.91 

Within the development characteristics point allocation, there is an
opportunity to earn points under the “Desirable Sites” criteria if a development
is deemed to be “Location Efficient.”92 “The scoring category promotes
[d]evelopments that provide nearby access to healthy food options, community
facilities, services, healthcare and retail centers.”93 To qualify for these points, the
development must be within half a mile of at least three desirable sites from at
least two types of developments, or within one mile of five desirable sites from
at least two types of developments,94 and a K-12 education facility is listed an
option for a community facility.95 To earn the full points in this category, one of
the facilities must sell fresh produce.96

Schools, however, play a small part in earning points in this category and the
overall category is worth a maximum of only three points out of 148 possible
points, or two percent.97 Additionally, the quality of the school is not considered
at all, only the proximity of any educational facility—even one that does not meet
federal expectations—to the development.98 

The desirable sites category can also deduct from the development’s points.
If the development is near an undesirable facility one point will be deducted per
undesirable site.99 In the 2020-2021 QAP, poor-performing schools are not
considered undesirable sites.100 The development can also lose one point from the
opportunity index portion of the desirable sites category if the proposed site is in
a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty.101 

Statewide, the schools near multi-unit LIHTC developments leave much to
be desired. The median proficiency percentile rank for Math/English Language

88. Id. at 52.

89. Id.

90. Id.

91. Id.

92. Id. at 70.

93. Id.

94. Id. at 70-71.

95. Id. at 71.

96. Id. at 70-71.

97. Id. at 52, 70.

98. Id. at 70-71.

99. Id. at 73.

100. Id. at 74. 

101. Id.



890 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Arts at these schools was only 32 percent in 2016, which means that 78 percent
of the schools in the state are performing higher than these schools.102

Additionally, the median percent free/reduced lunch at the school closest to the
development was 63.7 percent which means the developments are placed in areas
of concentrated poverty.103 

B. Housing Choice Voucher Program

The Housing Choice Voucher program provides rental assistance through
federal funding for qualified low-income families and allows families to rent from
the private market.104 The vouchers are administered by local public housing
agencies and a subsidy is paid directly to the landlord to cover the difference
between what the tenant pays and the market rent for the unit.105 The Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding for the subsidies.106

“Since the demand for housing assistance often exceeds the limited resources
available to HUD and the local housing agencies, long waiting periods are
common.”107 

The local housing agency determines the amount of the subsidy based on “the
amount generally needed to rent a moderately-priced dwelling unit in the local
housing market.”108 The family must pay 30 percent of its monthly adjusted gross
income for rent and utilities, and if a family chooses a unit that has an above-
market rent, they must pay the difference.1 0 9 However, if the family chooses to
move into an above-market rent unit, they may not pay more than 40 percent of
their income by law.110 Capping the maximum rent at 30 percent (or 40 percent
if choosing an above-market rent) keeps families from being rent-burdened (i.e.,
when a household “devote[s] a large share of income to rent”).111 When an overly
high percentage of a families’ income is spent on housing costs, it can “affect

102. INGRID GOULD ELLEN & KEREN HORN, POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCIL,

HOUSING AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY: CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL SCHOOLS NEAR FAMILIES

WITH FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE, APPENDIX A: STATES 37 (2018) https://prrac.org/pdf/housing-

schools_Appendix_A-State_Tables.pdf [https://perma.cc/5BHL-BDAV].

103. Id. 

104. DEPT. OF HOUS. & URBAN DEV., HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS FACT SHEET https://www.

h u d . g o v / p r o g r a m _ o f f ic e s/pu blic_ in dian _ h o u s in g / p r o g r a m s / h c v / a b o u t / f a c t _ s h e e t

[https://perma.cc/TJ4S-V6QR].

105. Id.

106. Id.

107. Id.

108. Id.

109. Id.

110. Id. 

111. THE FEDERAL RESERVE, Assessing the Severity of Rent Burden on Low-Income Families,

FEDS NOTES (Dec. 22, 2017) https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-

the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families20171222.htm [https://perma.cc/YF7Q-3LEG].



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

891

[their] economic well-being and financial stability.”112

This program is relevant because families may use their vouchers in LIHTC
developments.113 Notably, LIHTC developments cannot discriminate against
prospective tenants because of their status as a holder, so voucher holders may
use their vouchers in any LIHTC development with availability.114 Increasing the
number of LIHTC family developments near high-quality schools will allow
voucher holders to improve opportunities for their children without being rent-
burdened. 

Only 26.3 percent of the population in Marion County is Black, but the
percentage of Black households waiting for housing choice vouchers in 2014 was
85.07 percent.1 1 5  Thus, deficiencies in affordable housing supply
disproportionately impact Black families in the area.

III. EVALUATING RECENT FAMILY LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE GREATER INDIANAPOLIS AREA FOR ACCESS

TO HIGH-QUALITY SCHOOLS

A. Greater Indianapolis Metropolitan Area

Evaluating the placement of LIHTC developments requires an understanding
of the many greater Indianapolis metropolitan area school districts. The
metropolitan area comprises eleven counties: Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock,
Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan, Putnam, and Shelby.116 Within
these counties, in addition to Indianapolis, the greater Indianapolis metropolitan
area includes several surrounding cities, such as Greenwood, Plainfield, Franklin,
Greenfield, Brownsburg, Carmel, Noblesville, Westfield, Fishers, Avon, and
Anderson.117 

Due to the concessions made during the government consolidation plan, there
are nine townships and eleven different school districts in Marion County.118 The
town of Speedway and the City of Beech Grove were not consolidated into the
unified government, so both the Beech Grove and the Speedway school districts
remain independent.119 Additionally, each Marion County township, although

112. Id. 

113. I.R.C. § 42 (h)(6)(B).

114. Id. § 42 (h)(6)(B)(iii). 

115. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE – DRAFT

77 (2014) https://www.fhcci.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Indianapolis-2014AnalysisOf

Impediments-Draft.pdf [https://perma.cc/HLB5-UW89].

116. MELISSA DOLIN, HOUSING MARKET PROFILES INDIANAPOLIS-CARMEL-ANDERSON 1 (U.S.

Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. 2016) https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/USHMC/reg/

IndianapolisIN-HMP-Jan16.pdf [https://perma.cc/4TA8-Y894].

117. Id.

118. OWEN & WILLBERN, supra note 23, at 108-09.

119. Id.



892 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

consolidated as one city-county government, has its own independent school
district.120 Indianapolis Public Schools serves students primarily in Center
Township.121 The other eight independent township school districts are Franklin
Township Community School Corporation, Metropolitan School District of
Wayne Township, Metropolitan School District of Perry Township, Metropolitan
School District of Lawrence Township, Metropolitan School District of Pike
Township, Metropolitan School District of Warren Township, Metropolitan
School District of Washington Township, and Metropolitan School District of
Decatur Township.122

Most surrounding cities have their own school district. Greenwood,
Brownsburg, Anderson, Carmel, Zionsville, Avon, Greenfield, Westfield, and
Plainfield each have one school district serving the city. Hamilton Southeastern
Schools serves all of Fishers, IN, and a portion of Noblesville, IN.123 Noblesville
Schools serves the remainder of Noblesville. 

The median household income of the various cities changes significantly
depending on the city you live in within the greater metropolitan area. In 2018,
Indianapolis had a median household income of $47,678.124 Carmel ($116,867),
Fishers ($105,042), and Zionsville ($132,409), suburbs just north, report more
than double the median income in the same year.125 Westfield ($93,002), Avon
($91,587), Noblesville ($77,717), Brownsburg ($70,354), Plainfield ($62,828),
and Greenwood ($62,025) vary but remain significantly higher than
Indianapolis.126 

Although Anderson and Greenfield are included in the greater Indianapolis
metropolitan area, sometimes called the Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson
Metropolitan Area, both cities are much further from Indianapolis than other
cities in the area.127 They both also have lower median household incomes

120. Id.

121. Id. at 108.

122. Id. at 108-09.

123. HAMILTON SOUTHEASTERN SCHOOLS, Enrollment https://www.hseschools.org/about/

enrollment [https://perma.cc/GV9H-3W6L] (last visited March 14, 2021).

124. DATAUSA, Indianapolis City (Balance), IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/indianapolis-

city-balance-in [https://perma.cc/JQW2-7XCP].

125. DATAUSA, Carmel, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/carmel-in [https://perma.cc/LQE6-

AZK8]; DATAUSA, Fishers, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/fishers-in [https://perma.cc/S7BH-

TGBE]; DATAUSA, Zionsville, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/zionsville-in [https://perma.cc/

AK7E-D6DY].

126. DATAUSA, Westfield, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/westfield-in [https://perma.

cc/ZTA9-343Q]; DATAUSA, Noblesville, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/noblesville-in [https://

perma.cc/KDT6-ULL3]; DATAUSA, Greenwood, IN https://datausa.io/ profile/geo/greenwood-in

[https://perma.cc/ZCN4-XYMH]; DAT AUSA, Brownsburg, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/

brownsburg-in [https://perma.cc/A46Q-NLCC]; DATAUSA, Avon, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/

avon-in [https://perma.cc/P6W4-2MC5]; DATAUSA, Plainfiled, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/

plainfield-in [https://perma.cc/PE89-UCHG]. 

127. DOLIN, supra note 116.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

893

relative to other cities outside of Indianapolis (Anderson with $47,436, and
Greenfield with $53,061).128 Therefore, for the purposes of this note, the
contiguous city school districts will be analyzed. 

B. Evaluating Schools

In Appendix B, ratings are only listed for the neighborhood or boundary
school for the family LIHTC development. Private and other select enrollment
schools are not included. Within Indianapolis Public Schools, there are IPS
Choice and Innovation school options that allow parents to apply to enroll their
child in a school with a specialized curriculum, but those schools are assigned on
a lottery system and they cannot accept everyone who applies.129 Additionally,
transportation might not be available to Choice and Innovation elementary and
middle schools.130 IPS guarantees transportation to all high schools and “most
Choice schools for all students living in the Choice boundaries,” but families
must reach out to Innovation schools to determine if transportation is offered.131

The only guaranteed school where a child has a spot is at their assigned IPS
neighborhood school.132 

In Indiana, school districts receive two ratings, one from the federal
accountability system and one from the Indiana accountability system.133 The
Indiana Department of Education assigns one of four federal ratings based on
performance goals for the state: “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations,”
“Approaches Expectations,” and “Does Not Meet Expectations.”134 The federal
ratings are determined based on academic achievement, academic progress,
closing achievement gaps, graduation rate, English language proficiency, strength
of the diploma, and addressing chronic absenteeism.135 Based on the points earned
for each of those indicators, a school receives one overall rating which “reflect[s]

128. DATAUSA, Anderson, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/anderson-city-puma-in [https://

perma.cc/CMQ3-ASXR]; DATAUSA, Greenfield, IN https://datausa.io/profile/geo/greenfield-in

[https://perma.cc/PE89-UCHG].

129. MYIPS, K-12 Choice Enrollment for the 2021-2022 School Year https://myips.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/11/IPS_EnrollIndy_Overview_K-12_2021-22.pdf [https://perma.cc/7Z9N-

SA8G].

130. Id.

131. Id.

132. Id.

133. Adam Baker, Indiana Department of Education Releases Federal 2018-2019 School

Accountability Ratings, IND. DEPT. OF EDUC., (Jan. 3, 2020) https://www.doe.in.gov/news/indiana-

d e p a r t m e n t -e d u c a t io n -r e le a s e s -f e d e r a l-2 0 1 8 -2 0 1 9 -s c h ool-a c c o u n t a b ilit y-r a t in g s

[https://perma.cc/A7QK-C9DP].

134. IND. DEPT. OF EDUC, FEDERAL RATINGS: HOW ARE THEY DETERMINED? https://www.doe.

in.gov/sites/default/files/accountability/determining-federal-ratings.pdf [https://perma.cc/5676-

BL7D].

135. Id.



894 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

a school’s achievement with respect to performance goals for the [s]tate.”136 
This note uses the federal accountability ratings rather than the state grades

from the Indiana accountability system for two reasons: (1) the federal ratings
reflect long-term performance goals, and (2) the federal ratings offer greater
clarity on performance. State policy “allows elementary and middle schools three
years old or less to base their A-F accountability calculation on students’
academic growth on [state assessments] alone, instead of growth and pass rates
on the exam”; therefore, newer school state ratings do not adequately portray
student achievement.137

C. Quality of Schools Near Recent Family Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit Developments

The Poverty and Race Research Action Council issued a report on median
school metrics for schools closest to LIHTC tenants in 2016.138 In the
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson metropolitan statistical area, the median
proficiency percentile rank for Math and English language arts was only 23
percent for these schools.139 Additionally, the median percent of free/reduced-
price lunch students at the schools closest to the LIHTC family developments was
71 percent.140 This means nearly three-quarters of the students at those schools
were low-income, a significant concentration of poverty. Conversely, the median
student proficiency for all households in the area was 50 percent and the median
percent free/reduced lunch population was 42.6 percent, a staggering difference
from the schools closest to the LIHTC developments.141

Forty-four LIHTC family developments were approved in the greater
Indianapolis Metropolitan area from 2008 to 2020.142 Of the forty-four
developments, the vast majority were placed directly in Indianapolis—thirty-two
of the forty-four, or seventy-five percent.1 4 3 The remaining included one in
Brownsburg, one in Fishers, two in Greenfield, three in Greenwood, one in
Noblesville, two in Plainfield, and two in Westfield.144 There were no LIHTC

136. Id. at 3. 

137. Eric Weddle, Most A-Rated IPS Schools are Independent of District Policies, WFYI

INDIANAPOLIS (Oct. 5, 2017) https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/most-a-rated-ips-schools-are-

independent-of-district-policies [https://perma.cc/76QM-5JP6]. 

138. INGRID GOULD ELLEN & KEREN HORN, POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCIL,

HOUSING AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY: CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL SCHOOLS NEAR FAMILIES

WITH FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE, APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN AREAS 115 (2018) https://prrac.

org/pdf/housing-schools_Appendix_B-Metropolitan_Areas.pdf [https://perma.cc/7GUU-GF8V].

139. Id. 

140. Id. 

141. Id. 

142. See infra Appendix B (displaying the family developments awarded LIHTC awards in the

greater Indianapolis Metropolitan area from 2008-2020).

143. Id.

144. Id.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

895

family developments placed in Carmel or Avon in the twelve-year span.145 The
percentage of LIHTC family developments built in Marion County does not
follow the overall construction trend in the area, as 60 percent of apartments
between 2011 and 2019 were built in Hamilton County, which includes Carmel,
Fishers, Noblesville, and Westfield.146 In this time, only twenty percent of
apartments were built in Marion County, representing a significant need for a
greater portion of the LIHTC family developments to be placed in Hamilton
County generally.147

Within Marion County, the vast majority of developments have been placed
in the Indianapolis Public Schools District.148 Marion County has eleven different
public-school districts, yet outside of Indianapolis Public Schools, only
Brownsburg Community School Corporation, Metropolitan School District of
Perry Township, and Franklin Township Community School Corporation
received a single-family LIHTC development from 2008 to 2020.149 Twenty-eight
developments were placed in the Indianapolis Public Schools District in the same
time period.150 

Of the twenty-eight developments placed in the Indianapolis Public Schools
District from 2008 to 2020, not one of the IPS neighborhood schools “Meets
Expectations” for the federal school rating.151 Conversely, the Perry Township
school “Meets Expectations,” the Hamilton Southeastern school “Meets
Expectations,” the Franklin Township school “Meet Expectations,” the Clark-
Pleasant Community School Corporation school “Meet Expectations,” the Center
Grove School District school “Meet Expectations,” and the Brownsburg school
“Exceeds Expectations.”152 

Out of the forty-four developments built in the greater Indianapolis
Metropolitan area, twenty-six developments were built near a neighborhood
school that “Does Not Meet Expectations.”1 5 3 The majority have received a “Do
Not Meet Expectations” rating for several years, which means children who
attend those schools fall further behind their peers each year.154 This is simply a

145. Id.

146. DOLIN, supra note 116. 

147. Id.

148. See infra Appendix B (displaying the family developments awarded LIHTC awards in the

greater Indianapolis Metropolitan area from 2008-2020).

149. IND. DEP’T OF ED. INVIEW, inview.doe.in.gov [https://perma.cc/HQ3Q-NTXP]; see infra

Appendix B (displaying the school districts of the family developments awarded LIHTC awards in

the greater Indianapolis area since 2008).

150. See infra Appendix B (displaying the school districts of the family developments awarded

LIHTC awards in the greater Indianapolis area since 2008).

151. Id.

152. Id.

153. See infra Appendix B (displaying the school districts and federal accountability ratings of

the family developments awarded LIHTC awards in the greater Indianapolis area since 2008).

154. Id.



896 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

bad investment of federal dollars. Taxpayers should not set students up for failure
by funding family developments built overwhelmingly near underperforming
schools.

Moreover, because nearly 60 percent of the LIHTC family housing stock was
built in an attendance zone of an underperforming neighborhood school that
“Does Not Meet Expectations,” most low-income families are forced to choose
between finding an affordable place to live and pursuing a quality education for
their children.155 Reform to Indiana’s Qualified Allocation Plan is necessary.
 

Figure 2: Federal Rankings of Schools near LIHTC Family Developments (by Author)
156

IV. REFORMING INDIANA’S QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN FORMULA TO
INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT IN LOW-POVERTY AREAS WITH

HIGH-QUALITY SCHOOLS

Reforming the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program offers opportunities
to increase access to high-quality schools through the affordable housing supply.
To encourage using federal housing subsidy money to put families near high
performing schools, Indiana’s QAP should: (1) add a threshold requirement
requiring LIHTC family developments to have access to a high-quality school;
(2) revise the desirable sites category to incentivize high-quality schools; (3)
utilize the general set-aside for awarding tax credits for family developments near
high-quality schools; and (4) remove the local zoning approval letter. 

155. See generally Appendix B (showing that of the forty-four schools, twenty-six “Do Not

Meet Expectations”).

156. See generally Appendix B.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

897

A. Threshold Requirement for Access to High-Quality Schools

Given the lack of affordable housing built near high-quality schools and the
widening achievement gap in Indiana, access to high-quality schools should be
added as an absolute threshold requirement for all LIHTC family developments.
The threshold requirements must be satisfied by all applicants to be considered
for the tax credits.157 A family development should never be placed in an area
with an underperforming school and adding this threshold requirement would
prevent developments from being awarded tax credits if they are near one. As
demonstrated in Part III, there are many areas in the greater Indianapolis
metropolitan area with high-quality schools that should be prioritized for LIHTC
family developments rather than continuing to concentrate affordable housing for
families near underperforming schools. 

If it is not politically feasible to mandate placement near high-performing
schools, a development should not be built near poor-performing schools without
specific mitigation efforts in place to support student academic success. The
IHCDA should ensure that students are set up for success by requiring additional
services for families if the development is not built near a high-performing
school. 

Texas, for example, in the 2020 QAP, required an applicant to disclose
significant neighborhood risks. A poor performing school is a required disclosure:

[If] the Development Site is located within the attendance zone of an
elementary school, a middle school or a high school that has a 2019 TEA
Accountability Rating of D and a 2018 Improvement Required Rating or
a 2019 TEA Accountability Rating of F and a 2018 Met Standard Rating
by the Texas Education Agency.158

Further, if the applicant proposes a site near such a school, they must document
mitigation efforts to remedy the negative impact of an underperforming school.159

This includes a provision that requires the developer to enter into an agreement
that if the district or school has not achieved a rating of “A”, “B”, or “C” when
the development opens, the developer must offer an on site, no-cost early
childhood pre K program and an on-site “after school learning center that offers
at a minimum fifteen hours weekly” at no cost to residents of the proposed
development.160

The IHCDA should require mitigation similar to Texas’ QAP and put a
system in place to monitor the mitigation efforts. Mitigation deters developers
from building in areas with poor-performing schools because they have additional

157. IND. HOUS. & COMTY. AUTH., supra note 73. 

158. TEXAS DEP’T OF HOUS. & COMM. AFFAIRS, 2020 QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN 78 (2020),

https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/mu ltifam ily/docs/2 0 -Q AP -GovApproved-AsReceived.pdf

[https://perma.cc/9NRW-WHXH]. 

159. Id. at 81.

160. Id. at 82.



898 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

costs if the school does not improve. If developers are not in compliance with the
mitigation efforts, they should be held accountable through recapture of the tax
credits earned for the development.

B. Revising the Desirable Sites Development Category

The desirable sites scoring should be reformed to include specific criteria to
allocate points based on access to high-quality schools. In the 2020-2021 QAP,
proximity to any education facility was included in the formula, which could
include an underperforming K-12 school, and the formula did not specify that the
school be open-enrollment.161 Further, a development could score points for
proximity to a post-secondary facility, but no K-12 school.162 This must be
revised to incentivize proximity to high-performing K-12 schools.  

Massachusetts incentivizes high-performing schools within its QAP with a
high point value, and awards “[u]p to 8 points for [the] strength of [the] public
school system.”163 Specifically, the points for family developments are awarded
based on the state testing data.164 Based on the percentage of 10th grade students
that are proficient at that school, developments may earn two, four, six, or eight
points.165 Schools that have 75 percent or above proficient earn two points, 80
percent or above earn four points, 85 percent or above earn six points, and 90
percent or above earn eight points.166 

Georgia also incentivizes sites near high-performing K-12 schools.167 The
2021 QAP specifies that applications may earn up to three points for schools that
do not have selective admission, do not have district-wide enrollment (unless it
is the only school in the district), and meet one of two performance metrics.168

The school may either score “above average” on the “College and Career
Readiness Performance Index” or receive a 2019 or 2020 “‘Beating the Odds’
designation.”169 

New Jersey offers three points to projects located in school districts “wherein
40 percent or more of the students are either meeting expectations (Level 4) or
exceeding expectations (Level 5) on the Grade 4 Partnership for Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessment in both math and

161. IND. HOUS. & COMTY. AUTH., supra note 73, at 71.

162. Id. at 72.

163. COMMONWEALTH OF MASS. DEP’T OF HOUS. & CMTY. DEV., 2020-2021 QUALIFIED

ALLOCATION PLAN, 50 (2019), https://www.mass.gov/doc/2020-2021-qap-low-income-housing-tax-

credit-qualified-allocation-plan-qap/download [https://perma.cc/WV6C-SSF4].

164. Id.

165. Id.

166. Id.

167. STATE OF GA., 2021 QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN 10, https://www.novoco.com/sites/

d e f a u lt / f ile s / a t o m s / f ile s / g e o r g ia -lih t c -q a p - 2 0 2 1 - b o a r d - a p p r o v e d -1 1 1 8 2 0 2 0 . p d f

[https://perma.cc/Q5N2-5TXS].

168. Id.

169. Id. at 10-11.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

899

language arts.”170 The QAP specifies that the points would be allocated based on
the New Jersey Department of education data as of the application deadline.171

Data from both the preceding year and the calendar year of the application may
be used.172 

Pennsylvania’s QAP awards two points for developments in high-performing
school districts: “The Agency may award up to two [] points to those
developments located in a school district whose senior high school scores the
following Building Level Academic Score set forth in the Pennsylvania State
Performance Profile . . . .”173 A development earns more points for higher
academic outcomes. If the school performs at 70 to 80 percent then the
development earns one point, and if the school scores above 80 percent then the
development earns two points.174 

Connecticut utilizes the GreatSchools District Ratings to allocate points for
high-performing schools.175 In the 2020 QAP, proposed developments could earn
two points for “Above Average Performing Schools” and one point for “Average
Performing schools.176 Notably, access to higher education is a separate point
category, unlike Indiana’s 2020-2021 QAP. 

The City of New York offers three points in “High-Opportunity
Neighborhoods” and awards points to “[p]rojects located in any of the following
areas . . . high-performing schools, low-crime, or less than 10 [percent]
poverty.”177 There is no stated metric, however, for how to evaluate whether a
school is high-performing. 

State housing finance authorities argue that an obstacle for including school
performance as a metric for awarding points is that it is challenging to “access[]
consistent and reliable school data.”178 However, Texas, Massachusetts, Georgia,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut each present a template for utilizing

170. N.J., 2019-2020 DRAFT QAP, 51 (2018), https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/

atoms/files/new_jersey_2019-2020_draft_qap_111918.pdf [https://perma.cc/XBQ5-C2UQ]. 

171. Id. at 51-52.

172. Id. at 52.

173. PA. HOUS. FIN. AGENCY, ALLOCATION PLAN FOR PROGRAM YEARS 2019-2020 23,

https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/pennsylvania_2019_final_qap_071218.pdf

[https://perma.cc/4WHC-SMHW].

174. Id. 

175. CONN. HOUS. FIN. AUTHORITY, LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT QUALIFIED

ALLOCATION PLAN 2020 APPLICATION YEAR 17 (2020), https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/

files/atoms/files/connecticut-lihtc-qap-2020-final.pdf [https://perma.cc/TE8P-9RKT].

176. Id.  

177. CITY OF N.Y. DEPT. OF HOUS. PRESERVATION & DEV., 2020 LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX

CREDIT QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN 19 (2020) https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/

pdfs/services/2020-qualified-allocation-plan.pdf [https://perma.cc/3GCD-4MN4]. 

178. FREDDIE MAC MULTIFAMILY NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST, SPOTLIGHT ON UNDERSERVED

MARKETS 10, https://mf.freddiemac.com/docs/Opportunity_Incentives_in_LIHTC_Qualified_

Allocation_Plans.pdf [https://perma.cc/4U4W-75ZP].



900 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

various data points to include school performance in their QAPs. The Indiana
Department of Education provides two accountability ratings that would allow the
IHCDA to award development points based on the proximity to a high-quality
school.179 

Moreover, Indiana’s 2014-2015 QAP included an explicit provision for
proximity to high-quality schools with a “relatively high point value[]” compared
to other states—up to eight points.180 To earn the points, the QAP required
“proximity to at least [one] assigned public K-12 school with a rating of ‘A’ or
‘exemplary’ or equivalent according to the most recent accounting from the IN
Dept. of Education.”181 The state was previously able to utilize these state ratings
and should implement a system that will allow it to do so again.  

Five years later, not only was the focus on quality of schools removed, but
also the point value for schools was dramatically lower. In Indiana’s 2020-2021
QAP, the education facility provision is a small subsection of another small point
value category for the overall points used to determine which developments get
funded.182 Of the total 148 points available for a proposed development to earn,
“location efficient projects” are only worth three points—2 percent of the overall
total.183 To earn points in that category, there are twenty-seven types of facilities
and services that can be considered.184 Therefore, being close to a school of any
type is negligible within Indiana’s formula and even if the development is close
to a K-12 public school, the quality is not considered. 

The formula should be revised to include a separate category for access to
public K-12 schools that are explicitly high-performing, and it should not be
combined with other amenities. A return to the 2014-2015 QAP language is ideal.
However, if the desirable sites category is kept as one large category, the point
system should be shifted to grant a much higher number of points to
developments that prioritize developments in high opportunity areas.

Additionally, the undesirable sites formula should be revised to include a
point deduction for proposing a development in the attendance zone of a school
with a “Does Not Meet Expectations” federal rating. Indiana’s QAP includes
point deductions for other undesirable features and enduring attendance at an
underperforming school is certainly an undesirable feature that should be
considered.185 

179. Id.

180. POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCIL, BUILDING OPPORTUNITY II: CIVIL RIGHTS

BEST PRACTICES IN THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM 7 (2015) https://www.prrac.

org/pdf/BuildingOpportunityII.pdf [https://perma.cc/M2MV-2MXG].

181. Id.

182. IND. HOUS. & COMTY. AUTH., supra note 173, at 70-71. 

183. Id.

184. Id.

185. Id. at 73.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

901

C. General Set Aside

If changes to the threshold requirements or the scoring for desirable sites are
not revised for all family developments, the IHCDA should at the very least use
the general set-aside to increase access to high-quality schools. The set aside is
“for developments that further IHCDA’s mission, goals, initiatives, and priorities
irrespective of the ranking by the evaluation factors.”186 IHCDA exercises sole
discretion in the use of the general credits and the credits comprise 10 percent of
the annual credits.187 The stated mission is to “provide housing opportunities,
promote self-sufficiency, and strengthen communities.”188 These credits should
be used to build developments in areas with access to high-quality schools to
disrupt the achievement gap between high income and low-income students.
Building housing in areas with access to high-quality schools promotes self-
sufficiency for students growing up in those areas and strengthens communities.

Pennsylvania’s QAP reserves a portion of the credits each year for areas of
opportunity in suburban and rural areas that are candidates for economic
growth.189 To receive these credits the development must be near high-performing
schools:

The Agency will reserve Tax Credits to, at a minimum, three (3)
developments which expand housing opportunities and design choices in
areas suitable for long-term economic growth with an existing or planned
infrastructure to support future growth in the area, in order to promote
mixed-use and/or mixed-income development within a community
setting. These developments will be located in areas of strong schools
and employment opportunities and in communities which may have not
received representative resources in the past.190

Indiana’s general set-aside could reserve credits using a similar model, but
the term “strong schools” should be more clearly defined. Along with other
reforms, an additional change to the QAP is needed to increase access to high
opportunity areas—the required documentation for local zoning. 

D. Required Documentation for Local Zoning

Inclusionary zoning promotes the creation of mixed-income developments
with affordable living units in high opportunity neighborhoods.1 9 1

“Neighborhoods which are ethnically and economically integrated provide greater

186. Id. at 17.

187. Id.

188. Id. at 7.  

189. PA. HOUS. FIN. AGENCY, supra note 173, at 6.  

190. Id. at 8. 

191. FAIR HOUS. CTR. OF CENT. IND., ENSURING FAIR AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH

ZONING FACT SHEET #14 2 (2017), https://www.fhcci.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/FHCCI-FS-

14-Affordable-Housing.pdf [https://perma.cc/DTB8-6NNN].

https://perma.cc/4WHC-SMHW


902 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

opportunity for creating a diverse work force and more diverse and vibrant
communities.”192 Building LIHTC developments in higher-income areas with
good schools will help to create more diverse communities.

Yet the Qualified Allocation Plan requires: “A letter from the appropriate
authorized government official (e.g., zoning commission) that describes the
Development location and certifies that the current zoning allows for construction
and operation of the proposed Development without the need for additional
variance.”193 This addition to the requirement means it is less likely that
developments will be built in high opportunity areas that are resistant to
affordable housing. 

Provisions like this are common in QAPs and add challenges for developers
trying to build affordable housing in higher-income communities. Due to these
challenges, in 2017, both a House and a Senate bill were reintroduced with
bipartisan support to prohibit states from including local approval in their
QAPs.194 A hearing focusing on the local zoning requirements within the LIHTC
program was held before the United States Senate Committee on Finance.195 A
developer from Texas served as a witness in the hearing and supported the Senate
bill prohibiting special local approval: “This will ensure that if the zoning allows
it, an affordable project will be treated just like any other development.”196 The
witness highlights that a process that requires a special review process
“oftentimes results in community opposition.”197

The President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition,
Diane Yentel, underscores the importance of eliminating provisions of this type—
“One of the biggest obstacles . . . in building affordable housing in higher-
income, higher-opportunity neighborhoods is local opposition.”198 In addition to
revising Indiana’s QAP to explicitly address access to high-quality schools, the
local zoning requirement should be eliminated in order to make it easier to ensure
developments are approved in higher-income areas.

192. Id.

193. IND. HOUS. & CMTY. DEV. AUTH., supra note 73, at 25.

194. Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017, H.R. 166, 115th Cong. (2017);

Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017, S. 548, 115th Cong. (2017).

195. America’s Affordable Housing Crisis: Challenges and Solutions Hearing Before the

Comm. On Finance United States Senate, 115th Cong. (2017), available at https://www.govinfo.

gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg30902/html/CHRG-115shrg30902.htm [https://perma.cc/2GSZ-

S7TM]).

196. Id. at 14. 

197. Id. at 57. 

198. John Eligon et al, Program to Spur Low-Income Housing is Keeping Cities Segregated,

THE NEW YORK TIMES (July 2, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/us/federal-housing-

assistance-urban-racial-divides.html [https://perma.cc/FE24-NXSB].



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

903

E. Collective Benefits

Overall, “neighborhoods shape children’s long-run life chances”199 and
schools within those neighborhoods play a significant role. If a child attends an
underperforming school, they are more likely to be unemployed, experience job
instability, perform poorly in college, and have decreased lifetime earning
potential.200 More broadly, poor education limits the potential of the economy
because of decreased lifetime earnings resulting in decreased production, growth,
and innovation.201

Building affordable housing near high-performing schools in higher-income
areas has wide-reaching benefits. Generally, providing families “assistance in
moving to lower-poverty neighborhoods has substantial benefits for the families
themselves and for taxpayers.”202 Integration efforts to promote “mixed-income
communities are likely to reduce the persistence of poverty across generations.”203

The benefits are maximized when children are exposed to lower-poverty areas.204

Notably, promoting mixed-income communities is “likely to reduce government
expenditure while increasing children’s future earnings substantially.”205 

Furthermore, attending schools with a higher average socio-economic status
improves college performance. One study found that “holding student
characteristics constant, higher-performing [college] students attended high
schools with higher average [socio-economic status].”206 “Subsidized housing is
costly but urgently needed and should be built where there are strong and diverse
schools, not in locations where the schools are ‘dropout factories’ offering
students little chance of preparing for the postsecondary education necessary to
advance to the middle class.”207

199. INGRID GOULD ELLEN & KEREN HORN, POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCIL,

HOUSING AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY: CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL SCHOOLS NEAR FAMILIES

WITH FEDERAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE 1 (2018), https://www.prrac.org/pdf/HousingLocationSchools

2018.pdf [https://perma.cc/EXA3-C2TR].

200. OECD, EQUITY AND QUALITY IN EDUCATION: SUPPORTING DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

AND SCHOOLS 25 (OECD Publishing 2012), https://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf

[https://perma.cc/W7SR-A7PF].

201. Id.

202. RAJ CHETTY ET AL., THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS ON

CHILDREN: NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY EXPERIMENT 41 (Harvard Univ.

& NBER eds., 2015), https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/mto_paper.pdf [https://perma.

cc/QR2C-QGW5].

203. Id. at 41.

204. Id. at 40-41.

205. Id. at 37.

206. Sandra E. Black et al., Can You Leave School Behind, UNIV. OF TEX. 16 (2012),

https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/black-can_you_leave_high_school_behind.pdf

[https://perma.cc/PZX2-ZMLC].

207. GARY ORFIELD & DANIELLE JARVIE, BLACK SEGREGATION MATTERS SCHOOL



904 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Because Black and Latinx students in the greater Indianapolis area are more
likely to attend lower performing schools and more likely to need affordable
housing, there are significant benefits for building developments near high-
performing schools. For students of color, attending better K-12 schools increases
the likelihood of college success. A study on the achievement gap for minority
students looked at high school ratings for students of color compared to their
white peers at four universities in Texas.208 An achievement gap existed, and
students of color were at a disadvantage.2 0 9 “However, after controlling for high
school fixed effects, . . . the racial gap disappeared and, at some institutions,
minority students actually achieved higher average first semester grade point
averages than white students from the same high schools.”210

In our increasingly multi-cultural society, “skills in working and living
successfully in multiracial institutions are a vital asset.”211 It is advantageous for
both white students and students of color to attend diverse schools because
“[t]hese skills are learned, mostly through experience, and are extremely difficult
to acquire living in segregated communities and attending segregated,
concentrated-poverty schools.”212 Our economy is stronger when people of all
races learn “how to better understand and relate to other groups[,]” because these
skills are “highly valued by employers in our diverse society and markets.”213

CONCLUSION

The benefits of attending a high-quality school are clear. To bolster our
economy and ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to participate
meaningfully in the workforce, the government has a duty to ensure all children
have access to a quality education. Building government subsidized housing near
high-performing schools is a smart investment in our collective future. Further,
there is a clear link between historic, government sanctioned segregation and
present-day access to high-performing schools for Black and Latinx students in
the Indianapolis metropolitan area. The state government should rectify the
segregated school system in the greater Indianapolis area through the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit Program with a revision to the Qualified Allocation
Plan. 

Specifically, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority
should implement a threshold requirement that all LIHTC family developments

RESEGREGATION AND BLACK EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY 36 (2020), https://www.civilrights

project.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/black-segregation-matters-

school-resegregation-and-black-educational-opportunity/BLACK-SEGREGATION-MATTERS-

final-121820.pdf [https://perma.cc/9E3A-5KDM].

208. See generally Black, supra note 206 (providing the details of the study).

209. Id. at 5

210. Id.

211. ORFIELD & JARVIE, supra note 207, at 35.

212. Id. 

213. Id. at 36.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

905

be near high-performing schools. If a development is not near a high-performing
school, mitigation efforts must be financed by the developer with tax credit
recapture as a possible consequence for lack of oversight. Revising the desirable
site category to bring back points for access to a high-performing K-12 public
school is a must if the threshold provision is not added, and the number of points
available must increase. Additionally, the general set aside portion of credits
should be used to grant developments near high-performing schools. Local
zoning approval must also be eliminated to reduce barriers to development in
higher income areas. 

To maximize the benefits of improving access to high-performing schools for
family with young children, the state must make these changes now. The sooner
children live near high-performing schools, the sooner the achievement gap will
fall. Indiana can and should make these changes for the 2023-2024 Qualified
Allocation Plan.



906 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

APPENDIX A: GREATER INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN AREA DEMOGRAPHICS
AND INTERDISTRICT DISPARITIES214

Sch. Dist. State

Grade

 %

Econ. 

Disad.

 %

Asian

 %

Black/

Afri.

Am.

 %

Hawaiian

or Pac.

Islander

 %

Hispanic

 %

Multi

racial

 %

Native

Am.

 %

White

IPS
215

 D  65.4  0.7  40.3  0.0  31.8  5.4  0.1  21.7

MSD

Wash.

Twp.216

 C  53.7  3.6  41.0  0.0  20.4  6.0  0.1  28.8

Beech

Grove

City

Schs.217

 C  58.3  0.9  12.8  0.0  11.0  9.4  0.1  65.9

Sch.

Town of

Speed-

way218

 A  53.4  4.9  28.5  0.1  18.7  6.4  0.1  41.3

214. WELCOME TO INVIEW, IND. DEP’T OF ED., inview.doe.in.gov [https://perma.cc/Y5R9-

PE7H] (this is a dynamic database where each school was searched separately, the citations infra will

have the link to that particular school).

215. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053850000/profile [https://perma.cc/F9QA-64WJ]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053850000/population [https://

perma.cc/G5GY-YBXY].

216. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053700000/profile [https://perma.cc/CQS2-C8RU]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053700000/population [https://

perma.cc/LRE2-7LUB].

217. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053800000/profile [https://perma.cc/C3XJ-4BLA]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053800000/population [https://

perma.cc/2FDM-FS3H].

218. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1054000000/profile [https://perma.cc/WC97-LXWU]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1054000000/population [https://

perma.cc/FM6T-LZAH].



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

907

Franklin

Twp.

Cmty.

Sch.

Corp.219

 A  42.7  10.5  9.7  0.1  8.7  6.5  0.2  64.2

MSD of

Wayne

Twp.220

 C  66.9  0.6  37.5  0.1  29.7  5.8  0.2  26.1

MSD of

Perry

Twp.221

 B  71.0  30.9  8.6  0.0  15.9  5.0  0.1  39.4

MSD of

Lawrence

Twp.222

 C  63.8  1.0  44.7  0.1  27.4  7.1  0.1  19.7

MSD of

Pike

Twp.223

 B  65.8  1.8  60.9  0.0  24.3  5.3  0.0  7.7

MSD of

Warren

Twp.224

 C  62.4  0.5  54.8  0.1  17.6  7.9  0.1  18.9

219. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053100000/profile [https://perma.cc/G2NR-TVF4]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/ 1053100000/population [https://

perma.cc/859H-NJNT].

220. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053750000/profile [https://perma.cc/59L6-NW55]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053750000/population [https://

perma.cc/6LHF-EJAN].

221. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053400000/profile [https://perma.cc/B25P-BK5Y]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053400000/population [https://

perma.cc/8NE7-QAUL].

222. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T  OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053300000/profile [https://perma.cc/FK8G-M6EC]; https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053300000/population [https://perma.cc/5H2D-M3S4].

223. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053500000/profile [https://perma.cc/HCN5-3ZZS]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053500000/population [https://

perma.cc/QAM4-7K6V].

224. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053600000/profile [https://perma.cc/6TCZ-ER5X]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053600000/population [https://

perma.cc/R2DX-RQ8Y].



908 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

MSD of

Decatur

Twp.225

 C  58.6  0.7  18.7  0.1  13.4  6.9  0.3  60.1

Green-

wood

Cmty.

Sch.

Corp.226

 A  48.2  4.0  4.7  0.1  9.5  6.7  0.1  75.0

Browns-

burg

Cmty.

Sch.

Corp.227

 A  24.9  3.0  13.7  0.1  7.1  6.0  0.1  70.0

Hamilton

S.E.

Schs.228

 A  15.0  8.0  7.8  0.1  7.8  5.9  0.2  70.2

Carmel

Clay

Schs.229

 A  10.6  15.3  3.5  0.2  3.5  6.9  0.1  70.6

225. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1053000000/profile [https://perma.cc/YJ77-6URL]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1053000000/population [https://

perma.cc/5ZRB-KSNR].

226. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1042450000/profile [https://perma.cc/3NXR-HGS2]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1042450000/population [https://

perma.cc/ZHV9-E2AC].

227. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1033050000/profile [https://perma.cc/U2N2-V2A4]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1033050000/population [https://

perma.cc/P2ZJ-FUVU].

228. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1030050000/profile [https://perma.cc/X6F3-HUJF]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1030050000/population [https://

perma.cc/D9EA-KMRK].

229. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1030600000/profile [https://perma.cc/3TCG-QRBZ]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1030600000/population [https://

perma.cc/ZU65-A8XB].



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

909

Anderson

Cmty.

Sch.

Corp.230

 C  72.8  0.3  21.7  0.0  15.2  10.2  0.0  52.6

Zionsville

Cmty.

Schs.231

 A  5.4  5.9  2.2  0.1  4.8  5.3  0.1  81.5

West-

field-

Wash.

Schs.232

 A  14.7  2.8  4.0  0.0  8.5  5.1  0.2  79.3

Plainfield

Cmty.

Sch.

Corp.233

 A  27.4  3.1  5.0  0.0  5.9  4.8  0.0  81.2

Avon

Cmty.

Sch.

Corp.234

 B  33.4  5.4  17.3  0.0  10.2  6.5  0.1  60.4

230. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1052750000/profile [https://perma.cc/8CGK-UBC4]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1052750000/population [https://

perma.cc/6UNF-ELJU].

231. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1006300000/profile [https://perma.cc/Y7TJ-5DGY]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1006300000/population [https://

perma.cc/4US2-Y58W].

232. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1030300000/profile [https://perma.cc/66V5-SMB5]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1030300000/population [https://

perma.cc/QX78-4TKZ].

233. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1033300000/profile [https://perma.cc/38F9-XS5Q]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1033300000/population [https://

perma.cc/25JY-WMHE].

234. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1033150000/profile [https://perma.cc/V7QR-GYAV]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1033150000/population [https://

perma.cc/L4JC-HGXJ].



910 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Green-

field-

Cent.

Cmty.

Schs.235

 B  34.6  0.8  0.7  0.0  3.1  4.4  0.2  90.8

Nobles-

ville

Schs.236

 A  22.2  2.6  4.2  0.2  7.5  3.4  0.2  81.0

235. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1031250000/profile [https://perma.cc/UZ4U-T8QG]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1031250000/population [https://

perma.cc/78QR-3F2Z].

236. Indianapolis Public Schools (5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/

corporations/1030700000/profile [https://perma.cc/8G8R-XF74]; Indianapolis Public Schools

(5385), IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/corporations/1030700000/population [https://

perma.cc/FP8Q-JPKA].



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

911

APPENDIX B: 2018-2019 FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS OF DEVELOPMENTS AWARDED FAMILY

LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS IN THE GREATER
INDIANAPOLIS AREA FROM 2008 TO 2020237

Project Name: Placed-

In-

Service

Year:

School District Neighborhood

Elementary School

18-19 Federal

Rating

Commons at

Wynne Farms

Apts
238

2012 Brownsburg

Community

School Corp

Delaware Trail

Elementary School

Exceeds Expectations

Southpointe

Village Apts
239

Hamilton

Southeastern

Schools

Fishers Elementary

School 

Meets Expectations 

Prairie

Meadows Apts,

PHASE II
240

2017 Greenfield-

Central Com

Schools

Weston Elementary

School/Greenfield

Intermediate School

Exceeds

Expectations/Meets

Expectations 

Prairie

Meadows

Apts
241

2010 Greenfield-

Central Com

Schools

Weston Elementary

School/Greenfield

Intermediate School

Exceeds Expectations

Clary Crossing

Apts
242

2009 Center Grove

School District

Maple Grove

Elementary School

Meets Expectations

Trotters Pointe

Phase III
243

2011 Clark-Pleasant

Community Sch

Corp

Clark Elementary

School

Meets Expectations

237. LIHTC Database Access, https://lihtc.huduser.gov/ [https://perma.cc/T9BK-X4UC] (2008-

2018 development data); 2019 development Data https://www.in.gov/ihcda/files/2019A-

C%20Awarded%20List.pdf [https://perma.cc/TZ9Y-PZ2N]; 2020 Development Data

h ttps://ww w .in .gov/ih cda/files/2 0 2 0 A-C %2 0 Rou n d%2 0 Aw arded%2 0 Ap plican ts.pdf

[https://perma.cc/4UP6-5KNE]; Rental Housing Tax Credit Program Development Summary,

https://www.indy.gov/workflow/my-school-district/review [https://perma.cc/4Q8N-G88Q]

(Identifying School District Based on Address); Dylan P. McCoy & Emma K. Fittes, Indiana

Releases More Data on 2019 A-F Grades — with New Insight into Student Growth, CHALKBEAT

(May 18, 2020), https://in.chalkbeat.org/2020/5/18/21260522/indiana-unredacted-2019-a-f-grades-

student-growth-scores [https://perma.cc/77YN-BNEW] (2019 Projected Grades); Welcome to

INView, IND. DEP’T OF ED., https://inview.doe.in.gov/intro [https://perma.cc/HQ3Q-NTXP] (Federal

Ratings and State Grades).

238. 8144 Redrock Rd E, Brownsburg, IN 46112.

239. 11144 Lantern Rd, Fishers, IN 46038.

240. 2915 Sweet Grass Ln, Greenfield, IN 46140.

241. 110 Switch Grass Dr, Greenfield, IN 46140.

242. 3131 Clary Crossing, Greenwood, IN 46143.

243. 2600 Santa Anita Dr, Greenwood, IN 46143.



912 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Trotters Pointe

Phase IV
244

2014 Clark-Pleasant

Community Sch

Corp

Clark Elementary

School

Meets Expectations

Valley Forge

Apts
245

2008 MSD Perry Twp Abraham Lincoln

Elementary School

Meets Expectations 

Franklin Cove

I
246

2010 MSD Franklin

Twp

Acton Elementary

School

Meets Expectations

Franklin Cove

II
247

2014 MSD Franklin

Twp

Acton Elementary

School

Meets Expectations

Bradford Park

Apts
248

2010 Brownsburg

Community

School Corp

Eagle Elementary

School 

Exceeds Expectations

1010 Central

Apts
249

2012 IPS Urban ACT Academy at

Washington Irving

School 14

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

707 E North

St
250

2010 IPS Urban ACT Academy at

Washington Irving

School 14

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

Burton Apts

II
251

2012 IPS Urban ACT Academy at

Washington Irving

School 14

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

Canal

Gardens
252

2011 IPS Urban ACT Academy at

Washington Irving

School 14

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

Englewood

Lofts
253

2014 IPS Urban ACT Academy at

Washington Irving

School 14

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

Near West

Village
254

IPS Matchbook Learning at

Wendell Phillips School

63

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

Penn St

Tower
255

2015 IPS Urban ACT Academy at

Washington Irving

School 14

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

244. 2600 Santa Anita Dr, Greenwood, IN 46143.

245. 4350 Madison Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46227.

246. 8505 Faywood Dr, Indianapolis, IN 46239.

247. 3615 Franklin Rd, Indianapolis, IN 46239.

248. 3940 Crystal Pond Way, Indianapolis, IN 46234.

249. 1010 Central Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

250. 707 E N St, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

251. 821 Pennsylvania St, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

252. 1229 Dr. MLK Jr. St, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

253. 1249 Alabama St, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

254. Scattered Site – Near 2109 West 11th St, Indianapolis, IN 46222.

255. 115 Pennsylvania St, Indianapolis, IN 46204.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

913

Proctor Place
256

IPS Matchbook Learning at

Wendell Phillips School

63

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

The Steeples on

Washington
257

2012 IPS Matchbook Learning at

Wendell Phillips School

63

Does Not Meet

Expectations* 

Beechwood

Gardens &

Hawthorne

Place
258

2012 IPS Sankofa School of

Success @ Arlington

Woods Elementary

School

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Brookside

Apts
259

2008 IPS Brookside School 54 Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Brownstone

Apts
260

2013 IPS James Whitcomb Riley

School 43

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Canal

Village
261

IPS Ignite Achievement

Academy at Elder W.

Diggs School 

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Coburn Place

Safehaven
262

2009 IPS James Whitcomb Riley

School 43

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Colonial

Park263
IPS Christian Park School

82

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Constitution

Gardens
264

2008 IPS Phalen Leadership

Academy @ Louis B

Russell Jr School 48

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Enclave at

Meridian

Apts265

2012 IPS James Whitcomb Riley

School 43

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Jefferson

Apts
266

2010 IPS Thomas D Gregg

School 15

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Mapleton

Properties
267

2011 IPS Ignite Achievement

Academy at Elder W.

Diggs School 

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

256. 240 N Warman, Indianapolis, IN 46222.

257. 3000 W Washington St, Indianapolis, IN 46222.

258. 2805, 2807, 2809 & 2811 N Graham Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46218.

259. 1002 N Beville Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46201.

260. 3360 N Meridian St, Indianapolis, IN 46208.

261. Scattered Site – Near 27th & Clifton St, Indianapolis, IN 46208.

262. 604 E 38th St, Indianapolis, IN 46205.

263. 4421 E Washington St, Indianapolis, IN 46201.

264. 3433 Central Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46205.

265. 3777 N Meridian St, Indianapolis, IN 46208.

266. 2201 E Tenth St, Indianapolis, IN 46201.

267. 3028 Ruckle St, Indianapolis, IN 46205.



914 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:879

Museum

Park
268

2008 IPS Ignite Achievement

Academy at Elder W.

Diggs School 

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Point on Fall

Creek
269

2013 IPS Phalen Leadership

Academy @ Louis B

Russell Jr School 48

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

The

Georgetown
270

2009 IPS Phalen Leadership

Academy @ Louis B

Russell Jr School 48

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

The Meridian

Apts
271

2015 IPS James Whitcomb Riley

School 43

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Thirty-Four

North
272

2010 IPS James Whitcomb Riley

School 43

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Twin Hills &

Blackburn
273

2011 IPS Kindezi-Joyce Kilmer

School 69

Does Not Meet

Expectations 

Laurelwood &

Rowney
274

2011 IPS Raymond F Brandes

School 65

Approaches

Expectations 

Red Maple

Grove IIB275
2008 IPS Paul I Miller School

114

Approaches

Expectations 

Greystone Apts

of

Noblesville276

2008 Noblesville

Schools

Noble Crossing

Elementary School 

Meets Expectations

Haven Homes

of Hendricks

Cnty.277

Plainfield

Community

School Corp.

Clarks Creek

Elementary

Meets Expectations 

Harper’s

Crossing
278

Plainfield

Community

School Corp.

Central Elementary Exceeds Expectations 

Casey Acres
279

2015 Westfield-

Washington

Schools

Monon Trail

Elementary/Westfield

Intermediate School 

Meets Expectations 

268. 950 W 26th St, Indianapolis, IN 46208.

269. 2855 E 45th St, Indianapolis, IN 46205.

270. 3621 Bunker Hill, Dr, Indianapolis, IN 46205.

271. 1 E 36th St, Indianapolis, IN 46205.

272. 3420 N Meridian, Indianapolis, IN 46208.

273. 3091 Baltimore Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46218.

274. 3340 Teakwood Dr, Indianapolis, IN 46227.

275. 2901 E Tabor St, Indianapolis, IN 46203.

276. 7160 Oxfordshire Blvd, Noblesville, IN 46062.

277. 2601 Stout Heritage Parkway, Plainfield, IN 46168.

278. Retention Lane, Plainfield, IN 46168.

279. 1270 Sabrina Way, Westfield, IN 46074.



2022] INCREASING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY
SCHOOLS IN INDIANAPOLIS

915

Commons at

Spring Mill
280

2012 Westfield-

Washington

Schools

Maple Glen

Elementary/Westfield

Intermediate School

Exceeds

Expectations/Meets

Expectations

*= these schools were selected by Indianapolis Public Schools for a restart so in their 2018-2019

form as a turnaround school, there was no federal accountability rating. There is historic data,

however, which shows that Wendell Phillips School 63 received five consecutive failing grades

from the state with a federal rating of “Does Not Meet Expectations” and Washington Irving School

14 received two consecutive F grades from the state which earns a federal rating of “Does Not Meet

Expectations.”281 Additionally, projected grades for both schools were released based on 2019

standardized test performance.282 Urban ACT Academy at Washington Irving School 14 was

projected to have an F grade from the state and Matchbook Learning at Wendell Phillips School

63 was projected to have a D grade, both which correlate with a federal rating of Does Not Meet

Expectations.283

280. 17308 Cayuga Dr, Westfield, IN 46074.

281. Eric Weddle, IPS Board Backs ‘Innovation Restart’ to Turnaround 2 Failing Schools,

WFYI INDIANAPOLIS, (Nov. 16, 2017), https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/ips-names-2-more-

failing-schools-for-innovation-restart [https://perma.cc/BY5R-3DSY].

282. Dylan P. McCoy & Emma K. Fittes, Indiana Releases More Data on 2019 A-F Grades —

with New Insight into Student Growth, CHALKBEAT (May 18, 2020), https://in.chalkbeat.org/

2 0 2 0 / 5 / 1 8 / 2 1 2 6 0 5 2 2 / in d ia n a -u n r e d a c t e d -2 0 1 9 -a-f-grades-stu den t-g r o w t h -s c o r e s

[https://perma.cc/77YN-BNEW].

283. Id.