Managing for Results - TransACT€¦ · To Members of the Council of the Great City Schools – We are pleased to present the 2013 edition of Managing for Results in America’s Great

A R EPORT OF T HE P ER FOR MANCE MEA SUR EMENT A ND BENCHMAR KING PR O JECT

OCT OBER 2013

Managing for Results in Ame ri ca ’s Great Cit y S chools

RESULTS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2011-12

Copyright © 2006-2013

To Members of the Council of the Great City Schools –

We are pleased to present the 2013 edition of Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools to the membership and the public. Both the report and the web-based system, developed by TransAct Communications, Inc., are components of the Performance Management and Benchmarking Project, an initiative created by the Council of the Great City Schools to define, gather, and report data on key perfor-mance indicators (KPIs) in various non-academic operations of school district man-agement. The operational areas include finance (accounts payable, cash manage-ment, compensation, financial management, grants management, procurement, and risk management); business services (food services, maintenance and facilities, safe-ty and security, and transportation); human resources; and information technology.

The goal of this project is to define benchmarks in a way that will allow urban school districts to assess their performance and set strategic goals based on the data. The project adheres to the notion that when a district measures its performance and compares itself to others, it can better identify where it is successful, where it needs to improve, and how to do so strategically.

An increasing number of school systems have come to rely on the results of this pro-ject as an essential strategic tool. They have found that once they bring data and per-formance measurement into the governing and management process it lays the foundation for a more results-oriented school system.

The 2013 report reflects several changes and improvements in the KPIs over previ-ous years. Metric definitions and their survey questions have been updated and re-vised based on district feedback. As a result, the data in this report are more precise and more comparable than in earlier years. This report also introduces several new visualizations of the data, which can be found in the “Featured Analysis” page of each section. These charts are prepared to provide models for how districts might think about analyzing their own data.

There are many other important aspects of this report that cannot be summarized briefly, but we hope you will take the time to explore its pages. The Performance Management and Benchmarking Project will continue to be one of the Council’s most important initiatives and one of the most innovative and promising developments in public education in many years. The Council will continue to develop new perfor-mance measures that spur accountability and improvements in urban public school systems. A special thanks to Jonathon Lachlan-Haché, Special Projects Specialist for the Council, who has managed the project this past year, and to so many others who have lent their time and expertise to further these goals.

Michael Casserly Robert Carlson Executive Director Director, Management Services Council of the Great City Schools Council of the Great City Schools

Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Frequently Asked Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

F I N A N C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of KPIs in Accounts Payable ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Featured Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

CASH MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

List of KPIs in Cash Management .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

COMPENSATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

List of KPIs in Compensation .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Featured Analyses ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

List of KPIs in Financial Management ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35

GRANTS MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

List of KPIs in Grants Management ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

PROCUREMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

List of KPIs in Procurement .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 55

RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59

List of KPIs in Risk Management ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 66

O P E R A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9

FOOD SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

List of KPIs in Food Services.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 72 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84

MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87

List of KPIs in Maintenance & Operations .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 90

Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013

Page ii

KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105

SAFETY & SECURITY ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................109

List of KPIs in Safety & Security ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 110 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119

TRANSPORTATION ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................121

List of KPIs in Transportation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 134

H U M A N R E S O U R C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7

List of KPIs in Human Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 142 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153

I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 5

List of KPIs in Information Technology ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 156 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 166


Page iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

F I N A N C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1 Payments Voided vs. Invoices Past Due ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 AP Cost per $100K Revenue ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 AP Cost per Invoice ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Invoices – Days to Process ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 5 Invoices Processed per FTE per Month ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 6 Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 7 Payments Voided ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

CASH MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 8 Cash/Investment Equity vs. Investment Earnings ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9 Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10 Cash Flow - Months Above Liquidity Baseline .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 11 Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 12 Investment Earnings as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity .................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 13 Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 14 Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

COMPENSATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 15 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend vs. Payroll Cost per Pay Check ................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 16 Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 18 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 19 Payroll Cost per Pay Check ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 20 Pay Check Errors per 10K Payments ............................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 21 Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per FTE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 22 Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 23 W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 24 Pay Checks - Direct Deposits .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 25 Debt Principal vs. Debt Servicing Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 26 Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 27 Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 28 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue - All Types ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 29 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue – Unrestricted ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 30 Expenditure Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual ......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 31 Revenue Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual ................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 32 Expenditure Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual ................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 33 Revenue Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 34 Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish ................................................................................................................................................................... 34

GRANTS MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 35 Grant Funds vs. Grant-Funded Staff ................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 36 Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 37 Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 38 Returned Grant Funds per $100K Grant Revenue ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 39 Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 40 Days to Access New Grant Funds ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 41 Grants Receivables Aging.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

PROCUREMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 42 Cost per Purchase Order vs. Cost per Spend .................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 43 Procurement Cost per Purchase Order ........................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 44 Procurement Cost per $100K Revenue ........................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 45 Procurement Savings Ratio ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49


Page iv

Figure 46 Strategic Sourcing Ratio ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 47 Competitive Procurements Ratio ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 48 Cooperative Purchasing Ratio........................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 49 P-Card Purchasing Ratio..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 50 PALT for Requests for Proposals ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 51 PALT for Invitations for Bids ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 52 PALT for Informal Solicitations ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 53 Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate ......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 54 Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 55 Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 54

RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59

Figure 56 Cost of Risk per Student ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 57 Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend ............................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 58 Workers’ Compensation Cost per 1,000 Employees .................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 59 Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees ............................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 60 Liability Claims - Percent Litigated ................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 61 Liability Claims per 1,000 Students ................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 62 Liability Cost per Student ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 63 Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees ............................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 64 Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees ................................................................................................................................................................... 65

O P E R A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9

FOOD SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 65 Food Cost vs. Labor Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 66 Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 67 Breakfast Participation Rate (by Grade Span) ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 68 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 69 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate (By Grade Span) .................................................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 70 Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites)............................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 71 Lunch Participation Rate (by Grade Span) .................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 72 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 73 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate (by Grade Span) ......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 74 Cost per Meal ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 75 Food Cost per Meal................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 76 Fund Balance per Revenue .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 77 Total Cost as Percent of Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 78 Food Cost per Revenue .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 79 Labor Cost per Revenue ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 80 Meals per Labor Hour ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 81 USDA Commodities as Percent of Revenue ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 82 Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts ...................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 83 Provision II Enrollment Rate – Lunches .......................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 84 ServeSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site ............................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 85 Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other .......................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 86 Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System ............................................................................................................................................ 82 Figure 87 Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts .................................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 88 Meal Reimbursements - Lunches ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 83

MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87

Figure 89 Custodial Workload vs. Cost per Square Foot................................................................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 90 Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot............................................................................................................................................................................ 90 Figure 91 Custodial Work - Cost per Student .................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 92 Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 93 Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot ............................................................................................................................................................................ 91 Figure 94 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot ............................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 95 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order................................................................................................................................................................ 92 Figure 96 Routine Maintenance – Proportion Contractor-Operated, by Work Orders ........................................................................................................ 93 Figure 97 Major Maintenance – Cost per Student ........................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 98 Major Maintenance – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs ................................................................................................... 93 Figure 99 Major Maintenance – Design to Construction Cost Ratio .......................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 100 Renovations – Cost per Student ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 101 Renovations – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs .............................................................................................................. 95


Page v

Figure 102 Renovations – Design to Construction Cost Ratio ...................................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 103 New Construction – Cost per Student ............................................................................................................................................................................ 96 Figure 104 New Construction – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs .................................................................................................... 97 Figure 105 New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio ........................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 106 M&O Cost per Student ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 Figure 107 M&O Cost Ratio to District Budget ................................................................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 108 Work Order Completion Time (Days) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 99 Figure 109 Recycling – Percent of Material Stream ....................................................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 110 Utility Costs per Square Foot .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 111 Utility Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh) ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 112 Utility Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU) .............................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 113 Utility Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.) ............................................................................................................. 102 Figure 114 Building Square Footage by Type ................................................................................................................................................................................. 102 Figure 115 Building Square Footage by Usage............................................................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 116 Green Buildings – Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent .................................................................................................................................. 104

SAFETY & SECURITY ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................109

Figure 117 Incident Rate vs. Staffing Level ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 118 Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students..................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 119 Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students ....................................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 120 S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students .......................................................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 121 S&S Expenditures as Percent of District Budget ...................................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 122 S&S Staff per 1,000 Students .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 123 Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel ........................................................................................................................................................ 114 Figure 124 Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team .................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 125 Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site.................................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 126 Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually ............................................................................................................................................ 116 Figure 127 Health/Safety Violations per Site ................................................................................................................................................................................. 116 Figure 128 Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students............................................................................................................................................. 117 Figure 129 Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site ................................................................................................................................................... 117 Figure 130 Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent Of Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 118

TRANSPORTATION ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................121

Figure 131 Cost per Mile Operated vs. Cost per Rider .................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Figure 132 Cost per Bus vs. Cost per Rider ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Figure 133 Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet .................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Figure 134 Cost per Mile Operated ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Figure 135 Cost per Rider ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 136 Cost per Bus ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 137 On-Time Performance ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Figure 138 Bus Equipment - GPS Tracking ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Figure 139 Accidents - Miles between Accidents ............................................................................................................................................................................ 128 Figure 140 Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents ................................................................................................................................................... 129 Figure 141 Bus Fleet - Alternatively Fueled Buses......................................................................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 142 Bus Fleet - Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses .................................................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 143 Bus Usage - Daily Runs per Bus ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Figure 144 Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 131 Figure 145 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel ......................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 146 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline .................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 147 Daily Ride Time - General Education ........................................................................................................................................................................... 133 Figure 148 Daily Ride Time - Special Education ............................................................................................................................................................................ 133

H U M A N R E S O U R C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7

Figure 149 Teacher Retention – Quartile Analysis of Employment Length ........................................................................................................................... 139 Figure 150 Teacher Retention – Variability across Employment Length Categories ......................................................................................................... 140 Figure 151 Employee Separation Rate – Quartiles by Employee Category ........................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 152 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 1 Year Ago ...................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 153 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 2 Years Ago .................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 154 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 3 Years Ago .................................................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 155 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 4 Years Ago ................................................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 156 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 5 Years Ago ................................................................................................................................................... 144 Figure 157 Substitute Placement Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 144 Figure 158 Substitute Placements with BA/BS or Higher ........................................................................................................................................................... 145


Page vi

Figure 159 Employee Separation Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 145 Figure 160 Employee Separation Rate - Teachers......................................................................................................................................................................... 146 Figure 161 Employee Separation Rate – Instructional Support Staff ..................................................................................................................................... 146 Figure 162 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Exempt Staff...................................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 163 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Non-Exempt Staff ............................................................................................................................ 147 Figure 164 Employee Separation Rate – Non-School Exempt Staff ......................................................................................................................................... 148 Figure 165 Employee Separation Rate – Non-School Non-Exempt Staff................................................................................................................................ 148 Figure 166 Exit Interview Completion Rate..................................................................................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 167 Health Benefits Enrollment Rate .................................................................................................................................................................................. 149 Figure 168 Health Benefits Cost per Enrolled Employee ............................................................................................................................................................. 150 Figure 169 HR Cost per District FTE .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 150 Figure 170 HR Cost per $100K Revenue ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 151 Figure 171 Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000 Employees .......................................................................................................... 151 Figure 172 Employee Relations - Misconduct Investigations per 1,000 Employees ........................................................................................................... 152

I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 5

Figure 173 Devices per Student vs. Bandwidth per Student ....................................................................................................................................................... 157 Figure 174 Devices - Average Age of Computers ............................................................................................................................................................................ 158 Figure 175 Devices - Computers per Employee ............................................................................................................................................................................. 158 Figure 176 Devices per Student ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 177 Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices per Teacher .......................................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 178 IT Spending Percent of District Budget....................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 179 IT Spending Percent of District Budget (Including Capital Investments) ........................................................................................................ 160 Figure 180 IT Spending per Student .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 161 Figure 181 Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps) ................................................................................................................................................... 161 Figure 182 Network - Days Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity ..................................................................................................................................................... 162 Figure 183 Network - WAN Availability ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 162 Figure 184 Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket ............................................................................................................................................................ 163 Figure 185 Support - First Contact Resolution Rate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Figure 186 Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate............................................................................................................................................................ 164 Figure 187 Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket ............................................................................................................................................................ 164 Figure 188 Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee ............................................................................................................................................... 165 Figure 189 Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student .......................................................................................................................................... 165


Page 1

INTRODUCTION OVER VIEW

The Performance Management and Benchmarking Project

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set

out to develop performance measures that could be used to im-

prove business operations in urban public school districts. The Coun-

cil launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Pro-

ject to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were

to:

Establish a common set of key performance indicators (KPIs) in

a range of school operations, including business services, fi-

nances, human resources, and technology;

Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of

the nation’s largest urban public school systems;

Use the results to improve operational performance in urban

public schools.

Since its inception, the project has been led by two Council task

forces operating under the aegis of the organization’s Board of Di-

rectors: the Task Force on Leadership, Governance, and Manage-

ment, and the Task Force on Finance. The project’s work has been

conducted by a team of member-district managers, technical advi-

sors with extensive expertise in the following functional areas: busi-

ness services (transportation, food services, maintenance and oper-

ations, safety and security), budget and finance (accounts payable,

financial management, grants management, risk management, com-

pensation, procurement and cash management), information tech-

nology, and human resources.

Methodology of KPI Development

The project’s teams have used a sophisticated approach to define,

collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each

KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and

extensive documentation of the metric definitions ensures that the

expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. (The definitional

documentation for any KPI that is mentioned in this report is includ-

ed in the “KPI Definitions” section of each functional area.)

At the core of the methodology is the principle of continuous im-

provement. The technical teams are instructed to focus on opera-

tional indicators that can be benchmarked and are actionable, and

thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets.

From the KPI definitions the surveys are developed and tested to en-

sure the comparability, integrity and validity of data across school

districts.

Power Indicators and Essential Few

The KPIs are categorized into three levels of priority—Power Indica-

tors, Essential Few, and Key Indicators—with each level having its

own general purpose.

Power Indicators: Strategic and policy level; can be used by su-

perintendents and school boards to assess the overall perfor-

mance of their district’s non-instructional operations.

Essential Few: Management level; can be used by chief execu-

tives to assess the performance of individual departments and

divisions.

Key Indicators: Technical level; can be used by department

heads to drive the performance of the higher-level measures.

This division is more or less hierarchical, and while it is just one way

of many to organizing the KPIs, it is helpful for highlighting those

KPIs that are important enough to warrant more attention being

paid to them.

A Note on Cost of Living Adjustments

We adjust for cost of living in most cost-related measures. Regions

where it is more expensive to live, such as San Francisco, Boston,

New York City and Washington, D.C., are adjusted downward in or-

der to be comparable with other cities. Conversely, regions where

the costs of goods are lower, such as Columbus, OH, and Nashville,

TN, are adjusted upwards.


Introduction Page 2

FREQU EN TLY ASKED QU ES TION S

Why do the charts in this report have axes labeled with

numbers instead of district names?

Each bar chart in this report has axis labels that show the district ID

number. This is done in order to keep the district data confidential.

How do I find my district’s ID number?

You can contact CGCS at 800-394-2427 and ask for your KPI ID. Your

ID is also shown when you log in to ActPoint® KPI

(https://kpi.actpoint.com).

How do I get the ID numbers for all the other districts?

The ID numbers of other districts are confidential, and we do not

share them without the permission of each district. If you would like

to identify specific districts that are in your peer group in order to

collaborate with them, please contact CGCS at 800-394-2427.

Why isn’t my data showing? My district completed the sur-

veys.

It is likely that your data was flagged for review or is invalid. To re-

solve this, log in and check the Surveys section of the website. You

should see a message telling you that there are data that needs to

be reviewed.

It is also possible that you submitted your data after the publication

deadline for this report.

In either case, it may be possible to update your data in the surveys.

Once you do, your results will be reviewed and approved by CGCS or

TransAct within 24 hours of your submission. You will then be able

to view the results online.

Can I still submit a survey? Can I update my data?

You may still be able to submit or edit a survey depending on the

survey cycle. You will see a message saying “This survey is now

closed” if the survey is closed to edits. If you do not see this mes-

sage, then updates are still allowed for the fiscal year.

If the surveys are still open, any data that is updated will need to be

reviewed and approved by CGCS or TransAct before the results can

be viewed online. You can expect your data to be reviewed within

24 hours of your submission.

https://kpi.actpoint.com/


Page 3 Accounts Payable

FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS PA

YA

BLE

FINANCE

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Performance metrics in Accounts Payable (AP) focus on the cost efficiency, productivity, and service quality of in-

voice processing. Cost efficiency is measured most broadly with AP Costs per $100K Revenue, which evaluates the

entire cost of the AP department against the total revenue of the district. This metric is supported by a similar met-

ric, AP Cost per Invoice, which compares against the number of invoices processed rather than district revenue.

Productivity is measured by Invoices Processed per FTE per Month, and service quality is captured, in part, by

Days to Process Invoices, Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment and Payments Voided.

With the above KPIs combined with staffing and electronic invoicing KPIs, district leaders have a baseline of infor-

mation to consider whether their AP function:

Needs better automation to process invoices

Is overstaffed or has staff that is under-trained or under-qualified

Should revise internal controls to improve accuracy

Needs better oversight and reporting procedures


Finance Page 4

FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS P

AY

AB

LE

FIN

AN

CE

L IST OF KPIS IN ACCO U NTS PAYAB LE Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Accounts Payable. Indicators in bold are those included in

this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to CGCS

members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.

POWER INDICATORS

AP Cost per $100K Revenue

AP Cost per Invoice

Invoices - Days to Process

Invoices Processed Per FTE per Month

ESSENTIAL FEW

Invoices - Past Due at Time of Payment

Payments Voided

Payments Voided Due To Duplication

Payments Voided Due To Error

OTHER KEY INDICATORS

AP Staff - Accountants with AP Certificate

AP Staff - Accountants with CPA

AP Staff - Cost Per FTE

AP Staff - District FTEs per AP FTE

AP Staffing Ratio - Clerical and Support

AP Staffing Ratio - Managers

AP Staffing Ratio - Professionals

AP Staffing Ratio - Supervisors

Invoices - Percent Paid Electronically

Invoices - Percent Received Electronically



FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS PA

YA

BLE

FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS

Figure 1 Payments Voided vs. Invoices Past Due

This scatter plot shows the percent of payments voided compared with the percent of invoices that were past due at the time of payment. These

two KPIs should both be minimized, so the best-performing districts are those that are at the bottom-left of the chart. Districts that are far to the

right or far to the top—or both—should track the corresponding KPI closely, and review their practices to move toward the bottom-left.

28

71

46

45

55

20

9

57

35

41

37

44 67

39

53

56

11

47

25

66

8

43

5

74

62

16

101

18

3

79

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Pay

me

nts

Vo

ide

d

Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment


Finance Page 6

FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS P

AY

AB

LE

FIN

AN

CE

DATA D ISC O VER Y The following charts show the data from the Power Indicators and the Essential Few in Accounts Payable. There are also guiding questions to en-

courage critical thinking about your district’s data. See the “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these

measures.

Figure 2 AP Cost per $100K Revenue

This is the total AP department cost relative to the district’s total

operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.

Figure 3 AP Cost per Invoice

This is the total AP department cost relative to the number of in-

voices that were processed. Adjusted for cost of living.

193.1

155.8

93.1

93.0

92.9

81.9

80.5

79.0

78.0

77.9

67.9

67.6

66.0

65.3

64.5

63.7

63.0

59.1

57.0

54.7

54.2

53.6

50.7

48.1

47.4

47.3

46.9

45.7

45.5

41.2

38.9

38.8

37.5

35.5

31.5

29.0

22.8

57.0

0 50 100 150 200

6

12

101

16

66

20

14

44

28

67

1

5

3

35

45

57

47

52

21

Median

37

18

48

25

55

11

23

43

71

41

32

9

30

13

39

4

10

26

23.77

23.31

23.02

15.61

15.04

13.23

11.86

11.14

10.99

10.86

9.47

8.61

8.22

7.98

7.91

7.84

7.70

7.44

6.79

6.71

6.29

6.23

6.18

5.97

5.91

5.62

5.43

5.33

5.02

4.92

4.47

4.15

3.64

3.55

3.43

3.31

3.13

2.74

2.66

2.49

2.09

1.94

1.92

1.81

6.21

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25

45

79

56

25

74

12

16

101

52

43

44

28

57

67

5

9

66

62

6

11

20

21

47

1

35

30

37

18

7

55

14

26

3

41

53

71

46

32

4

13

8

23

39

10

Do you think this indicator accurately reflects the cost efficiency of your A/P department? If not, why?

What are some factors that influence this measure? (See KPI Def-initions at the back of this section.)



FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS PA

YA

BLE

Figure 4 Invoices – Days to Process

Average processing time can reflect the efficiency of the AP depart-

ment.

Figure 5 Invoices Processed per FTE per Month

49.5

40.7

40.6

30.9

30.0

22.0

18.4

18.0

15.9

15.9

10.0

10.0

9.4

7.6

6.1

5.5

4.3

3.3

3.2

3.1

2.6

10.0

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

45

56

74

67

44

11

18

12

71

79

30

46

62

16

5

20

53

55

37

32

47

56

230

234

255

268

316

319

425

426

476

514

542

563

589

620

668

700

723

728

746

767

844

852

871

889

916

920

949

1,134

1,135

1,143

1,168

1,175

1,226

1,295

1,296

1,378

1,544

1,607

1,631

1,683

1,804

2,140

2,195

2,693

852

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

102

45

74

56

79

12

25

16

44

101

43

28

52

57

5

66

67

11

9

62

1

14

21

Median

37

47

20

55

7

26

18

6

53

35

41

71

30

3

32

46

13

4

8

39

10

23


Finance Page 8

FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS P

AY

AB

LE

FIN

AN

CE

Figure 6 Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment

Payments are often held until the due date (often net 30 days). One

reason for doing this is to sustain positive cash flow. However, pay-

ments that are made after their due date can result in fees and/or

harm the district’s reputation.

Figure 7 Payments Voided

This can be used to identify your void rate.

69.7%

64.0%

58.4%

43.1%

40.2%

40.1%

34.3%

30.0%

22.4%

20.6%

19.3%

18.9%

18.4%

18.4%

18.3%

17.9%

16.3%

14.4%

9.8%

9.2%

8.3%

6.5%

6.1%

3.8%

3.6%

3.4%

3.3%

1.8%

1.4%

1.2%

0.5%

0.2%

0.1%

16.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

25

45

74

57

43

47

79

41

11

5

35

20

56

67

16

39

18

Median

46

9

71

10

66

4

55

3

62

53

44

8

28

23

37

101

5.33%

4.40%

2.84%

2.48%

2.40%

1.98%

1.82%

1.65%

1.47%

1.47%

1.31%

1.30%

1.21%

1.17%

1.17%

1.14%

1.14%

1.14%

1.10%

1.09%

1.07%

0.99%

0.98%

0.92%

0.88%

0.83%

0.69%

0.64%

0.57%

0.52%

0.50%

0.46%

0.45%

0.44%

0.41%

0.40%

0.38%

0.37%

0.32%

0.31%

0.26%

0.24%

0.18%

0.99%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%

74

48

18

25

101

55

46

32

28

41

43

44

16

71

66

3

49

67

35

11

20

39

Median

5

7

6

57

62

13

9

34

45

8

1

12

53

21

14

52

30

37

79

47

56

What does your Accounts Payable department need to work on?

Which KPIs will track progress towards your improvement goals? Who is responsible for reporting on this?

Whose buy-in and support is needed to support these goals (e.g., CFO, Assistant Superintendent, CIO/CTO)?

How many percentage points would you need to improve in or-der to move to the next highest quartile? To move into the Top 5?

How many more invoices would need to be paid on-time in order to gain that many percentage points?



FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS PA

YA

BLE

KPI DEF IN ITION S AP Cost per $100K Revenue

Importance This measures the operational efficiency of an Ac-

counts Payable Department.

Factors that Influence

Administrative policies and procedures

Administrative organizational structure

Administrative leadership style, decision-making process

and distribution of organizational authority

Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and

competencies

Performance management systems

Monitoring and reporting systems

Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department

The total dollar amount of invoices paid annually

Level of automation

Regional salary differentials and different processing ap-

proaches

Calculation

Total AP department personnel costs plus AP department non-

personnel costs divided by total district operating revenue over

$100,000.

AP Cost per Invoice

Importance This measure determines the average cost to process

an invoice. According to the Institute of Management, the cost to

handle an invoice is the second most used metric in benchmarking

AP operations.







competencies




The total dollar amount of invoices paid annually

Level of Automation

Regional salary differentials and different processing ap-

proaches

Calculation Total AP department personnel costs plus AP depart-

ment non-personnel costs divided by total number of invoices han-

dled by the AP department.

Invoices – Days to Process

Importance This measures the efficiency of the payment process.


Automation

Size of district

Administrative policies

Calculation Aggregate number of days to process all AP invoices,

from date of invoice receipt by the AP department to the date of

payment post/check release divided by the total number of invoices

handled by the AP department.

Invoices Processed per FTE per Month

Importance This measure is a major driver of accounts payable

department costs. Lower processing rates may result from handling

vendor invoices for small quantities of non-repetitive purchases;

higher processing rates may result from increased technology using

online purchasing and invoice systems to purchase and pay for large

quantities of items from vendors.



Administrative leadership style, decision-making process and

distribution of organizational authority


competencies




The number of invoices paid annually

Level of automation

Calculation Total number of invoices handled by the AP depart-

ment divided by total number of AP staff (FTEs), divided by 12

months.

Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment

Importance Minimizing the number of payments that are past due

should be a mission of the accounts payable department.


Process controls

Department workload management

Overtime policy

Calculation Number of invoices past due at time of payment di-

vided by total number of invoices handled by the AP department.

Payments Voided

Importance This measure reflects processing efficiencies and the

degree of accuracy. A high percentage of duplicate payments may

indicate a lack of controls, or indicate that the master vendor files

need cleaning.







competencies




The total number of checks written annually

Level of automation

Calculation Number of payments voided divided by total number

of AP transactions (payments).


Finance Page 10

FIN

AN

CE

AC

CO

UN

TS P

AY

AB

LE

FIN

AN

CE


Page 11 Cash Management

FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T

CASH MANAGEMENT These performance metrics can help a district assess their cash management. Cash management relies upon well-

controlled cash-flow practices. Performance metrics that indicate healthy cash management include Months be-

low Target Liquidity Level and Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue.

Measures that look at investment yield include Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue and Investment Earnings

as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity.

When evaluating cash-management performance, the following conditions should be considered among the influ-

encing factors:

Revenue inflows and expenditure outflows, and the accuracy of cash flow projections

School board and administrative policies requiring internal controls and transparency

Accounting standards

Borrowing eligibility and liquidity

State laws and regulations


Finance Page 12

FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

L IST OF KPIS IN CASH MAN AGEMEN T Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Cash Management. Indicators in bold are those included in



POWER INDICATORS

Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue

Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue

ESSENTIAL FEW

Cash Flow - Months above Liquidity Baseline

Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue

Investment Earnings as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity

Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue


Treasury Staff - Cost Per FTE

Treasury Staff - District FTEs per Treasury FTE

Treasury Staffing Ratio - Clerical and Support

Treasury Staffing Ratio - Managers

Treasury Staffing Ratio - Professionals

Treasury Staffing Ratio - Supervisors



FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T


Figure 8 Cash/Investment Equity vs. Investment Earnings

A district with more available equity might hope to create additional value through investments. This chart shows the level of equity compared

with the level of investment earnings.

The ratio between these two measures is represented by the KPI “Investment Earnings as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity”, and the line in this

chart shows the median ratio from that KPI (at 0.52%). Districts that are below the line have an equity-to-income ratio that is lower than the medi-

an ratio—making it a sensible improvement benchmark.

The axes in this chart are on a base 10 logarithmic scale, so values increase exponentially by ten across every major gridline. This means that dis-

tricts further to the bottom are actually much further to the bottom. The reason for presenting the data in this way is to visualize the incremental

differences between districts at the lower end of the X- and Y-axis, while at the same time pointing out the substantial differences between the top

and bottom of the spectrum.

14

28

71

6

13

23

55

54

20

9 57

35

41

37

12

44

67 10

39

32

30

52

25

66

48

43

5

21

16

101 1

18

3

4

$1

$10

$100

$1,000

$10,000

$1,000 $10,000 $100,000

Inve

stm

en

t Ea

rnin

gs p

er

$1

00

K R

eve

nu

e

Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue

District Linear (Median ratio for Equity-to-Return = 0.52%)


Finance Page 14

FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 9 Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue

High levels of short-term borrowing (loans with a repayment term of

less than one year) are a sign that the district has cash flow prob-

lems. (Note that some districts are legally not allowed to take out

short-term loans.) Not adjusted for cost of living.

Figure 10 Cash Flow - Months Above Liquidity Baseline

This reflects the district’s level of cash liquidity against the district-

established (internal) liquidity baseline. Twelve (12) months means

that the district did not fall below its liquidity baseline floor within

the fiscal year.

56,347

41,667

15,882

15,481

12,761

10,397

9,442

8,431

7,829

7,099

6,007

5,847

174

9,442

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000

45

3

16

23

30

101

37

Median

6

32

11

71

13

44

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

67

47

101

35

21

25

13

8

14

7

28

71

46

6

102

23

55

54

20

9

57

41

37

12

44

49

10

39

53

34

56

11

32

30

66

48

43

5

16

77

1

18

3

79

Are your investments generating value relative to total cash and investment equity? See the featured analysis on Page 13.

If your district takes out short-term loans, have you quantified the marginal costs of those loans?

If your level of short-term borrowing is high, what steps can you take to bring it down to the median? To bring it down to zero?



FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T

Figure 11 Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue

Not adjusted for cost of living.

Figure 12 Investment Earnings as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity

This is the cumulative amount of investment earnings relative to the

available equity (as of year-end) that theoretically could be used for

investments. Not adjusted for cost of living.

0

14

18

20

20

24

24

27

27

42

49

73

78

86

90

99

133

139

140

173

199

229

232

249

251

255

256

293

330

353

540

793

1,084

1,491

3,271

139

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500

45

12

71

30

28

25

4

21

23

3

14

55

20

5

66

52

13

32

Median

43

35

39

57

37

1

9

10

101

41

67

54

16

6

44

48

18

0.04%

0.05%

0.05%

0.05%

0.07%

0.09%

0.10%

0.10%

0.16%

0.22%

0.23%

0.26%

0.29%

0.31%

0.39%

0.39%

0.40%

0.43%

0.43%

0.48%

0.50%

0.50%

0.53%

0.54%

0.56%

0.60%

0.62%

0.64%

0.65%

0.65%

0.79%

0.87%

0.96%

1.34%

1.35%

1.41%

1.44%

1.53%

1.58%

1.65%

1.74%

1.81%

2.56%

15.86%

0.52%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%

4

28

71

12

21

3

14

20

46

30

39

66

35

23

79

25

41

5

13

52

43

8

Median

34

37

55

9

10

53

49

101

1

32

54

62

56

57

16

67

77

48

7

6

44

18


Finance Page 16

FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 13 Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue

This is the level of cash and investment equity available to the dis-

trict at year-end. Not adjusted for cost of living.

Figure 14 Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue

This is the total Treasury department cost relative to the district’s

total operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.

4

1,309

6,061

6,186

8,531

9,166

13,019

15,910

16,213

20,199

20,629

20,712

21,521

26,589

28,070

30,708

31,664

34,377

35,531

36,438

36,816

37,389

39,131

41,295

41,669

42,139

42,422

42,782

43,833

47,856

50,871

54,707

59,386

73,796

77,623

84,893

90,539

35,531

$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

45

11

25

47

23

30

55

32

57

5

18

52

67

12

43

13

1

66

21

Median

71

54

16

101

10

28

9

44

37

6

3

14

4

35

41

20

39

48

110.1

50.7

41.3

36.3

35.8

32.2

32.0

30.0

25.7

25.6

24.4

23.2

23.1

22.6

21.9

20.1

18.3

17.9

17.5

16.6

15.8

15.6

15.4

12.9

10.4

10.3

9.8

8.5

5.7

5.0

3.5

3.0

2.3

18.3

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

12

5

32

66

44

28

25

1

37

41

39

13

57

101

52

35

23

Median

54

67

43

71

4

10

9

48

3

18

21

55

11

45

14

30

Are there any signs that you have a problem with cash flow?

Is your cash and investment equity being utilized effectively to bring value to the district?



FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T

KPI DEF IN ITION S Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue

Importance This measure identifies the degree to which districts

need to borrow money to meet cash flow needs. Short-term bor-

rowing is defined here as any loan with a repayment term of less

than one year.


The timing of revenue inflows and expenditure outflows and

the arbitrage ability to cover the borrowing

Ability to meet required spending for tax-exempt borrowing el-

igibility

State law may restrict or prohibit certain types of short-term

borrowing

Calculation Total amount borrowed in short-term loans (with a

repayment period of one year or less) divided by total district oper-

ating revenue, divided by $100,000

Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue

Importance This measure analyzes the risk of the investments

versus its projected returns.


Revenue types

Types of receipt percentages

Investments internal or external

Investment policy

Calculation Total investment earnings divided by total district op-

erating revenue, divided by $100,000.

Cash Flow - Months above Liquidity Baseline

Importance This measure highlights cash-flow performance rela-

tive to an established minimum liquidity level.


Cash management policies and strategies

Business tracking systems

Calculation Twelve months minus the number of months that the

district was below the target liquidity baseline.

Cash/Investment Equity per $100 K Revenue

Importance This measure indicates the total amount of cash and

investment equity relative to annual district revenue.

Calculation Total cash and investment equity divided by total dis-

trict operating revenue, divided by $100,000.

Investment Earnin gs as Percent of Cash/Equity Investment

Importance This indicates the rate of return on cash and invest-

ment assets. It reflects the degree to which the district uses its avail-

able assets to build value.

Calculation Total investment earnings divided by total cash and

investment equity.

Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue

Importance This measure helps evaluate staffing costs.

Calculation Total Treasury personnel costs divided by total district

operating revenue, divided by $100,000.


Finance Page 18

FIN

AN

CE

CA

SH M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE


Page 19 Compensation

FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TION

COMPENSATION Performance metrics in compensation evaluate the cost efficiency and productivity of the payroll department. Cost

efficiency is broadly represented by the two measures Payroll Cost per Pay Check and Payroll Cost per $100K

Spend, which both evaluate the total costs of the Payroll department relative to workload. Productivity is broadly

represented by Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month, which is also a cost driver of payroll.

Because compensation involves high volumes of regular and predictable transactions, most cost efficiencies can be

realized by expanding the use of existing tools such as employee direct deposit and employee self-service modules.

This is captured in part by the measures Direct Deposit Rate and Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District

FTE.

Conversely, districts that underutilize modern automation systems could see an increase in Pay Check Errors per

10K Payments and increased W-2 Correction Rates (W-2c’s) due to the manual effort required, as well as an ex-

cessive level of Overtime Hours per Payroll Employee. Percent of Off-Cycle Payroll Checks may also indicate lower

productivity, as this may increase the workload of the Payroll department staff.

These service level, productivity, and efficiency measures should be considered in combination, and provide dis-

trict leaders with a baseline of information to determine whether their payroll function:

Needs better automation to improve accuracy and reduce workload

Should consider switching to software that is more accurate and efficient

Has problems with time management or workload management, or should have clearer policies around

timelines

Has staff that is under-skilled or under-trained

Should adopt a policy to increase direct deposits

Additionally, the following factors should be considered when evaluating performance levels:

Number of contracts requiring compliance

Frequency of payrolls

Complexity of state/local reporting requirements


Finance Page 20

FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TIO

N

FIN

AN

CE

L IST OF KPIS IN COM PE NS ATION Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Compensation. Indicators in bold are those included in this

report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to CGCS


POWER INDICATORS

Pay Checks Processed Per FTE per Month

Payroll Cost per $100K Spend

Payroll Cost per Pay Check

ESSENTIAL FEW

Pay Checks - Errors per 10K Payments

Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per FTE

Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE

W-2 Correction Rate (W-2C)


Pay Checks - Direct Deposits

Pay Checks - Percent Off-Cycle

Payroll Cost per $100K Revenue

Payroll Outsourcing as Percent of Costs

Payroll Staff - Cost Per FTE

Payroll Staff - District FTEs per Payroll FTE

Payroll Staffing Ratio - Clerical and Support

Payroll Staffing Ratio - Managers

Payroll Staffing Ratio - Professionals

Payroll Staffing Ratio - Supervisors

Personnel Records Self-Service Usage: Address Changes

Personnel Records Self-Service Usage: Direct Deposit Changes

Personnel Records Self-Service Usage: W-4 Changes



FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TION

FEATUR ED AN ALYS ES

Figure 15 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend vs. Payroll Cost per Pay Check

These two measures each approximate the cost efficiency of the Payroll department. The size of the bubbles in this chart represents the district’s

student enrollments. Several of the largest districts appear to dominate the bottom-left quadrant (the most cost-efficient), whereas more medium-

sized districts are in the middle (average cost efficiency) and top-right (the least cost-efficient).

14

7

28

71

46

6

26 13

45

55 54

9

57

35

37

12

44

67

49 39

53

34

56

11

47 32

52

25

66

48

8

43

5

74 21

16

101 1

18

3

79

4

$-

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400

Pay

roll

Co

st p

er

Pay

Ch

eck


How does your district compare with similarly sized districts?

How much should district size matter as you set benchmark tar-gets for these measures?


Finance Page 22

FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TIO

N

FIN

AN

CE

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 16 Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month

This is a productivity measure that compares your staffing level with

workload.

Figure 17 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend

This cost efficiency measure compares the Payroll department ex-

penditures with the total annual payroll payout. Not adjusted for

cost of living.

592

602

639

708

715

728

820

908

938

1,007

1,037

1,138

1,221

1,223

1,230

1,240

1,272

1,284

1,318

1,327

1,352

1,365

1,377

1,410

1,465

1,826

1,848

2,050

2,062

2,164

2,319

2,411

2,507

2,685

2,746

2,800

2,908

2,985

3,070

3,329

3,786

4,110

4,124

4,385

5,104

1,377

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

77

101

6

1

79

11

5

56

67

20

34

74

45

4

44

66

37

71

12

35

21

16

7

Median

57

25

28

3

48

53

43

49

14

10

8

55

9

18

46

54

13

26

32

52

39

47

379

349

339

327

288

253

245

221

218

217

215

215

205

203

197

197

188

172

167

158

154

152

145

139

131

127

126

124

122

120

118

116

112

111

110

108

102

89

82

64

62

55

52

39

149

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400

34

79

74

35

6

4

45

5

66

1

12

11

56

16

23

57

44

21

48

67

37

62

Median

3

101

53

7

25

49

39

14

71

28

43

8

46

18

54

9

13

52

55

26

32

47



FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TION

Figure 18 Payroll Cost per Pay Check

This cost efficiency measure compares the Payroll department ex-

penditures with the annual number of paychecks. Adjusted for cost

of living.

Figure 19 Pay Check Errors per 10K Payments

10.89

9.57

9.07

8.97

7.46

7.02

6.85

6.79

6.14

6.02

5.76

5.75

5.48

5.42

5.17

5.07

5.03

4.99

4.52

4.44

4.34

4.14

3.99

3.83

3.58

3.56

3.37

3.23

2.91

2.88

2.59

2.53

2.41

2.33

2.32

2.09

1.86

1.76

1.72

1.68

1.48

1.34

1.27

1.11

0.85

3.99

$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00

6

77

101

1

5

35

79

11

34

67

16

20

56

66

4

37

21

74

12

45

7

43

57

Median

3

44

48

71

28

25

53

18

49

9

46

39

8

54

55

10

14

52

13

26

32

47

193.21

120.04

107.69

85.90

85.01

69.17

61.57

52.59

49.04

44.65

41.41

33.76

29.80

28.90

28.03

23.70

21.67

20.29

19.40

18.98

18.21

12.06

9.00

8.74

8.00

7.06

6.45

6.41

5.37

4.02

2.72

2.12

2.10

1.31

0.96

0.20

19.40

0 50 100 150 200

35

37

55

45

13

16

101

28

71

3

67

1

18

52

54

56

14

6

4

Median

79

66

12

46

11

26

48

43

5

57

39

53

8

32

47

9

44

62

How many more paychecks per month would your staff need to process in order to reach the median? To move into the Top 10?

Would more automation and/or direct deposits improve your processing rate?


Finance Page 24

FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TIO

N

FIN

AN

CE

Figure 20 Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per FTE

This is the average number of annual overtime hours per Payroll

employee.

Figure 21 Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE

158.3

102.9

93.7

79.5

72.3

70.3

63.6

56.4

49.0

48.1

41.8

36.3

31.4

28.6

21.6

17.6

16.9

16.3

16.0

13.6

13.3

13.1

9.3

8.7

8.3

8.3

8.2

7.6

6.4

5.8

4.1

3.6

3.3

2.1

0.7

0.4

0.2

16.0

- 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0

11

66

71

52

25

53

57

32

3

28

37

23

5

10

49

18

55

54

4

Median

67

26

43

39

79

16

1

45

8

34

35

14

101

6

46

48

7

44

7.1%

17.2%

18.0%

25.4%

26.9%

34.0%

38.4%

38.8%

59.8%

62.5%

95.7%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

101

66

4

32

26

11

37

54

39

13

55

Direct Deposit

W-4 (WithholdingAllowances)

Address or PersonalInformation

How many fewer errors would your district need to produce in order to reach the next quartile? To move into the Top 10?

Is overtime more cost efficient for your district than hiring more personnel?



FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TION

Figure 22 W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s)

Figure 23 Pay Checks - Direct Deposits

This is the percent of pay checks issued that were direct deposits.

4.098% (Not Displayed)

0.581%

0.574%

0.231%

0.206%

0.189%

0.164%

0.113%

0.095%

0.071%

0.070%

0.065%

0.044%

0.039%

0.039%

0.023%

0.023%

0.022%

0.017%

0.016%

0.011%

0.008%

0.006%

0.006%

0.054%

0.000% 0.200% 0.400% 0.600% 0.800%

66

45

21

37

16

39

5

18

54

43

101

10

Median

11

55

44

13

6

47

20

12

3

48

14

71

0.0%

7.1%

46.3%

63.8%

65.6%

66.0%

72.6%

72.6%

72.7%

73.1%

74.0%

79.4%

81.4%

82.3%

82.6%

82.9%

83.1%

85.5%

87.0%

88.7%

89.4%

89.9%

89.9%

90.2%

90.3%

90.7%

90.8%

92.0%

94.7%

95.2%

95.7%

95.8%

96.3%

96.4%

97.5%

98.6%

98.8%

98.9%

98.9%

99.1%

99.5%

99.5%

99.6%

99.8%

99.9%

100.0%

90.1%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

62

49

9

18

6

57

77

74

7

45

25

11

4

67

16

46

5

56

1

21

101

20

47

Median

54

43

26

79

52

10

8

35

39

12

34

44

66

13

71

32

14

48

28

3

55

53

37


Finance Page 26

FIN

AN

CE

CO

MP

ENSA

TIO

N

FIN

AN

CE

KPI DEF IN ITION S Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month

Importance This measure is a driver of a payroll department's

costs. Lower processing rates may result from a low level of automa-

tion, high paycheck error rates, or high rates of off-cycle paychecks

that must be manually processed. Higher processing rates may be

the result of increased automation and highly competent staff.

Calculation Total number of paychecks processed by Payroll de-

partment divided by total number of Payroll staff (FTEs), divided by

12 months.


Importance This measures the efficiency of the payroll operation.

A higher cost could indicate an opportunity to realize efficiencies in

payroll operation while a lower cost indicates a leaner, more effi-

cient operation.


Number of employees processing the payroll

Skill level of the employees processing payroll

Types of software/hardware used to process the payroll

Processes and procedures in place to collect payroll data

Number of employees being paid




Calculation Total Payroll personnel costs plus total payroll non-

personnel costs divided by total district payroll spend, divided by

$100,000.

Payroll Cost per Pay Check

Importance This measures the efficiency of the payroll operation.

A higher cost could indicate an opportunity to realize efficiencies in

payroll operation while a lower cost indicates a leaner, more effi-

cient operation.


Number of employees processing the payroll

Skill level of the employees processing payroll

Types of software/hardware used to process the payroll

Processes and procedures in place to collect payroll data

Number of employees being paid




Calculation Total Payroll personnel costs plus total payroll non-

personnel costs divided by total number of payroll checks.

Pay Checks - Errors per $10K Pay Checks

Importance High error rates can indicate a lack of adequate con-

trols.


Process controls

Staff turnover

Staff experience

Payment system

Level of automation

Calculation Total number of paycheck errors divided by total

number of paychecks handled by Payroll department, divided by

$10,000.

Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per Payroll FTE

Importance This measures the efficiency and effectiveness of the

payroll department. Excessive overtime can be an indication that

staffing levels are inadequate or that processes and procedures

need to be revised and streamlined to make the work more effi-

cient. An absence of any overtime may indicate staffing levels that

are too high for the volume of work the department is processing.

Calculation Total number of Payroll overtime hours divided by to-

tal number of Payroll staff (FTEs).

Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE

Importance This measures the level of automation of the payroll

department, which can reduce error rates and processing costs.


Software used may not provide employee self-service

Employee self-service modules of the software may not be in

use

Implementation of these modules may be too costly

Support/help-desk services for the employee self-serve mod-

ules may not be available

Calculation Total number of employee records self-service

changes divided by total number of district employees (FTEs).

W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s)

Importance W-2(c) forms are the result of errors in the initial W-2

filing. Corrections can be costly in terms of staff time.


Process controls

Quality controls

Calculation Total number of W-2(c) forms issued divided by total

number of W-2 forms issued.

Pay Checks - Direct Deposits

Importance Use of direct deposit can increase the levels of auto-

mation and decrease costs.


Payment systems

Pay check policy

Calculation Total number of pay checks paid through direct de-

posit divided by the total number of pay checks issued.


Page 27 Financial Management

FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L MA

NA

GEM

ENT

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Performance metrics in financial management assess the overall financial health of a district, as measured by its

Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue and Debt Service Burden per $1,000 Revenue. They also measure a dis-

trict’s practices in effective budgeting. These practices are broadly represented by a district’s Expenditure Efficien-

cy and Revenue Efficiency, which compare the adopted and final budgets to actual levels of income and spending.

A value close to 0% shows highly accurate budget forecasting. Finally, Days to Publish Annual Financial Report is a

measure of the timeliness of district’s financial disclosures.

Generally, leadership and governance factors are the starting point of good financial health:

School board and administrative policies and procedures

Budget development and management processes

Unrestricted fund balance use policies and procedures

Operating funds definition

Additionally, other conditions and factors should be considered as you evaluate your district’s financial health and

forecast for the future:

Revenue experience, variability, and forecasts

Expenditure trends, volatility, and projections

Per capita income levels

Real property values

Local retail sales and business receipts

Commercial acreage and business property market value

Changes in local employment base

Changes in residential development trends

Restrictions on legal reserves

Age of district infrastructure



Finance Page 28

FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

L IST OF KPIS IN F IN AN C IAL MAN AGEME NT Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Financial Management. Indicators in bold are those includ-

ed in this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to

CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.

POWER INDICATORS

Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue

Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue

Fund Balance Ratio (A) Unassigned

Fund Balance Ratio (B) Uncommitted

Fund Balance Ratio (C) Unrestricted

Expenditure Efficiency - Final Budget as Percent of Actual

Revenue Efficiency - Final Budget as Percent of Actual

ESSENTIAL FEW

Annual Financial Report - Days to Publish

Expenditure Efficiency - Adopted Budget as Percent of Actual

Revenue Efficiency - Adopted Budget as Percent of Actual


Budget Amendments

Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to Total Debt

Fund Balance - Percent (a) Unassigned

Fund Balance - Percent (b) Assigned

Fund Balance - Percent (c) Committed

Fund Balance - Percent (d) Restricted

Fund Balance - Percent (e) Nonspendable

Fund Balance Ratio (D) All except Nonspendable

Fund Balance Ratio (E) All Types



FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L MA

NA

GEM

ENT


Figure 24 Debt Principal vs. Debt Servicing Costs

This scatter plot shows a district’s total outstanding debt (regardless of the period of repayment) as a ratio to one year of revenue, compared with

the debt servicing costs over one year (also as a ratio to one year of revenue). The clear trend to notice is not surprising: more total debt means

more money that is spent annually on debt repayments.

What is not represented in this chart is what the district was able to do with those borrowed funds. Often borrowing is done in order to make

worthwhile investments, such as school buildings.

28

71

6

26

13

45

23

55

20

9

57 35

41

37

12

44

67

10

39

47

32

30

52

66

48

43

5

21

101

1

18

4

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

De

bt

Serv

icin

g C

ost

s R

atio

to

Dis

tric

t R

eve

nu

e

Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue

Have your borrowed funds been worthwhile enough to justify the cost of debt?

Where do you expect your district to be on this chart in three years?


Finance Page 30

FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 25 Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue

This shows the total amount of debt outstanding (regardless of re-

payment term) relative to one year of revenue.

Figure 26 Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue

This is the amount paid in debt payments over one year relative to

one year of revenue.

230.7%

217.5%

190.3%

146.2%

142.2%

139.9%

129.8%

118.0%

108.4%

100.6%

96.8%

95.0%

89.4%

83.7%

82.3%

74.7%

73.8%

70.5%

65.5%

59.6%

44.4%

38.3%

38.3%

31.6%

31.1%

27.8%

20.9%

20.1%

13.4%

8.6%

7.2%

0.3%

0.2%

73.8%

0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0%

37

23

41

45

20

32

39

54

26

13

101

48

4

5

52

71

10

Median

43

35

67

21

66

44

1

30

12

57

28

9

6

47

55

18

32.3%

21.7%

16.0%

14.8%

14.6%

14.2%

14.1%

14.0%

12.0%

12.0%

11.2%

11.2%

9.8%

9.4%

9.1%

8.0%

7.9%

7.1%

6.4%

5.1%

4.7%

4.6%

3.8%

3.1%

2.9%

2.3%

1.9%

1.2%

1.0%

1.0%

0.7%

0.1%

0.1%

7.9%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%

52

9

37

23

41

5

1

26

39

67

20

32

43

71

13

48

4

Median

35

10

45

47

57

21

66

44

30

28

12

11

6

101

18

55



FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Figure 27 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue - All Types

This is the year-end fund balance relative to total annual revenue,

including both unrestricted and restricted fund balance types. An

adequate fund balance means that there is enough money to main-

tain cash flow for regular district operations.

Figure 28 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue – Unrestricted

This is the year-end fund balance relative to total annual revenue for

all unrestricted fund balance types (which includes unassigned, as-

signed and committed). Unrestricted funds are generally easier to

repurpose if the need arises, especially if they are unassigned.

14.6%

3.8%

5.4%

5.7%

6.3%

7.4%

8.5%

9.4%

10.0%

10.6%

11.0%

11.5%

12.3%

12.6%

12.8%

12.9%

13.5%

14.5%

14.6%

17.1%

18.3%

18.5%

19.2%

19.6%

19.9%

22.9%

23.3%

25.6%

27.6%

29.5%

34.1%

41.5%

42.4%

47.0%

65.0%

90.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

9

14

13

32

47

16

55

1

5

30

66

101

11

21

67

23

44

Median

18

4

10

20

43

28

57

54

37

52

48

71

39

12

45

35

41

26

Unrestricted

Restricted

10.8%

2.9%

3.0%

3.1%

3.2%

3.7%

5.2%

6.1%

6.6%

7.2%

8.4%

8.7%

8.7%

9.2%

9.3%

10.2%

10.3%

10.6%

10.8%

11.6%

11.7%

12.1%

12.1%

12.6%

14.8%

15.1%

16.5%

19.1%

19.4%

24.7%

25.1%

25.4%

25.7%

27.1%

30.5%

78.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

57

55

9

13

14

32

16

4

47

30

66

5

11

1

101

18

12

37

Median

67

21

28

23

44

41

20

10

43

54

35

71

52

48

45

39

26

Unassigned

Assigned

Committed

Have your fund balance levels been enough to avoid cash flow and/or programming problems?


Finance Page 32

FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 29 Expenditure Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual

A ratio above zero means that the district spent less than expected.

Figure 30 Revenue Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual

A ratio below zero means that the district received more revenue

than expected.

-29.6%

-19.7%

-19.0%

-14.7%

-14.5%

-11.8%

-8.3%

-5.6%

-4.7%

-4.4%

-4.2%

-3.0%

-2.9%

-2.7%

-2.7%

-2.7%

-2.5%

-2.1%

-2.0%

-1.1%

-1.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.7%

1.0%

1.0%

3.4%

10.6%

10.6%

11.1%

11.8%

22.2%

23.5%

-40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0%

35

45

32

28

37

5

1

55

39

54

66

52

4

13

18

48

16

6

23

11

10

21

71

14

30

101

67

43

41

9

47

12

57

26.9%

23.4%

17.1%

16.2%

14.2%

14.1%

13.8%

9.9%

7.3%

5.8%

4.9%

4.9%

4.7%

4.5%

4.2%

3.7%

3.0%

2.6%

2.2%

1.7%

1.7%

1.3%

0.4%

-1.1%

-1.2%

-1.4%

-2.2%

-2.9%

-4.7%

-6.0%

-12.0%

-12.1%

-18.9%

-30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

12

57

35

48

43

47

41

67

54

4

14

9

23

37

71

101

30

18

10

1

39

21

6

5

13

11

52

55

66

45

16

28

32



FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Figure 31 Expenditure Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual

A ratio above zero means that the district spent less than expected.

Figure 32 Revenue Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual

A ratio below zero means that the district received more revenue

than expected.

-36.5%

-27.0%

-20.1%

-19.6%

-19.4%

-18.0%

-17.4%

-15.5%

-12.7%

-9.2%

-8.3%

-7.1%

-7.0%

-5.2%

-4.8%

-4.8%

-4.6%

-4.6%

-4.4%

-4.4%

-4.2%

-3.8%

-3.4%

-2.8%

-2.0%

-1.6%

-1.1%

4.3%

10.3%

10.6%

11.8%

19.2%

23.0%

-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

28

35

37

32

48

39

10

45

5

23

1

16

55

9

14

6

52

18

54

30

66

21

4

11

13

101

67

71

41

43

47

57

12

25.6%

23.1%

17.2%

14.2%

14.1%

12.9%

7.3%

4.9%

4.3%

1.8%

1.1%

0.5%

0.2%

0.1%

-0.1%

-0.5%

-0.6%

-0.8%

-1.3%

-1.5%

-1.9%

-2.3%

-2.3%

-3.5%

-3.7%

-3.8%

-4.7%

-5.3%

-7.2%

-10.4%

-16.3%

-20.0%

-30.7%

-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

12

57

35

43

47

41

54

4

71

37

18

30

14

11

48

101

45

67

13

1

5

21

6

23

55

52

66

10

39

9

16

32

28


Finance Page 34

FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 33 Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish

235

210

207

200

198

181

180

180

180

173

173

172

171

168

167

166

166

166

165

165

165

165

164

164

163

162

160

158

157

156

143

138

138

134

131

123

121

121

118

114

107

102

90

77

66

47

10

164

0 50 100 150 200 250

52

79

54

14

44

57

30

74

18

26

48

4

13

35

12

49

11

21

28

20

67

43

10

16

Median

47

23

9

32

101

5

41

37

53

71

39

55

7

34

8

45

77

1

46

56

66

6

102

Are you satisfied with the length of time it took to publish your annual financial report?



FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L MA

NA

GEM

ENT

KPI DEF IN ITION S Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue

Importance This evaluates the total level of debt that the district

currently owes relative to its annual revenue.


Tax base and growth projections

Capital projects

Levels of state and grant funding

Interest rates (cost of borrowing)

Fund balance ratio

Calculation Total debt principal divided by total debt servicing

costs.

Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue

Importance This evaluates the annual amount paid in debt servic-

ing relative to annual district revenue.


Interest rates (cost of borrowing)

Level of debt

Tax base and growth projections

Revenue sources to pay down debt

Fund balance ratio

Calculation Total debt servicing costs divided by total district op-

erating revenue.

Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue

Importance This measure assesses the fiscal health of the district

supported by the general fund, including financial capacity to meet

unexpected or planned future needs. A high percentage indicates

greater fiscal health and financial capacity to meet unexpected or

future needs. A low percentage indicates risk for the district in its

ability to meet unexpected changes in revenues or expenses.



Administrative leadership and decision making processes


Revenue experience, variability, and forecasts

Expenditure trends, volatility, and projections

Planned uses of fund balance

Restrictions on legal reserves

Unreserved fund balance use policies and procedures

Local fiscal authority policies and procedures

Operating funds definition

Calculation Total fund balance that was unassigned divided by to-

tal district operating expenditures.

Expenditure Efficiency

Importance This measure assesses efficiency in spending against

the final approved general fund expenditure budget. A high per-

centage nearing 100% indicates efficient utilization of appropriated

resources. A low percentage, or a percentage significantly exceeding

100%, indicates major variance from the final approved budget and

signifies that the budget was inaccurate, misaligned with the actual

needs of the school system, significantly impacted by unforeseen

factors, and/or potentially mismanaged. Districts experiencing a low

percentage or a significantly high percentage should thoroughly in-

vestigate the causes for the variances and reevaluate their budget

development and management processes to improve accuracy and

alignment. Districts having significant variances in expenditures to

budget when measured against the original budget, but near 100%

when measured against the final amended budget, are monitoring

and adjusting their budgets during the year to meet the changing

conditions of the district. Such districts should also consider reeval-

uating their budget development and management processes to im-

prove accuracy and alignment.




Administrative organizational structure, leadership styles, deci-

sion making processes, and distribution of authority


competencies

Performance management, monitoring, and reporting systems

General Fund definition

Calculation Total budgeted expenditures in the final budget di-

vided by total district operating expenditures.

Revenue Efficiency

Importance This measure assesses efficiency in spending against

the final approved general fund revenue budget. A high percentage

nearing 100% indicates efficient utilization of appropriated re-

sources. A low percentage, or a percentage significantly exceeding

100%, indicates major variance from the final approved budget and

signifies that the budget was inaccurate, misaligned with the actual

needs of the school system, significantly impacted by unforeseen

factors, and/or potentially mismanaged. Districts experiencing a low

percentage or a significantly high percentage should thoroughly in-

vestigate the causes for the variances and reevaluate their budget

development and management processes to improve accuracy and

alignment. Districts having significant variances in revenues to budg-

et when measured against the original budget, but near 100% when

measured against the final amended budget, are monitoring and ad-

justing their budgets during the year to meet the changing condi-

tions of the district. Such districts should also consider reevaluating

their budget development and management processes to improve

accuracy and alignment.




Administrative organizational structure, leadership styles, deci-

sion making processes and distribution of authority


Finance Page 36

FIN

AN

CE

FIN

AN

CIA

L M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE


competencies

Performance management, monitoring, and reporting systems

General Fund definition

Calculation Total budgeted revenue in the final budget divided by

total district operating revenue.

Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish

Importance Timely publication of annual financial reports is an

important part of responsible financial management and govern-

ance.


Reporting processes

Time management and goal-setting

Staff experience and credentials

Calculation Number of calendar days to publish the annual finan-

cial report, from end-of-year date to publishing date.


Page 37 Grants Management

FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS MA

NA

GEM

ENT

GRANTS MANAGEMENT Good performance in grants management is reflected in a few basic performance characteristics. Cash flow and

availability of grant funds are the primary concerns: Do you spend all your grant funds in the grant period? How

quickly do you process reimbursements? These are addressed in part using the metrics Returned Grant Funds per

$100K Grant Revenue and Aging of Grants Receivables.

Grant-funded programming should also be considered an exposure to risk. Looking at levels of Grant-Funded FTE

Dependence can guide a district to either:

a) Allocate enough fund reserves to insure themselves against possible shifts in funding sources; or

b) Have an evaluation system in place that helps determine whether positions should be continued beyond

the term of a grant.

These metrics should give a basic sense of where a district might improve its performance in grants management.

Areas of improvement may include:


Escalation procedures to address timeliness

Administrative leadership style, decision-making process, and distribution of organizational authority

School Board, administrative policies, and management process

Procurement regulations and policies

Reserve funds to supplant the risks of high grant dependency


Finance Page 38

FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

L IST OF KPIS IN GR ANTS MAN AGEME NT Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Grants Management. Indicators in bold are those included

in this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to


POWER INDICATORS

Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget

Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs

Returned Grant Funds per $100K Grant Revenue

ESSENTIAL FEW

Amendments to Grant Budgets

Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total

Days to Access New Grant Funds

Grants Receivables Aging


Grant Funds - Percent Federal

Grant Funds - Percent Local/Private

Grant Funds - Percent State

Grants Receivables Aging - Days to Process

Grants Receivables Aging - Days to Receive Payment

Returned Grant Funds - Federal

Returned Grant Funds - Local/Private

Returned Grant Funds - State



FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS MA

NA

GEM

ENT


Figure 34 Grant Funds vs. Grant-Funded Staff

14 71

26

13

55

54 20

9

57

41

37

12

67

10

39

47

32

30

52

66

48

43

5

21

101

1

18

3

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Gra

nt-

Fun

de

d S

taff

as

Pe

rce

nt

of

Dis

tric

t FT

Es

Grant Funds as Percent of District Budget


Finance Page 40

FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 35 Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget

This answers the basic question, “How much of district funding

comes from grants?” Grants here are defined as funds that are re-

stricted due to constraints set by the grantor.

Figure 36 Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs

This shows the level of dependency on grant funds for district staff.

15.8%

70.5%

43.8%

39.8%

39.8%

28.2%

28.2%

22.0%

21.0%

19.7%

17.9%

17.7%

17.5%

17.2%

17.0%

16.7%

16.3%

15.8%

15.8%

15.8%

15.7%

14.6%

14.3%

14.1%

13.7%

12.9%

12.9%

12.8%

12.7%

12.5%

12.5%

11.7%

11.6%

10.9%

10.7%

10.2%

8.9%

7.4%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%

6

101

67

16

25

11

30

23

32

26

18

37

3

44

10

39

20

21

57

Median

28

35

48

5

9

12

41

66

54

1

43

47

52

14

55

13

71

45

Federal

State

Local/Private

36%

36%

31%

21%

19%

17%

17%

16%

14%

14%

14%

13%

12%

12%

12%

11%

11%

11%

11%

10%

10%

10%

9%

9%

9%

9%

8%

8%

7%

7%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

67

101

12

10

47

57

5

43

30

18

3

21

1

52

41

Median

26

66

55

39

37

20

32

48

13

74

54

49

14

71

9

Does your level of grant fund dependency expose your district to risk?



FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Figure 37 Returned Grant Funds per $100K Grant Revenue

Grant funds are typically returned when there is no carryover option and the grant term is finished.

24,773.8 (not shown)

5,298.8

3,011.8

1,821.9

1,545.3

1,492.2

1,441.1

1,068.6

809.8

591.9

549.1

508.3

365.4

344.2

342.0

324.3

317.9

289.6

176.3

175.4

131.8

113.1

101.4

56.2

34.3

10.5

5.9

4.7

1.2

0.0

333.1

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000

20

45

71

25

14

21

28

57

39

13

54

1

12

35

37

Median

43

8

48

32

52

101

56

46

9

53

66

79

18

30

41

Federal

State

Local/Private


Finance Page 42

FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 38 Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total

This answers the question, “How much of a district’s grant funding

comes from competitive grants?” Note that the order in this chart

does not suggest ranking.

Figure 39 Days to Access New Grant Funds

This is the average number of days it takes before spending begins

on a grant project after it has been approved by the grantor. It is an

efficiency measure for the office that processes grant approvals.

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

5%

7%

8%

8%

8%

10%

11%

11%

12%

13%

13%

13%

13%

14%

17%

18%

20%

21%

21%

23%

23%

24%

30%

30%

30%

36%

37%

58%

60%

61%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

67

14

34

66

9

101

55

48

53

25

32

10

18

56

102

8

79

49

3

5

Median

23

20

43

13

12

41

39

1

57

7

35

46

45

71

77

54

52

37

26

21

75.7

61.6

45.0

44.8

42.0

41.3

39.1

36.5

36.2

35.0

30.0

20.9

20.0

17.5

12.2

5.6

2.6

2.1

2.1

1.0

32.5

- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0

101

1

32

71

49

26

39

12

79

46

Median

5

25

66

14

53

41

55

67

30

102

Should it be easier for district personnel to use their grant funds?



FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Figure 40 Grants Receivables Aging

This is the average number of days it takes to invoice and receive

grant reimbursements.

90.0

64.1

61.0

57.5

43.7

41.0

40.0

35.0

28.1

25.0

24.0

11.0

9.8

9.7

9.6

9.4

7.2

6.4

26.6

- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

46

56

14

101

52

39

12

13

43

Median

53

25

5

26

71

28

66

77

79

Days to Process

Days to ReceivePayment

What are the issues, if any, that your district faces when it comes to Grants Management? Are there any risks that the district is exposed to on account of these issues?


Finance Page 44

FIN

AN

CE

GR

AN

TS M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

KPI DEF IN ITION S

Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget

Importance Shows the magnitude of a district's reliance on addi-

tional and alternative funding sources.


District demographics that drive eligibility for categorical grants

Philosophy, policies, procedures embraced by a district in iden-

tifying and pursuing grants

Local economic conditions

Calculation Total grant fund expenditures divided by total district

operating revenue.

Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs

Importance This measure shows the level of dependency on grant

funds for district personnel funding.

Calculation Number of grant-funded staff (FTEs) divided by total

number of district employees (FTEs).

Returned Grant Funds per $100K Grant Revenue

Importance Identify and improve cycle time of grant-fund availa-

bility. Ensure that no delays exist from budget approval to program

implementation that the grant timelines can't be met. This measure

assesses efficiency in spending grant funds that are provided by fed-

eral, state, and local governments, as well as other sources such as

foundations.


Who monitors awards and the grant program coordinator to

assure timeliness

Timeliness of award notification from federal and state entities

School board and administrative policies; as well as budget de-

velopment and management process and procurement regula-

tions and policies

The timeliness of expenditures is a good indicator for the gran-

tor to ensure that programming is occurring in time to meet

grant deliverables and expected outcomes by the expiration

date

A low number of days between the date the budget is approved

until the date of the first expenditure would indicate an effec-

tive use of grant funds

A high number of days would indicate an ineffective use of sup-

plemental resources that could limit or reduce the district’s

ability to obtain additional revenues in the future

Calculation Total grant funds returned (not spent) divided by total

grant funds expenditures over 100,000.

Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total

Importance This can be used to evaluate the level of competitive

grant funding in a district. Competitive grant funds can provide use-

ful resources, but can be difficult for long-term planning and can

raise concerns about sustainability.


Experience and network of grant writers

Level of focus on obtaining competitive grants

Vision of district mission

Calculation Grant funds expenditures that are from competitive

grants divided by total grant funds expenditures.

Days to Access New Grant Funds

Importance Identify and improve cycle time of grant fund availa-

bility. Ensure that no delays exist from budget approval to program

implementation that the grant timelines can't be met. This measure

assesses efficiency in spending grant funds that are provided by fed-

eral, state, and local governments, as well as other sources such as

foundations.


Who monitors awards and the grant program coordinator to

assure timeliness

Timeliness of award notification from federal and state entities

School board and administrative policies, as well as budget de-

velopment and management process and procurement regula-

tions and policies

Therefore, the timeliness of expenditures is a good indicator for

the grantor to ensure that programming is occurring in time to

meet grant deliverables and expected outcomes by the expira-

tion date

A low number of days between the date the budget is approved

until the date of the first expenditure would indicate an effec-

tive use of grant funds

A high number of days would indicate an ineffective use of sup-

plemental resources that could limit or reduce the district’s

ability to obtain additional revenues in the future

Calculation Total aggregate number of days that passed after

new grant award notification dates to the first expenditure date di-

vided by the total number of new grant awards in the fiscal year.

Grants Receivables Aging

Importance Aging greater than 30 days may indicate that expend-

itures have not been submitted in a timely way to the funding agen-

cy or the funding agency is slow in sending reimbursement, thereby

requiring follow-up.


Funding agency reimbursement process

Level of automation

Complexity of grant

Frequency of billing

Payroll suspense

Calculation Aggregate number of calendar days to internally pro-

cess grant receivable invoices, from date grant reimbursements are

filed to date invoice is submitted to the grantor plus the aggregate

number of calendar days to receive payment of submitted invoices,

divided by the total number of grant receivable invoices.


Page 45 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T

PROCUREMENT Procurement improvement strategies generally fall into two categories:

1. Increasing the level of cost savings, represented broadly by Procurement Savings Ratio.

2. Improving efficiency and decreasing costs of the Purchasing department, represented broadly by Cost per

Purchase Order and Purchasing Department Costs per Procurement Dollars Spent.

The first goal is assessed by the cost savings measures Competitive Procurements Ratio, Strategic Sourcing Ratio,

and Cooperative Purchasing Agreements Ratio.

Purchasing department cost efficiency is generally improved through the effective automation of procurement

spending. This is largely represented through P-Card Transactions Ratio and Electronic Procurement Transactions

Ratio. Figures 43 and 44 show the relationship between districts who use P-cards and electronic transactions and

their total Purchasing Department Costs per Procurement Dollars Spent.

Finally, metrics of the procurement department’s service level, such as Procurement Administrative Lead Time,

should also be considered.

These metrics of district procurement practices should provide district leaders with a good baseline of information

on how their district can improve its Procurement function. The general influencing factors that can guide im-

provement strategies include:

Procurement policies, particularly those delegating purchase authority and P-Card usage

Utilization of technology to manage a high volume of low dollar transactions

e-Procurement and e-Catalog processes utilized by district

P-Card reconciliation software and P-Card database interface with a district’s ERP system

Budget, purchasing, and audit controls, including P-card credit-limit controls on single transaction and

monthly limits

Utilization of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs)

Degree of requirement consolidation and standardization

Use of P-Cards on construction projects and paying large dollar vendors, e.g., utilities, textbook publish-

ers, food, technology projects

Number of highly complex procurements, especially construction


Finance Page 46

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

L IST OF KPIS IN PR OCU REMEN T Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Procurement. Indicators in bold are those included in this



POWER INDICATORS

Competitive Procurements Ratio

Procurement Cost per $100K Spend

Procurement Cost per Purchase Order

Procurement Savings Ratio

Strategic Sourcing Ratio

ESSENTIAL FEW

Cooperative Purchasing Ratio

P-Card Purchasing Ratio

PALT for Requests for Proposals

PALT for Invitations for Bids

PALT for Informal Solicitations

Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio


Competition-Eligible Procurements - Percent Emergency

Competition-Eligible Procurements - Percent Non-Authorized

Competition-Eligible Procurements - Percent Sole-Source

Competition-Eligible Procurements Percent of Total Spending

Construction - Percent of Purchasing

Construction Contracts Awarded

Cooperative Purchasing Ratio - Excluding P-Cards

M/WBE Vendor Utilization

P-Card Average Transaction Amount

P-Card Single Transaction Limit

PALT for Invitations for Bids - (A) Days to Prepare

PALT for Invitations for Bids - (B) Days of Advertising and Open Bid-

ding

PALT for Invitations for Bids - (C) Days to Issue after Close

PALT for Requests for Proposals - (A) Days to Prepare

PALT for Requests for Proposals - (B) Days Proposals Accepted

PALT for Requests for Proposals - (C) Days to Issue after Close

Procurement Costs per $100K Revenue

Procurement Costs Ratio - Outsourced Services

Procurement Costs Ratio - Personnel

Procurement Savings - Percent through Informal Solicitations

Procurement Savings - Percent through Invitations for Bids

Procurement Savings - Percent through Requests for Proposals

Procurement Staff - Cost Per FTE

Procurement Staff - District FTEs per Procurement FTE

Procurement Staffing Ratio - Professional Staff

Procurement Staffing Ratio - Supervisors and Managers

Procurement Staffing Ratio - Support and Clerical

Threshold for Formal Proposal

Threshold for Formal Sealed Bid

Threshold for School Board Approval

Warehouse Number of Unique Items

Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Facility Maintenance

Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Food Services

Warehouse Number Of Unique Items - School/office Supplies

Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Textbooks

Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Transportation Maintenance

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Facility Maintenance

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Food Services

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - School/Office Supplies

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Textbooks

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Transportation Maintenance

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Facility Maintenance

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Food Services

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - School/Office Supplies

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Textbooks

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Transportation Maintenance


Page 47 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T


Figure 41 Cost per Purchase Order vs. Cost per Spend

54 4 11

101 55

8 1

44 10

39 21 32

53

37 13 3

18

16 9

71

48

20 23

67 14 7

43

5

102

47

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

Co

st p

er

$1

00

K S

pe

nd

Cost per Purchase Order

Is your procurement department cost-effective?


Finance Page 48

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 42 Procurement Cost per Purchase Order

This is the cost of the procurement department relative to the total

number of purchase orders issued in the fiscal year. Adjusted for

cost of living.

Figure 43 Procurement Cost per $100K Revenue

This is the cost of the procurement department relative to the total

operating revenue of the district. Not adjusted for cost of living.

206

199

148

138

123

117

107

95

87

82

81

80

80

79

73

68

64

52

52

47

46

46

46

45

41

37

35

34

34

33

33

31

29

28

28

27

26

25

22

17

16

14

46

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

5

56

3

67

25

23

71

102

32

21

9

7

101

66

16

4

45

48

35

37

44

Median

20

11

8

47

2

52

18

43

10

26

13

46

14

41

57

55

1

53

12

54

39

309

213

200

184

182

174

159

152

143

134

121

117

107

106

104

103

101

97

94

92

88

85

84

83

81

79

79

78

75

75

64

54

49

49

48

45

45

32

93

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350

67

23

5

28

16

25

66

9

101

48

14

3

20

18

47

10

71

37

4

Median

39

35

44

21

6

13

52

32

45

1

41

57

55

43

26

30

12

54

11

Personnel

Outsourced Services

Other


Page 49 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T

Figure 44 Procurement Savings Ratio

This is the annual amount of savings (defined as the difference be-

tween the average bid, proposal or quote amounts, and the actual

amount paid) as compared to the total amount of purchasing.

Figure 45 Strategic Sourcing Ratio

The total amount spent through strategic sourcing relative to the to-

tal amount of purchasing.

2.9%

0.1%

0.4%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.8%

2.0%

2.2%

2.3%

2.4%

2.6%

2.9%

3.0%

3.2%

4.5%

6.0%

6.8%

9.4%

11.3%

13.6%

14.1%

18.0%

25.6%

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

32

39

13

23

11

71

10

55

8

1

46

41

Median

67

7

16

48

43

18

47

9

3

37

66

Savings fromInvitations for Bids

Savings from Requestsfor Proposals

Savings from InformalSolicitations

0.1%

0.6%

2.4%

4.9%

6.2%

9.2%

11.2%

11.8%

14.9%

15.7%

17.3%

17.6%

19.2%

25.0%

26.3%

29.7%

35.8%

35.9%

57.8%

67.5%

71.8%

73.2%

76.3%

89.1%

93.3%

93.4%

22.1%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

2

5

101

3

66

35

12

55

67

43

37

1

71

Median

18

4

20

46

41

10

16

13

8

32

48

39

9

What are some of the factors that might influence this result? (Hint: See "KPI Definitions".)


Finance Page 50

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 46 Competitive Procurements Ratio

This is the amount spent through competitive purchasing relative to

the total amount of purchasing.

Figure 47 Cooperative Purchasing Ratio

This is the amount spent through cooperative purchasing relative to

the total amount of purchasing.

0.0%

0.7%

12.1%

15.9%

33.9%

34.8%

45.6%

46.5%

46.6%

46.8%

51.7%

61.8%

63.2%

65.2%

69.6%

76.4%

77.3%

79.2%

82.3%

84.0%

85.1%

85.4%

89.6%

93.0%

96.0%

96.4%

100.0%

65.2%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

3

41

12

32

1

101

16

46

47

55

43

37

13

18

Median

10

28

71

8

9

48

44

54

7

39

4

23

74

0.7%

0.8%

1.0%

1.7%

2.0%

2.5%

2.8%

3.4%

4.2%

4.5%

4.8%

5.7%

8.1%

9.9%

10.4%

10.5%

11.2%

13.3%

15.2%

20.2%

27.8%

48.2%

5.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

53

18

101

39

5

55

43

10

9

8

37

Median

46

41

16

67

3

12

23

32

21

71

47


Page 51 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T

Figure 48 P-Card Purchasing Ratio

Figure 49 PALT for Requests for Proposals

The Procurement Administrative Lead Time captures the processing

time from receipt of requisition to when the contract was issued.

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.7%

0.8%

1.8%

2.0%

2.2%

2.3%

2.6%

2.7%

2.9%

3.1%

3.1%

3.2%

3.4%

3.4%

3.8%

4.0%

4.2%

7.0%

8.0%

8.1%

8.5%

8.8%

8.8%

10.4%

15.7%

35.7%

3.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

54

46

67

45

101

47

16

55

14

52

44

21

32

12

1

Median

13

8

3

5

4

11

48

10

39

23

66

9

71

43

37

192

164.4

143

140

135

134

120

111

105

104

103

102

102

94

87

86

85

84

80

76

66

65

65

65

58

57

53

50

50

50

50

50

45

44

41

40

38

36

35

30

22

66

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 50 100 150 200 250

5

11

9

32

13

52

39

7

16

4

8

57

35

71

41

62

21

47

10

14

44

Median

25

77

101

46

37

23

102

12

49

2

1

74

18

53

28

66

45

34

20

55

Days to Prepare

Days ProposalsAccepted

Days to Issue AfterClose

Which phase could be shortened to move your district up into the next highest quartile?


Finance Page 52

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 50 PALT for Invitations for Bids

The Procurement Administrative Lead Time captures the processing

time from receipt of requisition to when the contract was issued.

Figure 51 PALT for Informal Solicitations

165

165

114

112

106

95

87

81

77

76

69

66

65

65

65

60

58

56

56

50

47

45

45

44

41

41

40

40

38

37

34

33

31

30

30

29

28

27

26

24

22.5

48.5

0 50 100 150 200

0 50 100 150 200

13

32

16

5

9

57

41

7

71

44

21

35

67

77

101

25

46

14

43

3

Median

49

74

1

10

6

53

20

8

66

47

37

18

28

52

2

23

4

55

45

34

12

Days to Prepare

Days of Advertisingand Open Bidding

Days to Issue AfterClose

140

33

30

30

25

21

20

15

15

15

14

10

10

10

10

7

5

5

5

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

5

0 50 100 150

35

7

102

2

49

71

20

10

8

1

16

23

32

25

3

55

45

9

37

77

Median

12

66

46

13

41

39

53

18

34

47

21

14

44


Page 53 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T

Figure 52 Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate

Figure 53 Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio

This is the total cost of operating warehouses relative to the total

value of inventory that was issued from the warehouse (i.e., the

amount of inventory that left the warehouse).

This is an overall average measure of all warehouses that were sur-

veyed, and thus includes warehouses for the following kinds of sup-

plies and purposes: school/office supplies; textbooks; food services;

facility maintenance; and transportation maintenance.

6%

7%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

11%

13%

13%

15%

18%

20%

20%

22%

24%

25%

25%

25%

28%

29%

36%

38%

38%

50%

50%

50%

57%

63%

64%

83%

100%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

1

7

66

41

18

45

39

48

102

71

14

44

8

30

32

13

Median

23

12

5

10

3

28

26

46

35

37

4

49

55

16

2

9

511%

182%

141%

112%

51%

42%

30%

29%

25%

21%

12%

11%

11%

8%

7%

6%

6%

6%

5%

21%

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%

52

12

25

23

66

21

2

16

9

37

Median

71

48

35

44

41

4

8

55

13

Does the volume of inventory that is managed through your warehouses justify the cost of operating those warehouses?

Which of your warehouses most influence your result in this measure?


Finance Page 54

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 54 Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio

The stock turn ratio represents how much inventory volume passes

through the warehouse over the course of the year. It is calculated

by dividing the total annual volume (by dollar value) by the average

month-end inventory value.

This is an overall average measure of all warehouses that were sur-

veyed, and thus includes warehouses for the following kinds of sup-

plies and purposes: school/office supplies; textbooks; food services;

facility maintenance; and transportation maintenance.

0.2

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.8

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.6

2.7

2.9

2.9

3.3

3.7

4.4

4.9

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.4

6.4

7.2

8.1

2.9

- 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

47

35

66

45

77

5

23

25

44

16

71

52

Median

8

21

55

2

37

9

13

4

14

48

1

12

In which area(s) of improvement does your Purchasing Depart-ment need to focus? Who can take ownership for this?

Whose buy-in and support is needed to support these goals (e.g., CFO, Assistant Superintendent, COO)?

Is stock turn ratio a good approximation of operational efficien-cy?


Page 55 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T

KPI DEF IN ITION S

Competitive Procurement Ratio

Importance This measure is important because competition

maximizes procurement savings to the district, provides opportuni-

ties for vendors, assures integrity, and builds school board and tax-

payers' confidence in the procurement process.


Procurement policies governing procurements that are ex-

empted from competition, emergency or urgent requirement

procurements, direct payments (purchases without contracts or

POs), minimum quote levels and requirements, and sole sourc-

ing

Degree of shared services that may be included in purchase dol-

lars with other public agencies

Vendor registration/solicitation procedures that may determine

magnitude of competition

Professional services competition that may be exempted from

competition

In some instances, districts may have selection criteria for cer-

tain programs, such as local preference, environmental pro-

curement, M/WBE, etc., that result in less competition

Utilization of technology and e-procurement tools

Market availability for competition; e.g., utilities

Calculation Total amount of purchasing through competitive pro-

curements divided by the sum of total procurement outlays, total P-

card purchasing and total construction spending.

Procurement Cost per $100K Spend

Importance This measure identifies the indirect cost of the pro-

curement function as compared to the total procurement dollars

purchased by the district. Assuming all other things being equal, this

is a relative measure of the administrative efficiency of a district’s

procurement operations.


Degree of P-Card Utilization

e-Procurement automation

Delegation of purchasing authority

Purchasing office professional staff grade structure, contract

services, and other expenditures

Number of highly complex procurements especially construc-

tion

Skill level of staff

Calculation Total purchasing department costs divided by total

procurement outlays over $100,000.

Procurement Cost per Purchase Order

Importance This measure, along with other indicators, provides

an opportunity for districts to assess the cost/benefits that might re-

sult from other means of procurement (e.g., P-Card program, order-

ing agreements, and leveraging the consolidating requirement).


Utilization of BPAs

Strategic sourcing (minimizing total vendors)

Purchasing Department expenditures and FTE degree of e-

procurement automation and P-Card utilization

Degree of requirement consolidation and standardization

Calculation Total purchasing department costs divided by the to-

tal number of purchase orders that were processed by the purchas-

ing department, excluding P-card transactions and construction.

Procurement Savings Ratio

Calculation Total savings from Invitations for Bids, Requests for

Proposals, and informal solicitations divided by total procurement

outlays (excluding P-cards and construction).


Procurement policies, e.g., delegated purchase authority level,

procurements exempted from competition, minimum quote

requirements, sole-source policies, vendor registra-

tion/solicitation procedures (may determine magnitude of

competition)

Utilization of technology and e-procurement tools

Use of national or regional vendor databases (versus district on-

ly) to maximize competition, use of on-line comparative price

analysis tools (comparing e-catalog prices), etc.

Identification of alternative products/methodology of providing

services.

Degree of leveraging required volume through standardization

and utilization of cooperative contracting

Importance This measure compares a district's savings or "cost

avoidance" that result from centralized purchasing to the total pro-

curement spend (less P-Card spending). This measure only captures

savings/cost avoidance in a limited form since districts may realize

other procurement savings that are not captured by this measure

(e.g., make-buy, certain life cycle savings, service, quality, reliability,

and other best value "savings" to the district).

Strategic Sourcing Ratio

Importance This measure is a strong indicator of potential cost

savings that can result from leveraging consolidated requirements

with competitive procurements, and minimizing spot buying and

maverick spending. The National Purchasing Institute (NPI)

Achievement of Excellence in Procurement Award cites an agency’s

use of term (annual or requirements) contracts for at least 25% of

total dollar commodity and services purchases as a reasonable

benchmark. Strategic sourcing is a systemic process to identify, qual-

ify, specify, negotiate, and select suppliers for categories of similar

spend that includes identifying competitive suppliers for longer-term

agreements to buy materials and services. Simply put, strategic

sourcing is organized agency buying that directly affects the availa-

ble contracts for goods and services, i.e., items under contract are

readily accessible, while others are not.


Technical training of procurement professional staff

Effectiveness of spend analysis regarding frequently purchased

items

Policies on centralization of procurement

Balance between choice and cost savings

Dollar approval limits without competitive bids

Calculation Total spending utilizing strategic sourcing divided by

total procurement outlays (excluding P-cards and construction).


Finance Page 56

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Cooperative Purchasing Ratio

Importance This measure assesses the use of cooperative pur-

chasing agreements that districts can use to leverage their collective

buying power to maximize savings through economies of scale. Ad-

ditionally, cooperative agreements provide purchasing efficiencies

by having one buyer from one district buy for many districts, and de-

creasing the cycle time for new requirements.


Procurement laws and policies

Commodity (some goods and services lend themselves to lev-

eraging volume more than others)

Degree of item standardization with other entities

Number of available and eligible cooperative agreements

Market environment (cooperative contracts may not remain

competitive with market)

Calculation Total district dollars spent during the fiscal year under

cooperative agreements (including P-Cards transactions but exclud-

ing construction) divided by total procurement outlays (including P-

Cards but excluding construction)

P-Card Purchasing Ratio

Importance P-Card utilization significantly improves cycle times

for schools, decreases procurement transaction costs as compared

to a Purchase Order (2010 RPMG Research Corp cited average PO

transaction cost = $93 from requisition to check, versus P-Card

transaction cost = $22), and provides for more localized flexibility. It

also allows procurement professionals to concentrate efforts on the

more complex purchases, significantly reduces Accounts Payable

workload, and gives schools a shorter cycle time for these items. In-

creased P-Card spending can provide higher rebate revenues, which

in turn can pay for the management of the program. There are

trade-offs however. The decentralized nature of these purchases

could have an impact on lost opportunity for savings, and requires

diligent oversight to prevent inappropriate use and spend analysis to

identify contract savings opportunities.


Procurement policies, particularly those delegating purchase

authority and P-Card usage

Utilization of technology to manage a high volume of low dollar

transactions

e-Procurement and e-Catalog processes utilized by district

P-Card reconciliation software and P-Card database interface

with a district’s ERP system

Budget, purchasing, and audit controls, including P-Card credit

limit controls on single transaction and monthly limits

Accounts Payable policies for P-Card as an alternative payment

method

Use of P-Cards on construction projects and paying large dollar

vendors, e.g.., utilities, textbook publishers, food, technology

projects.

Calculation Total dollar amount purchased using P-cards divided

by total procurement outlays (including P-card purchases).

PALT for Requests for Proposals

Importance This measure establishes a "cycle time" benchmark

for commencing and completing the acquisition process for informal

bidding or quoting. Informal bids/quotes are usually for small pur-

chases less than the formal bid or formal proposal threshold where

quotes can be obtained in writing, including electronically using e-

commerce tools via telephone, etc., and can be processed without

school board approval typically using more efficient small purchase

procedures.


Federal, state, and local school board procurement policies and

laws, including formal solicitation requirements, minimum ad-

vertising times and procurement dollar limits

Frequency of school board meetings

Budget/FTE allocation for professional procurement staff

Training on scope of work and specification development for

contract sponsors

The award process including RFP proposal evaluation, vendor

presentations, # of proposals, negotiations, pre-proposal con-

ferences, site visits, and vendor reference checks

Use of standard boilerplate bid and contract documents

Use of current ERP and e-procurement technology to stream-

line internal procurement processes and external solicitation

process with vendors

Frequency of vendor protests

Complexity and size of procurement

Degree of commodity standardization within the district

Calculation Average number of days to administer Requests for

Proposals from receipt of requisition to the date that the contract

was issued.

PALT for Invitations for Bids

Importance This measure establishes a “cycle time” benchmark

for commencing and completing the acquisition process for formal

competitive bidding (IFBs). It is an important measure that examines

the balance between competition/objectivity, procedural compli-

ance, and the need to get products/services in place in a timely

manner to meet customer requirements.


Federal, state, and local school board procurement policies and

laws, including formal solicitation requirements, minimum ad-

vertising times, and procurement dollar limits

Frequency of school board meetings

Budget/FTE allocation for professional procurement staff

Training on scope of work and specification development for

contract sponsors

The award process, including IFB evaluation, pre-bid confer-

ences, site visit requirements, and vendor reference checks

Use of standard boilerplate bid and contract documents

Use of current ERP and e-procurement technology to stream-

line internal-procurement processes and external solicitation

and response process with vendors

Frequency of vendor protests

Complexity and size of procurement

Degree of commodity standardization within the district

Calculation Average number of days to administer Invitations for

bids from receipt of requisition to the date that the contract was is-

sued.


Page 57 Procurement

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T

PALT for Informal Solicitations

Importance This measure establishes a "cycle time" benchmark

for commencing and completing the acquisition process for informal

bidding or quoting. Informal bids/quotes are usually for small pur-

chases less than the formal bid or formal proposal threshold where

quotes can be obtained in writing, including electronically using e-

commerce tools via telephone, etc., and can be processed without

school board approval typically using more efficient small purchase

procedures.


Degree of P-Card utilization

Extent of delegated purchase authority for small dollar pro-

curements

State/local laws and regulations

Small purchase policies/procedures

Utilization of e-procurement automation tools including online

solicitation broadcasts and responses

Calculation Average number of days, from receipt of requisition

by the purchasing department to date that purchase order issued, to

process all informal solicitations.

Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate

Importance This measure assesses the technical knowledge of the

district’s procurement staff, which directly affects processing time,

negotiations, procedural controls, and strategies applied to maxim-

ize cost savings. The procurement function should show procure-

ment professional staff focusing on--

Strategic issues versus transactional processing

Advanced business skills that look at agency supply chain, logis-

tics optimization, total cost of ownership evaluations, make

versus buy analysis, leveraging cooperative procurements,

complex negotiations focusing on cost and other value-added

factors, and agency spend analyses, and

Balance of service with internal controls and compliance.


Budget/FTE allocations to central procurement functions and

employee professional development

Procurement policies such as delegated purchasing authority,

formal procurement dollar threshold, small purchase proce-

dures, P-card utilization, etc.

Utilization of technology and knowledge required for e-

procurement and e-commerce

Value that an organization places on its procurement functions

and procedures

Policies favoring internal promotion over technical recruitment

Incentive pay

Calculation Number of purchasing department staff with a pro-

fessional certificate divided by total number of purchasing staff

(FTEs).

Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio

Importance The operational cost of maintaining an intermediate

storage/distribution point (warehouse) should be constantly evalu-

ated against other alternatives as the market and other supply chain

factors change in the district’s region.


Warehouse building utility cost and space efficiency

Total SKUs for indirect and direct cost allocations

Number of warehouse personnel and material handling equip-

ment/vehicles

Type of warehouse (environmentally controlled or not)

Cycle time requirements

Calculation Total operating expenses of all measured warehouses

(including school/office supplies, textbooks, food service items, facil-

ity maintenance items, and transportation maintenance items) di-

vided by total value of all issues/sales from the warehouse(s).

Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio

Importance Warehouse inventory turnover ratios can be used to

examine opportunities for improved warehouse operations and re-

duced costs. Generally, total costs decline and savings rise when in-

ventory stock turn increases. After a certain point - typically 8-10

turns - the reverse occurs, according to the National Institute of

Governmental Purchasing (NIGP). Generally, an inventory turn rate

of 4-6 times per year in the manufacturing, servicing, and public sec-

tor is considered acceptable. However, the overall stock turn ratio

should be broken down into types of commodities, as some com-

modities are optimally less than 4-6 (NIGP). Viewed another way, in-

ventory turnover ratios indicate how much use districts are getting

from the dollars invested in inventory. Stock turn measures invento-

ry health and may provide an indication of—

Inventory usage and amount of inventory that is not turned

over (“dead stock”),

Optimum inventory investment and warehousing size, and

Warehouse activity/movement.


Inventory financing costs

Inflation

Purchasing policies

Calculation Total dollar value of annual issues/sales at purchase

price at all measured warehouses (including school/office supplies,

textbooks, food service items, facility maintenance items, and trans-

portation maintenance items) divided by the twelve-month average.


Finance Page 58

FIN

AN

CE

PR

OC

UR

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE


Page 59 Risk Management

FIN

AN

CE

RISK

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

RISK MANAGEMENT Performance metrics in risk management evaluate the rate of incidents that could lead to claims against the dis-

trict, as well as the total cost of claims and insurance. The total cost is broadly considered with Cost of Risk per

Student, and Employee Incident rate (expressed per employee or per work hour) could be a reflection of the gen-

eral safety of a district.

Broad measures of relative costs and levels of claims for both workers’ compensation and liability will help district

leaders understand their performance in risk management, which may prompt such improvement strategies as:

Searching for better medical management programs

Improving access to quality medical care

Providing benefits in a timely fashion

Conducting risk factor analysis and prevention

Adopting policies that avoid litigation

Improving the reporting and tracking process for correcting hazardous conditions

Revising safety protocols/guidelines/Employer Policies

Improving injury investigations used to determine cause of injury


Finance Page 60

FIN

AN

CE

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

L IST OF KPIS IN R ISK MAN AGEMEN T Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Risk Management. Indicators in bold are those included in



POWER INDICATORS

Cost of Risk per Student

Workers' Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend

Workers' Compensation Cost per Employee

Workers' Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees

ESSENTIAL FEW

Liability Claims - Percent Litigated

Liability Claims per 1,000 Students

Liability Cost per Student

Workers' Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees

Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees


Liability Claims - Percent Open as of Year-End

Liability Cost per Claim

Workers' Compensation Claims - Percent Indemnity

Workers' Compensation Claims - Percent Litigated

Workers' Compensation Cost per Claim



FIN

AN

CE

RISK

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 55 Cost of Risk per Student

The “cost of risk” measure currently includes costs associated with

Workers’ Compensation and liability, i.e., insurance, claims costs,

and administration costs. Other cost drivers for risk management

are currently not included in this measure.

Figure 56 Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend

293

154

147

119

116

111

107

105

97

94

92

87

80

79

76

71

59

58

57

54

48

43

35

30

29

26

17

15

9

3

73

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350

57

11

12

77

47

16

13

32

21

101

4

14

23

1

37

Median

66

44

49

54

48

39

71

3

10

28

43

9

5

55

18

2,954

2,116

2,113

2,024

1,804

1,566

1,308

1,304

1,257

1,257

1,228

1,222

1,166

1,111

1,091

990

925

805

760

756

727

694

679

658

616

595

521

437

430

419

371

202

137

110

97

49

47

11

8

756

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500

57

34

11

45

56

16

32

7

79

47

12

44

23

67

4

35

37

14

1

54

Median

8

101

66

39

13

53

49

71

48

21

52

43

5

25

9

3

28

55

18


Finance Page 62

FIN

AN

CE

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 57 Workers’ Compensation Cost per 1,000 Employees

Figure 58 Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees

100

92

86

81

74

74

71

56

56

52

48

47

46

44

43

43

43

42

38

37

34

34

33

32

32

31

26

25

13

11

10

4

3

43

$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

13

66

3

12

47

30

44

16

32

23

67

11

55

14

37

21

57

Median

10

5

39

71

101

4

45

1

20

35

54

18

25

43

48

49

3,249

1,717

1,273

1,266

955

864

590

522

444

437

379

355

295

292

270

234

210

207

175

144

124

99

75

70

24

295

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

5

11

35

4

45

57

21

16

1

23

39

3

49

Median

20

67

37

101

32

47

18

13

66

25

14

10



FIN

AN

CE

RISK

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Figure 59 Liability Claims - Percent Litigated

Figure 60 Liability Claims per 1,000 Students

57.9%

55.9%

39.5%

36.2%

35.7%

27.3%

25.0%

22.6%

18.2%

17.5%

16.1%

15.9%

15.6%

14.7%

14.3%

14.0%

13.5%

11.8%

10.3%

9.5%

9.0%

8.9%

7.1%

6.8%

6.5%

5.9%

5.7%

3.1%

2.5%

2.3%

2.1%

1.8%

1.7%

1.5%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

10.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

34

47

25

54

5

12

23

37

52

39

1

44

30

3

79

57

53

77

56

Median

101

11

35

7

16

8

4

55

9

14

18

67

48

71

21

49

32

13

8.39

5.44

5.33

5.16

2.79

2.78

2.08

2.08

2.02

2.00

1.81

1.80

1.78

1.76

1.63

1.51

1.31

1.25

1.22

1.16

0.87

0.74

0.66

0.62

0.55

0.45

0.40

0.40

0.39

0.34

0.31

0.30

0.07

1.31

- 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

13

67

48

47

14

32

57

21

71

37

28

35

9

77

11

10

16

Median

55

18

49

3

12

44

1

54

23

30

66

101

4

39

5

43


Finance Page 64

FIN

AN

CE

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

Figure 61 Liability Cost per Student

Figure 62 Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees

73

41

40

38

33

29

29

26

26

25

24

24

22

21

19

18

18

14

13

11

10

10

9

8

7

7

6

6

6

4

3

18

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80

13

14

101

21

77

3

12

48

1

16

57

28

4

47

35

23

32

37

71

66

9

30

49

55

5

54

11

39

10

44

18

100

92

86

81

74

74

71

56

56

52

48

47

46

44

43

43

43

42

38

37

34

34

33

32

32

31

26

25

13

11

10

4

3

43

- 20 40 60 80 100 120

13

66

3

12

47

30

44

16

32

23

67

11

55

14

37

21

57

Median

10

5

39

71

101

4

45

1

20

35

54

18

25

43

48

49



FIN

AN

CE

RISK

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Figure 63 Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees

107

100

95

92

86

83

81

81

80

79

77

75

74

73

71

67

61

59

52

51

47

44

44

43

42

41

35

34

32

71

- 20 40 60 80 100 120

43

13

16

66

3

18

12

32

23

67

4

25

47

30

44

Median

37

71

20

5

1

10

48

14

57

21

49

39

101

45

Does your district have an enterprise-wide risk management task force?


Finance Page 66

FIN

AN

CE

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE

KPI DEF IN ITION S Cost of Risk per Student

Importance This metric is important for long-term budget plan-

ning. School funding is based on student enrollment.


Frequency and severity of claims filed

Safety program’s efforts to correct hazardous conditions

Calculation Total liability premiums, claims, and administration

costs plus total workers' compensation premiums, claims, and ad-

ministration costs divided by total district enrollment.

Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend

Importance This is a metric that can be used to measure success

of programs or initiatives aimed at reducing workers' compensation

costs.


Medical management programs

Quality of medical care

Litigation

Timely provision of benefits

Calculation Total workers' compensation premium costs plus

workers' compensation claims costs incurred plus total workers'

compensation claims administration costs for the fiscal year divided

by total payroll outlays over $100,000.

Workers’ Compensation Cost per 1,000 Employees

Importance This metric would most likely be used for the same

purpose as the average cost per workers’ compensation claim – to

measure success of programs and initiatives. It can also be a way to

measure trends over time or to bench mark against other employ-

ers.




Litigation


Calculation Total workers' compensation premium costs plus

workers' compensation claims costs incurred plus total workers'

compensation claims administration costs for the fiscal year divided

by total number of district of district employees (number of W-2's is-

sued).

Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees

Calculation Total number of lost work days for all workers' com-

pensation claims filed during the fiscal year divided by total number

of employees (W-2's) over 1,000.


Quality of medical care (Medical Provider Networks)

Type of injury

Use of nurse case managers

Litigation

Availability of modified or alternative work on both a tempo-

rary and permanent basis

Importance This metric could be used to track the effectiveness of

medical treatment and a Return to Work program, but since this

metric is using all employees in the equation instead of just the

number of injured employees, a drastic change in the number of

employees (reduction in force, etc.) would impact this metric with-

out any actual change in the items being tracked.

Liability Claims - Percent Litigated

Importance This is an important metric as litigation is expensive

and increases the cost of the claim.


Severity of injuries

Settlement rate

Motivation of plaintiff

Calculation Number of liability claims litigated divided by total

number of liability claims filed during the fiscal year.

Liability Claims per 1,000 Students

Importance This metric can be used to measure your performance

against other entities of similar size and with similar claims.


Frequency of claims

Type of claims

Severity of injuries

Calculation Total number of liability claims filed during the fiscal

year divided by total district enrollment over 1,000.

Liability Cost per Student

Importance Used to determine estimated costs for claims re-

ferred to outside attorneys. This measure can also be used to com-

pare performance with other entities of similar size and with similar

claims.


Litigation

Frequency of claims

Injury type

Calculation Total liability premiums, claims, and administration

costs divided by total district enrollment.

Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees

Importance This is a metric that can be used to measure success

of programs or initiatives aimed at reducing workers' compensation

costs.


Risk factor prevention




Calculation Total number of workers' compensation claims filed

during the fiscal year divided by total number of district employees

(W-2's issued) over 1,000.



FIN

AN

CE

RISK

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees

Importance This metric would be used to measure the success of

programs and initiatives aimed at reducing workplace inju-

ries/incidents.


Disciplinary actions

RIF notices

Management support

Effectiveness of safety programs

Safety training

Injury investigations used to determine cause of injury

Maintenance of facilities

Established safety protocols/guidelines/Employer policies

Calculation Total number of employee workplace incidents re-

ported during the fiscal year divided by the total number of employ-

ees over 1,000.


Finance Page 68

FIN

AN

CE

RIS

K M

AN

AG

EMEN

T FI

NA

NCE


Page 69 Food Services

OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

OPERATIONS

FOOD SERVICES Performance metrics in food services measure the productivity, cost efficiency, and service levels of a district’s nu-

tritional services. Productivity is broadly assessed by Meals per Labor Hour, a standard measure of the industry.

Cost efficiency can be determined by looking at Food Cost per Revenue and Labor Cost per Revenue. Finally, a

basic measure of service levels includes meal participation rate (measured by Breakfast Participation Rate and

Lunch Participation Rate, and is further measured by looking at rates by grade spans.).

These measures should serve as diagnostic tools to gauge performance, as well as a guide for improvement. The

importance and usefulness of each KPI is described under the “Importance of Measure” and “Factors that Influ-

ence” sections of each indicator in the pages that follow.


Operations Page 70

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

L IST OF KPIS IN FO OD SER VIC ES Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Food Services. Indicators in bold are those included in this



POWER INDICATORS

Cost per Meal

Food Cost per Meal

Fund Balance as Percent of Revenue

Total Costs as Percent of Revenue

Breakfast Participation Rate (Districtwide)

Lunch Participation Rate (Districtwide)

Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide)

ESSENTIAL FEW

Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites)

Breakfast Participation Rate (Districtwide), Elementary/K-8

Breakfast Participation Rate (Districtwide), Secondary Schools

Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites)

Lunch Participation Rate (Districtwide), Elementary/K-8

Lunch Participation Rate (Districtwide), Secondary Schools

Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites)

Food Cost per Revenue

Labor Costs per Revenue

Meals per Labor Hour

USDA Commodities - Percent of Total Revenue


Breakfast Access - During Breakfast Break

Breakfast Access - Served in the Cafeteria

Breakfast Access - Served in the Classroom

Breakfast Access - Universal Free Breakfast

Breakfast Access Rate

Breakfast Access Rate, Elementary/K-8

Breakfast Access Rate, High School

Breakfast Access Rate, Middle School

Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate

Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate, Elementary/K-8

Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate, High School

Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate, Middle School

Breakfast Non-F/RP Participation Rate, Elementary/K-8

Breakfast Non-F/RP Participation Rate, High School

Breakfast Non-F/RP Participation Rate, Middle School

Breakfast Participation Rate (Districtwide), High School

Breakfast Participation Rate (Districtwide), Middle School

Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Elementary/K-8

Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites), High School

Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Middle School

Cost Per Meal - Contractor-Operated

Cost Per Meal - District-Operated

Indirect and Overhead Costs as Percent of Total Costs

Indirect Costs Ratio - License Fees and Contract Services

Indirect Costs Ratio - Rent, Warehousing and Storage

Indirect Costs Ratio - Training and Professional Development

Indirect Costs Ratio - Travel, Advertising and Office Expenses

Lunch Access Rate

Lunch Access Rate, Elementary/K-8

Lunch Access Rate, High School

Lunch Access Rate, Middle School

Lunch F/RP Participation Rate

Lunch F/RP Participation Rate, Elementary/K-8

Lunch F/RP Participation Rate, High School

Lunch F/RP Participation Rate, Middle School

Lunch Non-F/RP Participation Rate, Elementary/K-8

Lunch Non-F/RP Participation Rate, High School

Lunch Non-F/RP Participation Rate, Middle School

Lunch Participation Rate (Districtwide), High School

Lunch Participation Rate (Districtwide), Middle School

Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Elementary/K-8

Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites), High School

Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Middle School

Management Company Share of Total Expenditures

Management Company Share of Total Meals

Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System

Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts, Percent Free

Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts, Percent Reduced-Price

Meal Reimbursements - Lunches, Percent Free

Meal Reimbursements - Lunches, Percent Reduced-Price

Meal Reimbursements - Supper, Percent Free

Meal Reimbursements - Supper, Percent Reduced-Price

Operating Cost Ratio - Equipment

Operating Cost Ratio - Food

Operating Cost Ratio - Labor

Operating Cost Ratio - Supplies and Small Wares

Operating Cost Ratio - Technology

Operating Cost Ratio - Utilities, Custodial and Trash Removal

Operating Cost Ratio - Vehicle Fleet

Outside Meal Services - Catering as Percent of Revenue

Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other

Outside Meal Services - Meal Sites That Are Charter/Other

Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts

Provision II Enrollment Rate - Lunches

Revenue Percentage - A La Carte and Vending Sales

Revenue Percentage - Federal Meal Reimbursements

ServSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site

ServSafe-Certified Staff per Site

Supper Access Rate

Supper Access Rate, Elementary/K-8

Supper Access Rate, High School

Supper Access Rate, Middle School

Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide), Elementary/K-8

Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide), High School

Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide), Middle School

Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Elementary/K-8

Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites), High School

Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Middle School

USDA Commodities - Percent as Donations (Bonuses)



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES


Figure 64 Food Cost vs. Labor Cost

Food and labor costs are the two largest cost factors of school nutritional services. This chart shows the ratio between these two factors so that dis-

tricts can identify how their cost trend compares to other school districts. The general trend is somewhat linear from the top-left to the bottom-

right, which means that those districts that save in labor costs tend to spend a majority of their remaining revenue on food, and vice-versa.

14

7

71

46 6

26

13

45

23

55

20

9

57

35

41

19

37

12

67 49

10

39

33

53

56

11

47

30

52

27

66

48

8 5

2

62

16

77

58

18

3

79

4

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%

Lab

or

Co

st p

er

Re

ven

ue



Operations Page 72

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 65 Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites)

This is the participation rate for school sites that offer breakfasts.

Figure 66 Breakfast Participation Rate (by Grade Span)

The “overall” element in this chart shows the same information as

the chart at left, and also shows drill-down data of breakfast partici-

pation by grade spans. (Data that are missing may be under review.)

3.0%

13.6%

14.4%

16.8%

19.2%

20.6%

21.1%

22.1%

22.3%

22.4%

24.1%

24.6%

25.1%

25.1%

26.9%

27.2%

27.4%

28.7%

29.9%

30.1%

33.0%

34.3%

34.4%

35.3%

36.5%

40.7%

42.5%

43.7%

43.9%

44.1%

44.3%

48.2%

48.5%

53.7%

58.1%

61.4%

29.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

67

77

1

7

14

13

12

4

55

6

71

48

5

47

37

101

44

49

Median

11

16

41

23

18

28

10

57

58

30

66

26

21

33

35

39

45

3

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

67

77

1

7

14

13

12

4

55

6

71

48

5

47

37

101

44

49

Median

11

16

41

23

18

28

10

57

58

30

66

26

21

33

35

39

45

3

High School

Middle School

Elementary/K-8

Overall

Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall break-fast participation rate (either negatively or positively)?



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Figure 67 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate

This is the participation rate of students that are eligible for free or

reduced-price (F/RP) breakfasts.

Figure 68 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate (By Grade Span)


the chart at left, and also shows drill-down data on breakfast partic-

ipation by grade spans. (Data that are missing may be under review.)

0.2%

14.4%

23.3%

30.4%

32.0%

32.7%

32.9%

33.8%

34.1%

36.7%

37.4%

38.8%

39.3%

39.5%

39.7%

39.9%

41.3%

41.4%

42.9%

43.8%

43.8%

47.9%

48.4%

50.7%

51.4%

52.4%

52.8%

54.6%

59.9%

60.0%

61.6%

61.6%

81.8%

41.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4

77

7

101

6

37

12

13

1

11

5

48

67

71

66

41

14

Median

55

47

44

49

30

18

16

10

35

33

58

21

57

23

26

3 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4

77

7

101

6

37

12

13

1

11

5

48

67

71

66

41

14

Median

55

47

44

49

30

18

16

10

35

33

58

21

57

23

26

3

High School

Middle School

Elementary/K-8

Overall

Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price breakfast participation rate (either negatively or positively)?


Operations Page 74

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

Figure 69 Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites)

This is the participation rate for school sites that offer lunches.

Figure 70 Lunch Participation Rate (by Grade Span)


the chart at left, and also shows drill-down data on breakfast partic-

ipation by grade spans. (Data that are missing may be under review.)

6.7%

35.8%

37.4%

37.7%

46.2%

49.3%

50.3%

52.0%

52.6%

52.8%

54.3%

57.5%

57.5%

57.8%

58.0%

58.4%

59.0%

60.5%

61.7%

62.7%

62.9%

65.0%

67.2%

67.4%

67.7%

69.5%

71.4%

74.2%

74.2%

78.2%

78.6%

81.8%

58.7%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

67

14

7

1

5

23

6

18

44

16

49

48

11

13

55

10

Median

37

12

71

26

39

30

45

4

58

28

35

41

3

101

66

33

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

67

14

7

1

5

23

6

18

44

16

49

48

11

13

55

10

Median

37

12

71

26

39

30

45

4

58

28

35

41

3

101

66

33

High School Middle School Elementary/K-8 Overall

Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price lunch participation rate (either negatively or positively)?



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Figure 71 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate

This is the participation rate of students that are eligible for free or

reduced-price (F/RP) meals.

Figure 72 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate (by Grade Span)

If any subset data are missing (i.e., the bar is blank), then the data

may be under review.

0.5%

53.8%

60.2%

68.3%

69.3%

71.0%

74.3%

75.1%

75.3%

76.0%

77.0%

77.6%

78.9%

79.5%

79.6%

80.0%

80.2%

81.8%

82.1%

83.9%

85.5%

87.4%

87.8%

87.8%

88.1%

88.8%

88.8%

89.4%

89.6%

90.0%

91.1%

100.0%

100.0%

80.2%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4

77

7

5

14

11

44

6

1

18

37

49

35

23

16

13

48

M…

12

47

30

21

67

41

33

26

71

10

55

101

58

66

3

57 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4

77

7

5

14

11

44

6

1

18

37

49

35

23

16

13

48

Median

12

47

30

21

67

41

33

26

71

10

55

101

58

66

3

57

High School Middle School Elementary/K-8 Overall

Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price lunch participation rate (either negatively or positively)?


Operations Page 76

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

Figure 73 Cost per Meal

This is the total operating cost of the food services department rela-

tive to the total number of meals served in the year. Adjusted for

cost of living.

Figure 74 Food Cost per Meal

This is the total food costs divided by total meals served. (Meal

counts are adjusted by common meal equivalency factors. See KPI

definitions.) Adjusted for cost of living.

5.76

4.39

3.97

3.75

3.64

3.62

3.54

3.52

3.52

3.49

3.44

3.37

3.37

3.37

3.36

3.35

3.34

3.33

3.30

3.27

3.27

3.19

3.17

3.15

3.02

3.00

2.96

2.95

2.94

2.93

2.91

2.90

2.90

2.88

2.87

2.82

2.82

2.81

2.67

2.62

2.59

2.35

2.34

2.29

2.25

2.13

1.89

3.15

$- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00

6

44

2

18

47

7

79

10

20

35

41

12

23

71

57

55

4

53

48

37

19

49

39

21

Median

66

27

45

28

3

8

11

33

46

67

30

14

5

9

52

13

77

56

16

58

62

26

101

2.34

1.99

1.78

1.75

1.71

1.71

1.68

1.65

1.65

1.58

1.56

1.56

1.55

1.54

1.53

1.51

1.50

1.49

1.47

1.45

1.42

1.42

1.39

1.38

1.37

1.36

1.34

1.31

1.28

1.28

1.26

1.25

1.22

1.20

1.19

1.18

1.17

1.14

1.14

1.13

0.96

0.96

0.88

0.71

1.41

$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50

6

4

2

9

49

66

23

45

41

10

39

19

57

55

27

33

48

18

20

77

12

37

Median

47

46

52

67

58

5

14

8

44

7

11

79

35

53

3

13

71

30

26

62

16

56



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Figure 75 Fund Balance per Revenue

This is the fund balance as of year-end relative to the total annual

revenue. A fund balance is important for the financial health of the

food services operation, although it is sometimes capped by the dis-

trict or state.

Figure 76 Total Cost as Percent of Revenue

A ratio below 100% indicates that the food services operation

brought in more revenue that it spent, meaning that it is self-

sustaining.

0.2%

0.4%

0.8%

1.7%

2.4%

3.7%

4.7%

5.4%

6.6%

7.0%

7.6%

7.7%

10.6%

10.7%

11.9%

12.3%

13.7%

14.7%

16.1%

16.1%

18.6%

19.7%

24.3%

25.5%

26.0%

26.6%

27.8%

28.5%

28.6%

31.2%

31.7%

31.8%

32.6%

34.4%

36.0%

38.1%

46.5%

61.5%

64.7%

76.4%

17.4%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

79

77

1

16

21

5

56

6

19

49

11

39

33

28

14

7

3

2

12

37

Median

41

44

48

71

10

62

52

18

13

47

23

8

4

27

55

20

9

101

53

45

131.5%

130.1%

112.8%

111.4%

108.0%

107.5%

106.4%

105.5%

105.3%

104.7%

102.7%

102.6%

102.2%

101.4%

99.7%

99.7%

99.0%

98.9%

98.8%

98.8%

98.6%

97.4%

97.3%

96.3%

96.3%

95.8%

95.7%

95.4%

95.0%

94.7%

94.3%

94.0%

94.0%

93.9%

93.4%

92.9%

92.2%

91.8%

90.6%

90.2%

89.3%

88.1%

87.5%

84.8%

97.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%

11

44

49

77

37

79

57

2

41

35

16

7

46

45

67

71

55

8

3

27

33

10

58

Median

5

26

48

30

39

47

19

52

62

53

6

12

9

66

23

56

20

13

14

4

101

Labor Food Operating Costs Indirect Costs


Operations Page 78

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

Figure 77 Food Cost per Revenue

This is the percent of food services money that was spent directly on

food costs.

Figure 78 Labor Cost per Revenue

This is the percent of food services money that was spent on district

staff.

59.5%

53.2%

52.5%

52.3%

52.0%

51.1%

50.7%

50.5%

49.2%

48.9%

47.6%

47.0%

47.0%

46.2%

46.1%

45.3%

45.3%

45.1%

43.9%

43.9%

42.6%

42.5%

42.1%

41.3%

41.2%

41.2%

39.1%

38.4%

38.3%

38.2%

37.9%

37.1%

36.9%

36.7%

36.6%

36.3%

36.3%

35.7%

35.5%

35.2%

33.3%

33.2%

31.5%

27.4%

42.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

77

9

58

45

49

11

66

4

27

41

46

2

52

57

37

33

67

19

39

5

26

55

Median

23

48

8

10

14

18

12

62

13

20

3

30

16

44

79

6

35

47

71

7

53

56

65.9%

63.6%

57.7%

55.5%

54.9%

54.6%

50.8%

50.2%

50.2%

48.7%

48.6%

48.4%

47.3%

47.1%

47.0%

46.5%

45.6%

45.5%

44.1%

43.9%

43.4%

43.2%

42.8%

42.2%

41.9%

41.7%

40.9%

40.7%

40.6%

40.0%

39.8%

39.8%

39.5%

39.1%

38.3%

37.6%

36.9%

35.0%

34.9%

34.8%

33.4%

31.9%

30.0%

29.3%

29.1%

7.5%

42.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

79

11

56

7

71

35

30

37

6

46

57

2

12

16

47

19

3

62

26

53

67

21

49

Median

55

14

18

27

41

101

5

8

10

77

20

23

48

13

52

39

58

33

45

66

9

4

44



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Figure 79 Meals per Labor Hour

This is the total number of meals produced relative to the annual

number of labor hours. (Meal counts are adjusted by common meal

equivalency factors. See KPI Definitions.)

Figure 80 USDA Commodities as Percent of Revenue

USDA Foods is an important federal program that grants food to ed-

ucation agencies. Sometimes USDA Foods also offers “bonuses” that

are only available for a limited time, and are influenced by excess

food stocks.

10.1

11.2

11.3

12.0

12.0

12.4

13.2

13.8

13.9

14.6

14.9

15.1

15.2

15.9

16.7

16.8

16.8

17.0

17.4

17.7

18.0

18.0

18.1

18.2

18.5

20.6

21.0

21.4

21.5

21.7

21.8

21.8

23.3

23.5

24.0

25.6

28.5

28.9

40.4

17.7

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

2

7

10

79

16

12

71

53

47

23

48

30

27

49

46

41

8

14

5

18

Median

56

20

13

3

4

11

19

9

66

45

57

77

26

67

35

33

58

62

52

1.4%

1.8%

2.0%

2.5%

3.3%

3.8%

4.1%

4.1%

4.2%

4.2%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

4.7%

4.8%

4.8%

4.9%

5.0%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.2%

5.2%

5.2%

5.2%

5.3%

5.4%

5.6%

5.6%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

5.8%

5.9%

5.9%

5.9%

6.1%

6.2%

6.6%

5.1%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%

77

79

71

9

7

2

6

47

58

1

10

23

20

62

18

8

26

55

3

46

67

Median

48

11

21

53

14

12

44

45

27

16

37

66

13

5

33

52

41

30

49

28

Entitlements

Bonuses

Do you take advantage of USDA Commodities to the fullest extent possible in order to reduce food costs?


Operations Page 80

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

Figure 81 Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts

Provision II can increase overall participation by reducing the pa-

perwork burden.

Figure 82 Provision II Enrollment Rate – Lunches

Provision II can increase overall participation by reducing the pa-

perwork burden.

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

4%

17%

18%

26%

31%

37%

38%

39%

48%

63%

70%

73%

78%

79%

95%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

4

6

7

10

13

18

23

25

27

28

30

35

37

39

41

44

47

49

52

53

55

56

58

63

71

Median

77

79

20

9

12

14

101

62

8

48

16

5

11

19

33

26

67

3

46

57

66

45

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

2%

4%

16%

18%

22%

26%

31%

36%

38%

63%

70%

73%

77%

100%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

1

3

4

6

7

8

10

13

18

23

27

28

30

35

37

39

41

44

46

47

49

52

53

Median

55

56

58

66

71

77

79

2

20

5

9

12

14

48

101

62

26

16

11

19

33

67

57



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Figure 83 ServeSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site

Figure 84 Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other

0.01

0.04

0.04

0.18

0.40

0.64

0.71

0.75

0.79

1.00

1.00

1.03

1.04

1.06

1.06

1.08

1.09

1.14

1.14

1.16

1.19

1.21

1.31

1.36

1.37

1.39

1.43

1.48

1.57

1.59

1.59

1.77

1.89

1.91

2.00

2.21

2.60

3.07

3.11

3.33

3.45

4.88

5.16

6.20

1.26

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

57

5

47

44

58

7

10

45

46

16

79

19

66

28

18

6

35

3

33

71

8

14

Median

27

9

56

52

49

26

11

41

21

67

77

55

53

48

12

62

39

30

20

23

4

13

ServSafe

ServSafe Equivalent

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.5%

0.6%

0.6%

0.6%

0.8%

1.2%

1.2%

1.4%

1.8%

2.3%

4.5%

8.9%

9.2%

9.6%

11.9%

12.4%

0.0%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%

23

27

28

33

52

66

79

41

44

8

2

49

53

62

30

4

5

6

55

58

71

Median

56

35

1

10

39

26

9

13

48

67

14

11

7

77

101

47

18

16

19

3

37

46

Are you responding to shifts in the educational landscape?


Operations Page 82

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

Figure 85 Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System

A point-of-sale (POS) system is essential for automated meal counts.

Figure 86 Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts

14.6%

19.1%

58.0%

74.0%

74.4%

75.7%

77.4%

84.0%

85.8%

88.5%

89.4%

90.3%

91.3%

92.1%

92.1%

95.1%

97.4%

97.5%

98.3%

98.4%

98.8%

99.3%

99.3%

99.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

79

66

62

45

11

46

16

1

30

21

18

101

67

12

56

48

10

26

77

52

5

39

Median

37

41

14

7

28

71

6

23

55

20

9

57

35

19

44

53

47

27

8

58

3

4

88.9%

3.7%

3.8%

40.9%

59.3%

69.5%

75.2%

78.3%

78.4%

79.6%

80.0%

81.2%

81.7%

83.0%

83.1%

83.6%

84.4%

84.5%

84.8%

84.8%

84.8%

85.5%

87.5%

87.6%

88.5%

89.4%

89.5%

90.0%

90.3%

90.4%

90.5%

90.5%

91.2%

91.3%

91.5%

92.1%

92.3%

92.8%

93.0%

93.6%

94.4%

94.4%

94.8%

95.0%

95.1%

95.6%

98.6%

98.8%

100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

6

45

77

66

7

10

5

30

46

3

19

49

57

58

37

44

52

27

35

14

8

11

33

39

Median

18

1

26

48

9

23

2

13

67

55

53

28

62

4

12

71

21

41

16

47

101

79

56

20

Free Reduced-Price



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Figure 87 Meal Reimbursements - Lunches

83.5%

5.9%

5.9%

39.6%

62.2%

72.8%

74.7%

75.2%

75.7%

76.0%

76.7%

76.9%

77.5%

78.7%

79.8%

80.6%

80.7%

81.0%

81.2%

81.4%

81.5%

81.8%

81.9%

82.1%

83.2%

83.8%

84.2%

84.8%

85.4%

85.7%

86.0%

86.4%

86.5%

86.7%

86.8%

88.1%

88.4%

89.7%

89.9%

90.0%

90.3%

90.3%

90.8%

91.7%

92.0%

92.6%

93.1%

93.7%

94.9%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

6

45

77

7

5

14

44

1

49

66

55

13

12

8

9

27

48

16

53

10

19

57

23

71

Median

4

52

46

3

37

58

62

33

11

35

67

47

28

56

2

26

20

18

30

39

79

101

41

21

Free Reduced-Price


Operations Page 84

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

KPI DEF IN ITION S Breakfast Participation

Importance Studies show a positive correlation between break-

fast and school attendance, alertness, health, behavior, and aca-

demic success.

A strong breakfast program indicates a commitment by the food

service program and district leadership to preparing students to be

“ready to learn” in the classroom.


Menu selections

Provision II and III and Universal Free

Free/Reduced percentage

Food preparation methods

Attractiveness of dining areas

Adequate time to eat

Calculation Total breakfast meals served divided by total district

student enrollment times the number of school days in the year.

Lunch Participation Rate

Importance High participation rates indicate customer satisfaction

because food selections are appealing, quick to eat, and economical.


Menu selections

Dining areas that are clean, attractive, and "kid-friendly"

Adequate number of Point of Sale (POS) stations to help move

lines quickly and efficiently

A variety of menu selections

Adequate time to eat

Food preparation methods

Calculation Total lunch meals served divided by total district stu-

dent enrollment times the number of school days in the year.

Cost per Meal

Importance Total costs relative to meal volume demonstrates ef-

ficacy of the food service operation.


The "chargebacks" to food service programs such as energy

costs, custodial, non-food service administrative staff, trash

removal, and dining room supervisory staff

Direct costs such as food, labor, supplies, equipment, etc.

Meal quality

Participation rates

Purchasing practices

Marketing

Leadership expertise

Meal prices

Staffing formulas

Calculation Total direct costs of the food services program divid-

ed by the total meal count of all meal types. Breakfast meals are

weighted at one-half; lunch meals at one-to-one; snacks at one-

fourth; and suppers at one-to-one.

Food Cost per Meal

Importance Food cost is the second largest expenditure that

foodservice programs incur.

Careful menu planning practices, competitive bids for purchasing

supplies, including commodity processing contracts, and implemen-

tation of consistent production practices can control food costs.

Food cost as a percent of revenue can be reduced if participation

revenue is high.


USDA menu & nutrient requirements

A la carte items

Convenience vs. scratch food items

Purchasing and production practices

Meal prices

Participation rates

Use of commodities

Use of a warehouse or drop-ship deliveries

Theft

Calculation Total food costs divided by the total meal count of all

meal types. Breakfast meals are weighted at one-half; lunch meals at

one-to-one; snacks at one-fourth; and suppers at one-to-one.

Fund Balance per Revenue

Importance A positive fund balance can provide a contingency

fund for equipment purchases, technology upgrades, and emergen-

cy expenses.

A “break-even” status indicates that there is just enough revenue to

cover program expenses, but none left for program improvements.


USDA allows a food service program to have no more than a

three month operating expenses fund balance.

Districts may have taken part or all of the food services fund

balance for non-food service activities.

Food services may have funded large kitchen remodeling pro-

jects, implemented new POS systems, and thereby reduced a

fund balance with a large capital outlay project

Calculation Fund balance divided by total revenue.

Total Cost per Revenue

Importance This measure gives an indication of the financial sta-

tus of the food service program, including management company

fees. Districts that keep expenses lower than revenues are able to

build a surplus for reinvestment back into the program for capital

replacement, technology, and other improvements. Districts that

report expenses higher than revenues may either be drawing from

their fund balance, or may be subsidized by the district’s general

fund.


The "chargebacks" to food service programs such as energy

costs, custodial, non-food service administrative staff, trash

removal, dining room supervisory staff

Direct costs such as food, labor, supplies, equipment, etc.

Meal quality

Participation rates

Purchasing practices

Marketing

Leadership expertise

Meal prices

Staffing formulas



OP

ERA

TION

S

FO

OD

SER

VIC

ES

Calculation Total direct costs plus indirect and overhead costs di-

vided by total revenue.


Importance Food cost is the second largest expenditure that food

service programs incur.

Careful menu planning practices, competitive bids for purchasing

supplies, including commodity processing contracts, and implemen-

tation of consistent production practices can control food costs.

Food cost as a percent of revenue can be reduced if participation

revenue is high.


USDA menu & nutrient requirements

A la carte items

Convenience vs. scratch food items

Purchasing and production practices

Meal prices

Participation rates

Use of commodities

Use of a warehouse or drop-ship deliveries

Theft

Calculation Total food costs divided by total revenue.

Labor Cost per Revenue

Importance Labor contributes the largest expense that food ser-

vice revenue must cover.

School boards can control labor costs by establishing salary sched-

ules and benefit plans, and directors can control labor cost by im-

plementing productivity standards and staffing formulas.


Salary schedules and health and retirement benefits

Number of annual work days and annual paid holidays

Staffing formulas and productivity standards

Union contracts

Type of menu items

Calculation Total labor costs divided by total revenue.

Meals per Labor Hour

Importance Labor contributes the largest expense that food ser-

vice revenue must cover.

School boards can control labor costs by establishing salary sched-

ules and benefit plans, and directors can control labor cost by im-

plementing productivity standards and staffing formulas.


Salary schedules and health and retirement benefits

Number of annual work days and annual paid holidays

Staffing formulas and productivity standards

Union contracts

Type of menu items

Calculation Total labor costs divided by total revenue.

USDA Commodities - Percent of Total Revenue

Importance Maximizing the use of USDA commodities can reduce

costs.

Calculation Total value of commodities received divided by total

revenue.

USDA Commodities - Percent as Donations (Bonuses)

Importance Districts can bring down overall food costs when they

maximize the number of "bonuses" that are periodically offered by

USDA Foods.


Frequency of bonuses offered by USDA Foods

Regions where UDSA Foods bonuses are offered

Agility of food services staff to change menus quickly

Calculation Value of commodity donations (bonuses) received,

divided by total value of commodities received (including entitle-

ments and donations).

Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts

Importance This provision reduces application burdens and sim-

plifies meal counting and claiming procedures. It allows schools to

establish claiming percentages and to serve all meals at no charge

for a four-year period.


History of schools serving meals to all participating children at

no charge for 4 years

Stability of income of school's population

Increased participation to offset increased costs and loss of full

pay and reduced-price meal charges.

Calculation Number of students enrolled in Provision II breakfast

program divided by total number of students with access to break-

fast meals.

Provision II Enrollment Rate - Lunches

Importance This provision reduces application burdens and sim-

plifies meal counting and claiming procedures. It allows schools to

establish claiming percentages and to serve all meals at no charge

for a four-year period.


History of schools serving meals to all participating children at

no charge for 4 years

Stability of income of school's population

Increased participation to offset increased costs and loss of full

pay and reduced-price meal charges.

Calculation Number of students enrolled in Provision II lunch pro-

gram divided by total number of students with access to lunch

meals.

ServSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site

Importance The measure is indicative of a district’s intention to

provide a safe and sanitary dining environment for students and

staff.


State requirements for food service workers

District policy for staff

Calculation Number of staff that are ServSafe-Certified or equiva-

lent divided by the total number of sites that serve meals.

Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other

Importance Charter schools, private schools, and community cen-

ters may benefit from district-provided services. This measure iden-

tifies the degree to which this occurs and provides a basis for detect-

ing trends.

Calculation Number of meals served in schools that were charter,

private, or other school divided by total number of meals served.


Operations Page 86

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

FOO

D S

ERV

ICES

O

PER

ATI

ON

S

Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System

Importance A point-of-sale system is necessary for accountability

of meals served.

Calculation Number of sites with a point-of-sale system divided

by the total number of sites that serve meals.

Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts

Importance This can be useful for tracking the levels of federal

meal reimbursements, as well as trends over time.

Calculation Total free or reduced-price breakfast reimbursements

divided by the total number of breakfast meals served.

Meal Reimbursements - Lunches

Importance This can be useful for tracking the levels of federal

meal reimbursements, as well as trends over time.

Calculation Total free or reduced-price lunch reimbursements di-

vided by the total number of lunch meals served.


Page 87 Maintenance & Operations

OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

MAINTENANCE &

OPERATIONS Performance metrics in maintenance and operations (M&O) assess the cost efficiency and service levels of a dis-

trict’s facilities management and labor. Areas of focus include custodial work, maintenance work, renovations, con-

struction, utility usage, and environmental stewardship.

The cost efficiency of custodial work is represented broadly by Custodial Workload and Custodial Cost per Square

Foot, where low workload combined with high cost per square feet would indicate that cost savings can be real-

ized by reducing the number of custodians. Additionally, the relative cost of supplies can be considered by looking

at Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot.

The relative cost of utilities is represented by Utility Usage per Square Foot and Water Usage per Square Foot.

These KPIs should give district leaders a general sense of where they are doing well and where they can improve.

The importance and usefulness of each KPI is described in the “Importance of Measure” and “Factors that Influ-

ence” headings, which can be used to guide improvement strategies.


Operations Page 88

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

L IST OF KPIS IN MAIN TEN ANCE & OPER ATIO NS Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Maintenance & Operations. Indicators in bold are those

included in this report (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are avail-

able to CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.

POWER INDICATORS

Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot

Custodial Workload

Routine Maintenance - Cost per Square Foot

Major Maintenance - Cost per Student

Renovations - Cost per Student

Work Order Completion Time (Days)

ESSENTIAL FEW

M&O Cost per Student

M&O Costs Ratio to District Operating Budget

Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot

Routine Maintenance - Cost per Work Order

Major Maintenance - Design to Construction Cost Ratio

Renovations - Design to Construction Cost Ratio

New Construction - Cost per Student

New Construction - Design to Construction Cost Ratio

Recycling - Percent of Total Material Stream

Utility Costs - Cost per Square Foot

Deferred Maintenance - Percent of Projects Completed


M&O Staff - Field Staff as Percent of All Staff

M&O Staff - Non-Exempt Workers as Percent of Field Staff

Building Square Footage by Ownership - Percent Leased

Building Square Footage by Type - Percent Modular

Building Square Footage by Type - Percent Portable

Building Square Footage by Type - Percent Site-Built

Building Square Footage by Usage - Percent Academic

Building Square Footage by Usage - Percent Non-Academic

Building Square Footage by Usage - Percent Vacant

Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot, Contractor-Operated

Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot, District-Operated

Custodial Work - Cost per Student

Custodial Work - Proportion Contractor-Operated

Custodial Work - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff

Custodial Work - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff

Grounds Work - Cost per Acre

Grounds Work - Cost per Acre, Contractor-Operated

Grounds Work - Cost per Acre, District-Operated

Grounds Work - Cost per Student

Grounds Work - Proportion Contractor-Operated

Grounds Work - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff

Grounds Work - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff

Routine Maintenance - Cost Per Student

Routine Maintenance - Cost Per Work Order, Contractor-Operated

Routine Maintenance - Cost Per Work Order, District-Operated

Routine Maintenance - Proportion Contractor-Operated, by Work

Orders

Routine Maintenance - Ratio of Field Workers to Office Staff

Major Maintenance - Supervisors/Support Staff Costs as Percent of

Total Costs

Major Maintenance - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of

Total Costs

Major Maintenance - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff

Major Maintenance - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field

Staff

Renovations - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs

Renovations - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff

Renovations - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff

Renovations - Supervisors/Support Staff Costs as Percent of Total

Costs

New Construction - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total

Costs

New Construction - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff

New Construction - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff

New Construction - Supervisors/Support Staff Costs as Percent of

Total Costs

Deferred Maintenance - Average Cost per Project

Deferred Maintenance Resulting in Break-Downs

Green Buildings - Buildings Green Certified

Green Buildings - Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent

Green Buildings - Buildings with Energy Star Certificate

Recycling - Percent Regulatory

Utility Costs - Electricity Cost per Square Foot

Utility Costs - Heating Fuel Cost per Square Foot

Utility Costs - Sewer Cost per Square Foot

Utility Costs - Water Cost per Square Foot

Utility Usage - Electricity Usage per Square Foot (KWh)

Utility Usage - Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (KBTU)

Utility Usage - Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)

Utility Usage - Water Usage for Irrigation

Work Order Cancel/Void Rate

Work Order Completion Rate



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS


Figure 88 Custodial Workload vs. Cost per Square Foot

This chart compares custodial staffing levels with total custodial cost. Districts to the top-left have high staffing levels and high costs, suggesting

that the number of staff is driving up costs. Conversely, districts to the bottom-right have lower staffing levels and lower costs, suggesting that

those districts have achieved cost savings through reduced staff levels.

However, rarely does this trend hold—many districts are in the bottom-left quadrant, meaning that they have reduced costs and also higher staff-

ing levels. This may be due to other efficiencies and cost-savings that these districts have implemented.

This analysis also does not take into account the quality of the work done. Districts that are unsatisfied with the level of cleanliness in their facilities

have good reason to want to invest more in custodial staff and supplies in order to provide clean, safe facilities.

14

7

71

26

13

20

9

57

35

41

19

37

44

67

49

10

39

53

34

56

11

30

52

25

66

48

8

43

5

21

62

16

101

1

18

3 4

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

Cu

sto

dia

l W

ork

- C

ost

pe

r Sq

uar

e F

oo

t

Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.)


Operations Page 90

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 89 Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot

This is the total cost of custodial services relative to the total build-

ing square footage in the district.

Figure 90 Custodial Work - Cost per Student

3.71

3.67

3.49

3.39

2.80

2.60

2.57

2.52

2.45

2.45

2.29

2.27

2.24

2.07

2.00

1.98

1.98

1.95

1.90

1.87

1.83

1.78

1.76

1.76

1.74

1.73

1.73

1.70

1.64

1.64

1.64

1.64

1.64

1.64

1.55

1.55

1.50

1.43

1.39

1.31

1.25

1.24

1.21

1.19

1.19

0.95

0.82

1.76

$- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00

26

58

35

43

25

45

19

12

9

53

63

18

56

66

20

3

101

1

6

21

62

34

67

7

Median

23

4

44

2

37

5

47

52

16

71

13

10

30

11

55

48

8

49

39

28

14

57

41

754

730

726

601

493

429

416

380

379

342

332

318

314

302

295

294

283

281

274

272

262

255

236

227

218

214

214

211

198

197

194

190

187

180

179

281

$- $200 $400 $600 $800

26

45

43

35

12

66

18

20

21

1

3

30

4

23

5

47

37

7

Median

28

9

41

71

44

13

49

10

48

55

14

101

57

39

11

16

67

Does this accurately reflect the cost-efficiency of your custodial operation? What kinds of factors are affecting this result? (See KPI Definitions at the end of this section.)



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 91 Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.)

This is a staffing-level measure. It represents the average square

footage that each custodian would be responsible for if all district

facilities were divided up evenly.

Figure 92 Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot

526

12,350

16,892

17,000

17,153

17,949

18,248

18,611

19,308

21,612

21,798

22,131

23,217

23,256

23,676

23,916

23,961

24,684

24,717

25,777

25,982

26,580

26,605

26,737

26,816

27,074

27,145

27,696

27,992

28,070

29,481

31,537

32,123

32,842

33,099

34,079

37,264

38,132

45,009

25,777

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

28

71

44

56

25

67

18

10

39

35

53

16

49

9

8

14

101

48

7

19

Median

13

4

41

79

66

34

37

21

11

20

5

52

26

43

3

1

57

30

62

0.362

0.235

0.226

0.176

0.168

0.155

0.141

0.127

0.126

0.126

0.121

0.121

0.117

0.116

0.114

0.113

0.112

0.107

0.106

0.104

0.102

0.099

0.092

0.091

0.091

0.090

0.083

0.082

0.082

0.082

0.081

0.078

0.076

0.072

0.069

0.063

0.044

0.044

0.012

0.104

$- $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40

1

20

25

4

5

3

52

67

9

62

12

19

55

35

37

66

39

26

57

101

Median

10

41

43

71

34

16

13

7

11

45

8

56

21

48

18

53

14

30

49

How might this relate to building cleanliness and cost efficiency? Which one of these is affected more by your result above?


Operations Page 92

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 93 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot

This is the total cost of routine maintenance relative to the total

square footage.

Figure 94 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order

2.52

1.73

1.58

1.53

1.52

1.45

1.44

1.44

1.43

1.41

1.36

1.35

1.32

1.30

1.29

1.25

1.23

1.21

1.20

1.18

1.17

1.15

1.15

1.14

1.07

1.01

1.00

0.94

0.91

0.91

0.83

0.81

0.81

0.79

0.74

0.72

0.72

0.71

0.70

0.66

0.66

0.65

0.58

0.46

0.39

0.37

1.14

$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00

67

34

35

47

19

7

3

14

56

39

43

20

52

9

25

30

10

28

44

6

23

12

53

Median

2

55

71

16

62

66

8

21

5

58

101

45

49

57

13

48

1

4

26

18

11

41

63

1,545

1,502

1,273

1,122

1,064

917

721

620

569

536

527

504

498

494

493

470

470

449

446

441

422

396

394

378

374

361

349

344

338

327

326

321

321

308

294

290

289

280

260

231

201

186

175

163

105

42

32

378

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

57

25

6

3

30

26

45

47

35

52

58

12

43

19

20

5

9

13

34

7

18

66

39

28

Median

67

56

10

62

63

2

53

23

41

48

14

8

49

16

55

4

101

71

44

1

11

37

21



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 95 Routine Maintenance – Proportion Contractor-Operated, by Work Orders

Figure 96 Major Maintenance – Cost per Student

This represents the per-student spending on major maintenance.

While cost-efficiency is important, CGCS has found that many dis-

tricts vastly underinvest in the maintenance of their facilities, in-

creasing the total lifecycle cost of the facility.

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.4%

0.8%

0.8%

0.9%

0.9%

1.0%

1.1%

1.3%

1.4%

1.5%

1.6%

2.4%

3.6%

3.8%

4.3%

4.4%

5.3%

5.3%

6.7%

8.8%

9.1%

9.5%

9.7%

13.5%

13.8%

15.0%

18.6%

28.0%

32.1%

100.0%

1.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

58

8

4

5

6

67

9

101

56

35

63

11

7

18

66

37

48

19

71

41

28

13

Median

16

47

34

23

12

44

45

1

3

2

20

52

57

43

21

25

30

10

14

39

49

26

1,387.4

654.9

400.2

343.4

322.2

310.8

308.3

288.6

252.8

251.6

182.7

153.6

109.1

102.3

94.4

87.3

82.9

66.0

56.2

53.5

40.2

32.3

29.3

28.0

24.3

23.5

18.4

6.0

4.8

94.4

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500

41

4

43

3

7

21

30

39

45

12

5

28

1

10

23

Median

16

13

37

57

66

101

55

14

49

11

44

48

20

67

Are you protecting your facilities assets through preventive maintenance?


Operations Page 94

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 97 Major Maintenance – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs

Other cost categories include (1) design, pre-construction, and com-

pliance costs, and (2) non-technical office staff (supervisors, support

staff, and clerical staff).

Figure 98 Major Maintenance – Design to Construction Cost Ratio

Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs,

such as architects, drafters and engineering consultants, including

in-house drafters and designers. Delivered construction costs in-

clude personnel, material, and supply costs, including in-house and

contracted work.

38.5%

62.2%

63.6%

67.4%

68.3%

71.4%

72.8%

74.0%

75.5%

76.3%

77.1%

78.1%

82.2%

85.1%

86.4%

87.0%

87.3%

87.8%

90.6%

90.7%

90.9%

92.0%

93.3%

94.3%

94.6%

95.5%

96.6%

99.1%

99.4%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

87.1%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

14

48

57

11

7

52

45

16

43

5

49

53

44

8

3

101

Median

1

21

10

66

25

4

41

23

39

30

34

12

13

55

20

56

0.2%

0.4%

0.4%

0.9%

1.2%

2.6%

3.7%

4.1%

4.3%

4.4%

6.7%

7.1%

8.4%

8.7%

8.9%

10.7%

11.5%

12.6%

15.0%

15.2%

23.3%

27.8%

33.4%

33.8%

40.0%

8.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

25

11

34

12

39

66

101

30

23

4

41

21

10

Median

44

1

16

3

5

53

49

45

43

52

7

57



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 99 Renovations – Cost per Student

Figure 100 Renovations – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs

Other cost categories include (1) design, pre-construction, and com-

pliance costs, and (2) non-technical office staff (supervisors, support

staff, and clerical staff).

3,705

1,426

1,328

1,291

954

814

784

750

723

544

378

326

324

282

218

199

175

158

114

92

69

65

33

33

30

20

9

5

3

218

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000

45

4

101

12

49

28

26

48

39

3

57

58

20

10

18

Median

1

16

71

14

7

55

43

66

5

11

23

44

67

21

50.1%

57.0%

58.2%

60.0%

64.3%

64.4%

71.4%

74.4%

78.7%

81.2%

84.9%

86.0%

86.8%

88.4%

89.3%

90.2%

92.4%

92.6%

92.7%

93.3%

94.3%

94.5%

94.8%

95.0%

95.5%

95.6%

96.0%

96.2%

99.7%

99.8%

100.0%

100.0%

91.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

43

1

66

5

7

11

52

34

16

58

53

23

3

8

71

44

Median

101

12

10

49

18

57

14

26

63

39

48

4

45

20

55

56


Operations Page 96

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 101 Renovations – Design to Construction Cost Ratio




clude personnel, material and supplies costs, including in-house and

contracted work.

Figure 102 New Construction – Cost per Student

This is the total per-student spending on new construction. This is

heavily influenced by population patterns and construction funding

such as bond measures.

0.2%

1.4%

2.9%

3.7%

3.7%

3.9%

4.0%

4.2%

4.9%

5.0%

5.7%

5.9%

6.4%

6.6%

7.5%

8.4%

9.4%

10.8%

11.6%

12.0%

15.0%

15.7%

21.5%

32.4%

33.4%

42.4%

42.9%

58.1%

7.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

20

18

48

14

39

4

63

66

11

57

10

101

12

49

Median

8

44

3

58

43

71

53

23

16

34

52

5

7

1

5,296

937

925

869

671

545

540

486

407

283

163

129

97

96

62

56

21

21

19

9

3

163

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000

20

18

49

41

14

66

47

39

48

44

71

Median

16

10

58

4

37

12

5

101

55

21



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 103 New Construction – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs

Figure 104 New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio




clude personnel, material and supplies costs, including in-house and

contracted work.

10%

21%

36%

68%

75%

80%

82%

84%

84%

85%

85%

90%

93%

93%

94%

94%

95%

95%

96%

96%

97%

98%

98%

100%

100%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

101

56

25

8

5

16

52

58

20

71

53

44

14

Median

10

48

47

4

39

49

41

18

66

12

55

37

2.0%

2.2%

2.3%

2.4%

2.4%

2.5%

3.7%

3.9%

4.0%

4.1%

4.6%

4.6%

5.5%

7.7%

10.0%

15.0%

17.5%

17.7%

19.1%

19.5%

130.2%

150.0%

155.1%

4.6%

0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0%

5

39

12

66

71

18

10

41

49

4

48

47

Median

14

58

44

53

8

20

52

16

101

56

25


Operations Page 98

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 105 M&O Cost per Student

This “catch-all” cost measure includes all the M&O categories that

have been reported in the previous pages (custodial work, grounds

work, routine maintenance, major maintenance, renovations and

new construction) relative to total student enrollment.

Figure 106 M&O Cost Ratio to District Budget

This “catch-all” cost measure includes all the M&O categories that

have been reported in the previous pages (custodial work, grounds

work, routine maintenance, major maintenance, renovations and

new construction) relative to the total district operating budget.

6,275

4,939

2,618

2,521

2,309

2,272

1,930

1,740

1,722

1,675

1,576

1,546

1,540

1,538

1,307

1,279

1,147

1,139

926

919

892

813

794

759

739

723

698

694

595

525

494

460

447

367

1,143

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000

20

45

4

6

12

49

39

101

18

26

28

3

43

48

66

14

7

Median

47

30

10

35

57

1

71

44

16

5

23

67

37

55

13

9

11

35.3%

25.7%

24.0%

23.0%

21.8%

17.9%

15.2%

15.1%

14.7%

13.5%

13.2%

11.4%

10.6%

10.5%

10.0%

10.0%

8.2%

7.5%

7.2%

7.1%

7.0%

6.6%

6.6%

6.2%

6.2%

5.7%

5.5%

5.5%

4.2%

4.0%

3.8%

10.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

20

101

4

6

39

48

18

52

14

12

26

16

66

47

28

10

Median

1

7

5

23

43

30

67

13

71

25

37

9

35

57

11



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 107 Work Order Completion Time (Days)

This is the average amount of time it takes to complete a work or-

der.

Figure 108 Recycling – Percent of Material Stream

51.5

42.2

42.0

39.4

37.8

36.3

28.1

28.0

19.9

19.6

12.1

8.9

7.4

7.0

6.6

6.5

5.1

4.6

4.5

19.6

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

16

5

39

45

1

13

41

7

48

35

Median

37

11

34

52

56

44

14

9

71

2%

4%

4%

5%

6%

9%

12%

13%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

17%

20%

23%

29%

36%

44%

58%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

18

43

30

21

5

19

53

37

52

12

Median

9

55

41

48

66

23

67

3

14

11


Operations Page 100

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 109 Utility Costs per Square Foot

Adjusted for cost of living.

2.07

1.85

1.84

1.84

1.80

1.74

1.70

1.68

1.68

1.63

1.63

1.61

1.56

1.51

1.50

1.48

1.45

1.44

1.41

1.41

1.39

1.37

1.33

1.29

1.28

1.27

1.20

1.20

1.12

1.08

1.07

1.07

1.05

1.03

1.02

1.00

0.96

0.93

0.92

0.92

0.89

0.88

0.85

0.82

0.81

0.69

1.31

$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00

$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00

6

28

39

35

47

34

10

20

67

48

19

9

53

49

18

44

7

43

13

71

21

63

8

Median

26

30

23

2

25

55

58

52

101

14

66

5

11

4

41

37

12

45

3

16

1

62

56

Electricity

Heating Fuel

Water

Sewer

How much is this affected by regional factors? Which district(s) should you compare yourself to in the same region? Are there other businesses or agencies in your region that set an example for energy efficiency?



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 110 Utility Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh)

Figure 111 Utility Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU)

This measure is heavily influenced by region.

17.7

16.3

16.2

14.2

13.4

13.4

13.2

12.2

11.8

11.6

11.5

11.4

11.2

11.1

11.1

10.9

10.4

10.2

10.0

9.9

9.5

9.2

9.0

9.0

8.8

8.5

8.5

8.0

7.6

7.4

7.4

7.2

6.9

6.8

6.6

6.4

6.3

6.1

6.1

5.5

5.0

4.6

4.0

4.0

9.1

- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

34

28

39

13

48

10

47

9

63

20

71

53

18

19

8

44

49

66

35

2

7

23

Median

4

55

67

21

43

12

101

11

52

41

37

14

3

30

1

58

62

45

16

26

5

56

57.3

56.1

53.5

44.2

43.9

42.9

42.0

39.9

34.8

32.3

26.0

23.0

22.4

22.2

19.8

16.6

14.5

13.0

10.9

8.93

6.49

5.47

5.04

4.38

2.74

1.60

1.43

0.82

0.81

0.60

0.44

0.32

0.26

0.25

0.24

0.21

0.19

0.10

0.06

0.01

0.0011

0.00005

5.98

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

43

52

21

45

5

19

35

3

20

63

4

49

1

67

53

18

9

55

28

16

41

Median

39

10

14

23

48

8

7

44

26

30

25

66

12

2

62

47

56

101

71

11

34


Operations Page 102

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 112 Utility Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)

Figure 113 Building Square Footage by Type

55.6

53.3

31.3

29.7

29.6

26.4

24.7

22.3

21.9

20.3

19.1

18.3

17.6

15.3

14.4

14.3

13.4

12.4

12.1

10.9

10.3

9.7

9.6

9.4

8.6

8.5

6.5

6.2

5.9

14.4

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

39

13

41

49

10

56

53

30

63

9

71

14

58

44

8

Median

5

21

52

12

16

35

43

20

28

4

7

45

37

25

100.0%

95.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

98.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

99.5%

99.9%

99.9%

99.8%

99.8%

99.8%

99.7%

98.3%

99.6%

99.0%

99.3%

99.3%

99.1%

99.0%

98.8%

97.7%

98.3%

98.1%

98.1%

94.7%

97.9%

97.9%

96.8%

96.5%

94.3%

95.8%

95.4%

94.9%

91.1%

92.7%

92.1%

86.3%

88.1%

83.5%

81.6%

82.7%

81.1%

50.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

45

49

53

34

30

2

63

26

43

6

58

79

52

3

28

19

57

10

37

12

4

21

18

35

5

25

1

7

47

8

20

66

44

23

55

9

13

39

101

71

48

11

14

16

56

62

67

41

Portable Modular Site-Built

Do your facilities provide excellent spaces for learning?



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Figure 114 Building Square Footage by Usage

This shows the ratio of academic buildings to non-academic buildings. Additionally, it shows the ratio of vacant buildings to occupied buildings. Va-

cant buildings are often the result of shifting populations.

84.4%

86.9%

87.1%

88.9%

90.6%

91.1%

91.8%

92.2%

92.5%

92.8%

93.1%

93.2%

93.4%

93.6%

93.7%

94.1%

94.1%

94.3%

94.3%

94.3%

94.5%

94.6%

95.1%

95.2%

95.2%

95.4%

95.5%

95.7%

95.8%

95.8%

95.8%

95.9%

96.0%

96.1%

96.2%

96.3%

96.3%

96.4%

96.5%

96.6%

96.8%

96.9%

97.1%

97.2%

97.4%

97.4%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

5.8%

0.1%

0.6%

1.1%

0.1%

76.3%

8.8%

16.3%

1.7%

4.0%

0.0%

56.4%

0.0%

2.7%

0.2%

16.2%

0.0%

9.9%

0.0%

1.1%

12.5%

3.2%

0.6%

0.0%

1.8%

33.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

5.0%

0.3%

10.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0.0%

5.7%

95.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%

45

5

56

19

66

18

39

67

34

28

6

41

52

63

57

53

4

11

20

71

30

14

37

Median

35

3

12

101

62

43

8

9

13

44

21

2

55

16

79

49

25

48

7

10

47

26

23

Academic Non-Academic Vacant


Operations Page 104

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 115 Green Buildings – Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent

This shows the proportion of facilities that have earned a green cer-

tificate, such as LEED, or are built in alignment with green certifica-

tion criteria.

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.1%

0.5%

0.6%

0.6%

0.8%

0.8%

0.9%

1.3%

1.5%

1.9%

2.2%

2.7%

2.8%

3.0%

4.4%

4.6%

4.9%

6.5%

7.5%

9.2%

13.3%

17.0%

23.1%

23.6%

26.7%

85.5%

87.6%

100.0%

0.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

52

67

53

30

55

18

8

43

21

6

4

2

9

63

35

34

26

10

3

62

7

66

Median

5

101

45

57

48

58

37

47

56

11

39

44

71

41

16

1

49

23

14

28

19

12

20

Green Certified Green Equivalent



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

KPI DEF IN ITION S Custodial Work – Cost per Square Foot

Importance This measure is an important indicator of the efficien-

cy of custodial operations. The value is impacted not only by opera-

tional effectiveness, but also by labor costs, material and supply

costs, supervisory overhead costs as well as other factors. This indi-

cator can be used as an important comparison with other districts to

identify opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to

reduce costs.


Cost of labor

Collective bargaining agreements

Cost of supplies and materials

Size of school

Calculation Total cost of district-operated custodial work plus to-

tal cost of contract-operated custodial work divided by total square

footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Custodial Work – Cost per Student


cy of the custodial operations. The value is affected not only by op-

erational effectiveness, but also by labor costs, material and supply




reduce costs.


Cost of labor


Scope of duties assigned to custodians

Calculation Total custodial work costs (contractor and district op-

erated) divided by total student enrollment.

Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot


cy of the custodial operations. The value is affected not only by op-

erational effectiveness, but also by labor costs, material and supply




reduce costs.


Cost of labor


Scope of duties assigned to custodians

Calculation Total custodial supply cost of district-operated custo-

dial services divided by total square footage of buildings managed by

the district. This measure only applies to district-operated sites.

Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot

Importance This provides a measure of the total costs of routine

maintenance relative to the district size (by building square footage).


Age of infrastructure

Experience of maintenance staff

Training of custodial staff to do maintenance work

Deferred maintenance backlog

Calculation Cost of district-operated maintenance work plus cost

of contractor-operated maintenance work divided by total square

footage of non-vacant buildings.

Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order

Importance This provides a measure of the costs of each routine

maintenance work order.



Experience of maintenance staff

Training of custodial staff to do maintenance work


Calculation Total costs of all routine maintenance work divided by

total number of routine maintenance work orders.

Routine Maintenance – Proportion Contractor -Operated

Importance Can be used to identify districts that utilize contrac-

tors to perform routine maintenance.

Calculation Number of routine maintenance work orders handled

by contractors divided by total number of routine maintenance work

orders.

Major Maintenance – Cost per Student

Importance This looks at the cost of major maintenance projects

relative to the size of the district (by student enrollment).


Number of capital projects


Passage of bond measures


District technology plan

Calculation Total cost of major maintenance work divided by total

student enrollment.

Major Maintenance – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs

Importance This can be used to evaluate the cost of delivered

construction relative to design costs and personnel costs.

Calculation Construction costs of major maintenance/minor ren-

ovation projects divided by total costs of all major mainte-

nance/minor renovation projects.

Renovations – Cost per Student

Importance This indicates the level of spending on major renova-

tions relative to the size of the district (by student enrollment).




District technology plan

Calculation Total cost of renovations divided by total student en-

rollment.


Operations Page 106

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Renovations – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total


construction relative to design costs and personnel costs.

Calculation Construction costs of major rehab/renovation pro-

jects divided by total costs of all major rehab/renovation projects.

Renovations – Design to Construction Cost Ratio


construction relative to design costs.

Calculation Design costs of all major rehab/renovation projects

divided by construction costs of all major rehab/renovation projects.

New Construction – Cost per Student

Importance This looks at the total amount of construction spend-

ing relative to district size (by student enrollment).



Population growth trends

Quality of buildings

Calculation Total costs of new construction projects divided by to-

tal student enrollment.

New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio


construction relative to design costs.

Calculation Design costs of all new construction projects divided

by construction costs of all new construction projects.

M&O Cost per Student

Importance This is a broad view of the costs of maintenance, op-

erations, and facilities work. Expenditures may fluctuate drastically

depending on the number of capital projects.

Calculation Total custodial costs (district and contractor) plus to-

tal grounds work costs (district and contractor) plus total routine

maintenance costs (district and contractor) plus total major mainte-

nance/minor renovations costs plus total major rehab/renovations

all divided by total number of students.

M&O Cost Ratio to District Budget

Importance This is a broad view of the costs of maintenance, op-

erations and facilities work. Expenditures may fluctuate drastically

depending on the number of capital projects.

Calculation Total custodial costs (district and contractor) plus to-

tal grounds work costs (district and contractor) plus total routine

maintenance costs (district and contractor) plus total major mainte-

nance/minor renovations costs plus total major rehab/renovations

plus new construction divided by district budget.

Recycling – Percent of Material Stream

Importance This measures the degree to which districts recycle.


Placement of recycling bins near waste bins

Number of recycling bins deployed

Material collection contracts

Commitment to environmental stewardship

State requirements

Calculation Total material stream that was recycled (in tons) di-

vided by total material stream (in tons).

Utility Cost per Square Foot

Importance This measures the efficiency of the district's building

utility operations. It may also reflect a district’s effort to reduce en-

ergy consumption through conservation measures being imple-

mented by building occupants as well as maintenance and opera-

tions personnel. Higher numbers signal an opportunity to evaluate

fixed and variable cost factors and identify those factors that can be

modified for greater efficiency.


Age of buildings and physical plants

Amount of air-conditioned space

Regional climate differences

Customer support of conservation efforts to upgrade lighting

and HVAC systems

Energy conservation policies and management practices

Calculation Total utility costs (including electricity, heating fuel,

water, and sewer) divided by total square footage of all non-vacant

buildings.

Utility Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh)

Importance This measures the level of electricity usage. Districts

with high usage should investigate ways to decrease usage in order

to reduce costs.


Use of high-efficiency light bulbs

Automated light switches

Shutdown policy during winter break

Regulation of heating and air conditioning

Calculation Total electricity usage (in kWh) divided by total

square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Utility Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU)

Importance This measures the level of heating fuel usage. Heating

fuel can be in a variety of forms, such as fuel oil, kerosene, natural

gas, propane, etc. This excludes electricity that is used for heating.

Calculation Total heating fuel usage (in kBTU) divided by total

square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Utility Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)

Importance Can be used to evaluate water usage.


Low-flow toilets and urinals

Maintenance of faucet aerators

Motion-sensor faucets to reduce vandalism

Calculation Total water usage (in gallons) excluding irrigation di-

vided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Building Square Footage by Type

Importance Can be used to evaluate ratios of building types.

Modular buildings are made of prefabricated materials and con-

structed on-site. Portable buildings often lack full facilities and/or

are lower quality than site-built buildings.

Calculation

Site-Built: Total square footage of all permanent site-built buildings

divided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Modular: Total square footage of all modular buildings (i.e., build-

ings constructed on-site out of pre-manufactured components) di-

vided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.



OP

ERA

TION

S

MA

INTEN

AN

CE &

OPER

ATIO

NS

Portable: Total square footage of all portable buildings divided by to-

tal square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Building Square Footage by Usage

Importance Can be used to evaluate ratios of building usage.

Calculation

Academic: Total square footage of all academic buildings divided by

total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Non-Academic: Total square footage of all non-academic buildings

divided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.

Vacant: Total square footage of all vacant buildings divided by total

square footage of all non-vacant district buildings.

Green Buildings – Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent

Importance This measure compares the number of energy effi-

cient or "green" buildings in the district.


Community support for environmental and sustainability

measures

Grant availability

District policy

Environmental site assessment

Local health issues

Calculation Square footage of all permanent buildings (academic

and non-academic) with a green-building certificate plus square

footage of all permanent buildings (academic and non-academic)

that were built in alignment with a green building code but not certi-

fied.


Operations Page 108

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

MA

INTE

NA

NC

E &

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

OP

ERA

TIO

NS


Page 109 Safety & Security

OP

ERA

TION

S

SA

FETY & S

ECU

RITY

SAFETY & SECURITY There are a number of performance metrics that can be used to determine a district’s relative performance in the

area of school safety. For instance, the use of ID badges and other methods of access control are important parts of

security, as are measures of use of alarm systems and Expenditures as a Percent of General Fund. Additionally,

personnel preparedness and capacity is measured by looking at Hours of Training per District Security and Law En-

forcement Member and District Uniformed Personnel

Finally, People Incidents per 1,000 Students and Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students are baseline

measures of incidents in a district.

The following influencing factors are likely to apply to these measures:

Level of crime in the surrounding neighborhoods

Configuration of school (office, front desk, etc.) to make access control a possibility

Inclusion of security systems in a district’s construction and modernization program

Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the need for more staff

Documented need for additional safety and security staff—for example, documented crime statistics and

trends.


Operations Page 110

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

SAFE

TY &

SEC

UR

ITY

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

L IST OF KPIS IN SAFE TY & SEC URITY Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Safety & Security. Indicators in bold are those included in

this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to


POWER INDICATORS

Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students

Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students

S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students

S&S Expenditures Percent of District Budget

S&S Staff per 1,000 Students

Training Hours per Safety/Security personnel

ESSENTIAL FEW

Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team

Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site

Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually

Health/Safety Violations per Site

Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students

Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site

Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Sites


Armed Personnel - Percent of All Field Personnel

Armed Personnel - Percent of Law Enforcement Personnel,

Contracted

Armed Personnel - Percent of Security Personnel, Contracted

Armed Personnel - Percent of Security/Police Personnel, District

Health/Safety Inspections - Percent of Academic Sites Annually

Health/Safety Inspections - Percent of Non-Academic Sites Annually

Health/Safety Violations - Average Number Days to Correct

ID Badge Required, Employees - Percent of Academic Sites

ID Badge Required, Employees - Percent of Non-Academic Sites

ID Check and Badge Required, Visitors - Percent of Academic Sites

ID Check and Badge Required, Visitors - Percent of Non-Academic

Sites

Incidents - Assaults - Firearm Incidents per 1,000 Students

Incidents - Assaults - Robbery Incidents per 1,000 Students

Incidents - Assaults - Sexual Assault Incidents per 1,000 Students

Incidents - Assaults - Weapon (Excluding Firearm) Incidents per

1,000 Students

Incidents - Bullying Incidents Response Rate

Incidents - Larceny/Vandalism Incidents per Site

Incidents - Larceny/Vandalism Incidents Rate of Arrests

Incidents - People Incidents Rate of Arrests

Incidents, Threat - Incidents per Site

Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - False Alarms per Site

Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Academic Sites

Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Non-Academic Sites

Intrusion/Burglary Incidents - Average Minutes to Respond to Alarm

Intrusion/Burglary Incidents - Percent at Non-Alarmed Sites

Intrusion/Burglary Incidents - Percent of Alarm Failures

Metal Detectors, Any Kind - Academic Sites

Metal Detectors, Any Kind - Non-Academic Sites

Metal Detectors, Hand-Held - Academic Sites

Metal Detectors, Walk-Through - Academic Sites

Real-Time Video Monitoring - Percent of Academic Sites

Real-Time Video Monitoring - Percent of Non-Academic Sites

S&S Expenditures - Percent for Contracted Services

S&S Expenditures - Percent for Personnel

Security Plans - Academic Sites with NIMS-Compliant Plan

Training Hours per Law Enforcement personnel, Contracted

Training Hours per Security personnel, Contracted

Training Hours per Security/Police personnel, District

Vulnerability Assessments of Construction/Renovation Designs -

Percent of Projects



OP

ERA

TION

S

SA

FETY & S

ECU

RITY


Figure 116 Incident Rate vs. Staffing Level

This chart compares incident rates against the safety and security staffing levels. In theory, a district with a high number of incidents might want to

address this issue with higher numbers of staff or other strategies.

(Not shown: District 7, 397 incidents, 1.6 staff; District 23, 1,242 incidents, 1.1 staff; District 47, 1,237 incidents, 0.3 staff.)

14

28

71

6

26

13

20

9

57

35

41

37

12

44

67

49

10

39

11

48

43

21

16

1

18 3

4

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

- 20 40 60 80 100 120

S &

S S

taff

pe

r 1

,00

0 S

tud

en

ts

People Incidents per 1,000 Students


Operations Page 112

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

SAFE

TY &

SEC

UR

ITY

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 117 Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students

Figure 118 Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students

20.7

19.4

19.1

15.6

14.0

14.0

11.0

10.0

9.9

8.9

7.3

7.1

5.7

5.2

4.5

4.3

3.6

3.1

3.0

2.7

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.3

1.1

1.0

0.3

0.2

4.3

- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

6

48

4

47

26

18

57

71

23

43

49

28

67

14

21

37

Median

101

3

1

7

16

9

44

41

13

11

10

39

35

12

20

1,241.7

1,237.0

396.9

229.8

106.1

68.4

49.8

46.8

33.2

31.6

29.3

26.0

24.5

24.0

19.8

18.2

17.8

17.6

16.7

15.1

14.6

14.0

12.7

11.9

5.7

4.2

3.9

3.2

2.3

2.0

1.3

24.5

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

23

47

7

101

21

4

6

48

1

26

37

9

43

57

10

35

Median

13

71

41

14

49

18

39

28

67

3

12

16

44

11

20



OP

ERA

TION

S

SA

FETY & S

ECU

RITY

Figure 119 S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students

Figure 120 S&S Expenditures as Percent of District Budget

8

21

23

34

36

37

37

45

45

46

47

50

57

58

60

60

61

63

67

68

70

79

83

86

91

100

104

104

110

161

197

211

220

233

62

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

77

35

5

48

44

47

13

26

49

23

10

12

3

4

16

1

9

Median

41

37

39

67

7

101

71

55

14

18

66

6

20

43

28

21

57

0.10%

0.24%

0.29%

0.34%

0.36%

0.40%

0.45%

0.49%

0.52%

0.54%

0.55%

0.65%

0.67%

0.70%

0.73%

0.75%

0.75%

0.77%

0.80%

0.84%

0.88%

0.91%

0.93%

0.94%

1.00%

1.02%

1.10%

1.17%

1.18%

1.20%

1.29%

1.34%

2.12%

0.75%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

35

5

12

47

26

48

44

23

10

4

13

1

52

7

71

41

37

Median

39

9

67

66

20

43

18

16

6

55

21

14

57

101

28

25


Operations Page 114

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

SAFE

TY &

SEC

UR

ITY

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 121 S&S Staff per 1,000 Students

Figure 122 Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel

0.18

0.32

0.34

0.56

0.70

0.71

0.71

0.72

0.92

0.97

1.01

1.05

1.11

1.17

1.18

1.26

1.26

1.31

1.32

1.36

1.38

1.61

1.63

1.64

1.64

1.82

2.06

2.74

2.98

3.35

3.63

4.64

5.24

5.47

1.28

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

1

47

5

49

9

12

44

13

71

10

11

41

23

48

39

3

4

Median

16

18

26

67

7

6

37

55

35

14

28

43

101

20

21

66

57

0.1

0.5

2.1

2.8

2.8

3.3

5.0

6.6

7.0

7.9

9.8

15.0

19.6

21.1

21.2

23.1

25.1

31.9

41.2

44.8

47.4

57.5

97.0

133.5

17.3

- 50.0 100.0 150.0

13

44

2

71

4

62

6

37

48

23

7

1

Median

56

20

11

39

101

35

14

41

47

34

3

9

Do your safety/security staff members train enough to be effec-tive during critical events?

Is the number of safety/security staff in your district sufficient to address issues facing the district?



OP

ERA

TION

S

SA

FETY & S

ECU

RITY

Figure 123 Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team

Figure 124 Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site

-

-

-

-

0.03

0.2

0.3

0.7

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.9

4.0

6.0

6.0

7.4

9.0

9.3

10.0

10.4

10.8

11.0

12.0

12.0

12.0

13.0

13.1

15.4

15.9

29.7

4.0

- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

57

43

2

34

48

101

28

6

14

7

13

10

11

4

19

16

21

20

Median

41

26

67

3

9

53

25

52

39

66

56

8

12

23

37

71

47

35

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.74

0.79

0.80

0.92

0.95

0.96

0.97

0.97

0.98

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.01

1.01

1.01

1.03

1.03

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.07

1.07

1.08

1.08

1.12

1.13

3.63

1.00

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

44

57

62

67

7

34

13

101

6

14

43

48

19

3

28

26

9

41

2

Median

16

39

11

47

71

35

8

66

12

23

10

4

53

20

56

25

52

37

21

Do your crisis response teams conduct enough drills to be effec-tive in case of a real emergency?


Operations Page 116

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

SAFE

TY &

SEC

UR

ITY

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 125 Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually

Figure 126 Health/Safety Violations per Site

This is the total number of health and/or safety violations identified

in the district divided by the total number of sites.

10%

28%

30%

47%

59%

78%

87%

89%

89%

92%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

97%

98%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

95%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

23

41

7

34

6

21

2

35

44

28

101

14

13

Median

19

10

52

12

48

26

20

39

56

25

16

1

3

37.34

28.74

25.55

15.51

5.63

3.59

2.47

1.00

0.59

0.24

0.23

0.21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.22

- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

10

44

13

8

7

39

2

25

35

6

26

Median

21

19

16

41

20

3

53

101

28

52

14



OP

ERA

TION

S

SA

FETY & S

ECU

RITY

Figure 127 Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students

Figure 128 Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site

35.98

22.45

20.23

19.69

10.03

8.82

7.14

5.98

5.85

3.36

2.84

2.73

2.65

1.88

1.75

1.17

1.13

0.68

0.64

0.52

0.47

0.43

0.15

0.11

2.69

- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

18

7

14

47

3

43

4

6

23

12

10

48

Median

16

11

26

9

1

101

39

13

20

44

57

28

43.83

24.04

22.95

3.57

2.64

2.30

1.41

1.26

0.83

0.70

0.60

0.59

0.46

0.39

0.34

0.25

0.25

0.24

0.22

0.17

0.17

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.08

0.04

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.34

- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

21

35

53

101

6

7

41

14

1

8

44

62

39

16

4

Median

12

57

11

71

20

3

37

26

2

25

56

48

28

77


Operations Page 118

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

SAFE

TY &

SEC

UR

ITY

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 129 Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent Of Sites

This is the proportion of sites that are equipped with an intru-

sion/burglary alarm system.

45%

47%

67%

76%

78%

83%

86%

88%

88%

91%

93%

93%

95%

95%

96%

97%

97%

98%

98%

99%

99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

99%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

101

34

57

13

21

49

10

48

28

6

14

67

19

55

1

52

4

62

8

Median

7

71

26

20

9

35

41

37

12

44

39

53

47

25

5

2

16

77

3

Are your sites equipped to prevent theft or vandalism? Are your alarm systems effective?



OP

ERA

TION

S

SA

FETY & S

ECU

RITY

KPI DEF IN ITION S

Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students

Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents

in each district, adjusted for the size of the district in terms of en-

rollment.


Available resources to allocate for safety and security

Staffing formulas

Documented need for additional safety and security staff

through data such as crime statistics

Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the

need for more staff

Enrollment

Calculation Total number of assault/battery incidents divided by

total student enrollment in thousands.

Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students



rollment.



Staffing formulas




need for more staff

Enrollment

Calculation Total number of people incidents divided by total stu-

dent enrollment in thousands.

S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students

Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-

port for safety and security operations as a percent of district gen-

eral fund budget. A low percentage could be an indication that secu-

rity needs are not being met by the district or that other revenue

sources are needed to support security for district staff and stu-

dents.


Overall general fund budget

Level of crime statistics of surrounding neighborhoods

District policy for security

Budget allocations

Calculation Total safety and security expenditures divided by total

student enrollment in thousands.

S&S Expenditures Percent of District Budget


port for safety and security operations as a percent of district gen-

eral operating budget. A low percentage could be an indication that

security needs are not being met by the district or that other reve-

nue sources are needed to support security for district staff and stu-

dents.





Budget allocations

Calculation Total safety and security expenditures divided by dis-

trict operating expenditures.

S&S Staff per 1,000 Students


port for safety and security operations as a ratio to student enroll-

ment. A low ratio could be an indication that security needs are not

being met by the district or that other revenue sources are needed

to support security for district staff and students.





Budget allocations

Calculation Total safety and security staff members divided by to-

tal student enrollment in thousands.

Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel

Importance Most school districts complete crisis response training

prior to the opening of each school year.


Emergency response priority with school/district leadership

Emergency response resources

Thoroughness of school/district crisis response plan

Weather

Availability of outside agencies and personnel to participate

Calculation Total number of hours of safety-related drills and

trainings for all safety and security personnel divided by total num-

ber of safety and security personnel.

Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team

Importance Ideally, district sites with a designated crisis response

team have all conducted drills of some sort.


Geography of district

Priorities of district leadership

Previous traumatic events or crisis


Updated procedures and protocols

Calculation Total number of team drills conducted by crisis re-

sponse teams divided by the total number of crisis response teams.

Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site

Importance Districts should build capacity to respond to crises by

having designated crisis response teams.


Geography of district

Priorities of district leadership

Previous traumatic events or crisis


Updated procedures and protocols


Operations Page 120

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

SAFE

TY &

SEC

UR

ITY

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Calculation Total number of crisis response teams divided by the

total number of academic sites.

Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually

Importance Regular health and/or safety inspections are im-

portant for compliance and risk mitigation.

Calculation Total number of sites/campuses (academic and non-

academic) inspected annually divided by the total number of district

sites.

Health/Safety Violations per Site


Risk mitigation efforts

Focus of leadership on health and safety

Calculation Total number of health/safety violations identified at

site inspections divided by the total number of district sites that

were inspected.

Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students



rollment.



Staffing formulas




need for more staff

Enrollment

Calculation Total number of bullying/harassment incidents divid-

ed by total district enrollment in thousands.

Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site


in each district, adjusted for the size of the district (by number of

sites).



Staffing formulas




need for more staff

Effectiveness of security alarm systems

Calculation Total number of intrusion/burglary incidents divided

by total number of district sites.

Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Sites


in each district, adjusted for the size of the district (by number of

sites).



Staffing formulas




need for more staff

Effectiveness of security alarm systems

Calculation Total number of intrusion/burglary incidents divided

by total number of district sites.


Page 121 Transportation

OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

TRANSPORTATION Performance metrics in transportation cover a broad range of factors that affect service levels and cost efficiency.

The broad summative measures are Cost per Total Mile Operated and Transportation Cost per Rider, and other

measures include diagnostic tools to weed out inefficiencies and excessive expenses. A key measure of efficiency is

Daily Runs per Bus, which reflects the daily reuse of buses; and important service-level measures include On-Time

Performance and Turn Time to Place New Students.

Careful consideration of each measure and its impact on a district’s transportation services is vital to the improve-

ment of performance.

General factors that influence transportation measures and improvement strategies include:

Types of transported programs served

Bell schedule

Effectiveness of the routing plan

Spare bus factor needed

Age of fleet

Driver wage and benefit structure and labor contracts

Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed

Enrollment projections and their impact on transported programs


Operations Page 122

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

L IST OF KPIS IN TR ANS POR TATIO N Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Transportation. Indicators in bold are those included in



POWER INDICATORS

Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet

Cost Per Mile Operated

Cost Per Rider

On-Time Performance

ESSENTIAL FEW

Accidents - Miles between Accidents

Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents

Bus Equipment - GPS Tracking

Bus Fleet - Alternatively-Fueled Buses

Bus Fleet - Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses

Bus Fleet in Service Daily

Bus Usage - Daily Runs Per Bus

Cost Per Bus

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Diesel

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Gasoline

Personnel - Buses per Mechanic

Turn Time to Place New Students - General Education

Turn Time to Place New Students - SWD Students


Accidents - Miles between Accidents (Contractor-Operated)

Accidents - Miles between Accidents (District-Operated)

Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents (Contractor-

Operated)

Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents (District-Operated)

Bus Equipment - AVL/GPS Links to Routing Software

Bus Equipment - Rider Harnesses, Lap

Bus Equipment - Rider Harnesses, Lap-And-Shoulder

Bus Equipment - Student Tracking Systems

Bus Equipment - Video Cameras

Bus Fleet - Maintenance Hours per Bus

Bus Fleet - Percent Contractor-Operated

Bus Fleet - Percent District-Operated

Bus Inspections - Percent Passed On First Try

Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization

Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization (Contractor-Operated)

Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization (District-Operated)

Bus Usage - Live Miles per Deadhead Mile

Bus Usage - Live Miles per Deadhead Mile (Contractor-Operated)

Bus Usage - Live Miles per Deadhead Mile (District-Operated)

Bus Usage - Miles per Bus

Bus Usage - Miles per Bus (Contractor-Operated)

Bus Usage - Miles per Bus (District-Operated)

Contract Buses - Percent of Ridership

Cost Per Bus (Contractor-Operated)

Cost Per Bus (District-Operated)

Daily Ride Time - General Education

Daily Ride Time - Special Education

Daily Ride Time, Maximum Allowed - General Education

Daily Ride Time, Maximum Allowed - Special Education

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Bio-Diesel

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Compressed Natural Gas

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Propane

On-Time Performance (Contractor-Operated)

On-Time Performance (District-Operated)

Participation Rate - Alternative Transit

Participation Rate - Any Transportation Service

Participation Rate - Yellow Bus Service

Personnel - Driver Turnover Rate

Personnel - Drivers per Bus

Personnel - Drivers per Supervisor

Personnel - Drivers per Trainer

Personnel - Routes per Planner

Public Transit - Pass/Token Cost as Percent of Retail

Public Transit - Percent of Ridership

Students with Disabilities - Percent of Ridership

Students with Disabilities - Students on Dedicated SWD Buses

Students with Disabilities - Students with Neighborhood Pickup



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N


Figure 130 Cost per Mile Operated vs. Cost per Rider

This scatter plot compares two methods of expressing the cost-efficiency of a district’s transportation service—Cost per Mile Operated and Cost

per Rider. (See next chart.)

The correlation coefficient of these two measures is a modest 0.35. This may be due to geographic differences (e.g., district size and population

density), types of students transported (e.g., special education) and other factors. However, districts that are high in one or both measures may

have reason to investigate their cost efficiency.

7

28

71

6 26

45

23

55

9

57

35

41

19

37

12

44

67

49

10

39

53

34 56

11

47 32

30 52

25

66

48

8

43

5 2

21

16

101

1 18

3

79

4

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00

Co

st p

er

Rid

er

Cost per Mile Operated


Operations Page 124

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 131 Cost per Bus vs. Cost per Rider

This scatter plot adds another cost-efficiency measure—Cost per Bus—to the comparison in the previous chart. The correlation coefficient of these

two measures is 0.19. (See previous chart.)

7

28

71

46

6 26

45

23 55

54

20

9

57

35

41

19

37

12

44

67

49

10

39

53

34

56

11

47 32

30

52

66

48

8

43

5

2

21

62

16

101

1 18

3

79

4

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000

Co

st p

er

Rid

er

Cost per Bus



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 132 Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet

Figure 133 Cost per Mile Operated


14.9

14.5

12.0

11.5

11.2

11.1

11.0

10.8

10.8

10.0

10.0

10.0

9.9

9.7

9.5

8.9

8.8

8.7

8.3

8.0

7.8

7.5

7.4

6.9

6.9

6.8

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.4

5.0

4.3

3.9

2.7

2.0

2.0

7.9

- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

62

79

57

2

11

7

19

5

16

10

56

43

46

37

47

53

25

49

39

34

Median

14

21

8

6

71

48

9

30

12

35

28

55

32

52

26

20

67

3

18

4

10.42

8.97

7.57

7.43

7.17

7.08

6.63

6.36

6.10

6.10

5.88

5.77

5.71

5.57

5.56

5.55

5.42

5.31

5.05

4.99

4.87

4.65

4.65

4.61

4.13

4.10

4.08

3.98

3.82

3.70

3.60

3.59

3.47

3.31

3.22

3.17

2.98

2.95

2.91

2.13

1.56

1.26

1.08

4.65

$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00

101

43

6

12

45

79

34

26

28

11

1

21

47

67

35

18

48

5

37

3

7

30

Median

9

66

41

19

10

49

71

56

8

2

44

16

55

39

52

53

4

32

23

57

25


Operations Page 126

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 134 Cost per Rider


Figure 135 Cost per Bus


4,061

3,466

3,047

3,020

2,991

2,457

2,225

1,708

1,639

1,598

1,547

1,487

1,417

1,385

1,328

1,327

1,306

1,271

1,195

1,172

1,143

1,132

1,072

1,036

1,028

1,006

946

904

887

878

854

830

818

797

785

723

704

699

698

687

683

662

644

506

500

490

306

1,036

$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000

54

79

57

101

62

11

66

16

35

4

43

21

56

39

67

48

34

45

28

46

30

26

6

9

Median

49

52

44

1

41

12

18

53

8

20

47

7

2

32

71

5

19

10

3

23

55

37

25

90,387

86,295

85,520

79,804

79,749

79,369

76,834

74,781

73,571

71,459

71,118

68,572

68,066

67,772

66,871

65,722

64,721

60,631

59,871

59,601

59,521

58,682

58,279

58,201

57,179

56,476

56,187

55,661

54,613

54,267

52,808

51,688

51,629

51,532

50,455

50,159

50,044

49,899

48,841

46,254

45,643

41,155

37,502

36,325

35,277

33,591

58,240

$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

57

12

46

26

35

48

67

79

62

8

11

45

1

3

28

52

20

9

56

34

41

47

7

Median

21

44

18

55

30

71

66

10

2

5

49

37

16

6

4

54

43

39

19

53

32

101

23



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

Figure 136 On-Time Performance

Figure 137 Bus Equipment - GPS Tracking

89.280%

96.000%

98.000%

98.738%

99.093%

99.211%

99.491%

99.556%

99.706%

99.798%

99.845%

99.846%

99.877%

99.889%

99.895%

99.939%

99.976%

99.984%

99.993%

99.798%

80.000% 85.000% 90.000% 95.000% 100.000%

26

39

55

16

57

4

11

3

71

35

Median

14

37

30

28

5

23

101

48

67

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

8%

14%

18%

43%

45%

57%

63%

68%

73%

74%

75%

79%

83%

83%

84%

84%

86%

91%

91%

91%

93%

95%

97%

98%

99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

57

62

30

32

79

49

25

43

16

23

67

53

5

44

21

11

19

34

71

12

14

8

45

101

18

46

56

20

9

66

7

28

26

55

35

37

39

47

52

48

1

3

4


Operations Page 128

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 138 Accidents - Miles between Accidents

15,390

17,020

23,003

25,134

27,565

33,272

37,350

37,678

38,497

40,297

41,133

42,984

45,215

46,677

48,656

51,674

51,864

52,771

53,645

54,804

56,159

62,899

63,947

64,000

65,468

67,328

75,364

76,527

78,181

83,853

84,658

93,142

93,425

98,107

110,634

118,065

130,391

140,988

164,709

166,482

185,294

187,339

201,709

230,330

268,125

432,000

63,973

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

79

47

26

18

7

35

5

66

41

2

10

28

101

34

12

9

20

16

71

45

23

11

49

25

19

30

14

43

55

62

53

6

44

8

21

39

52

4

48

1

67

3

37

32

56

57

District-Operated

Contractor-Operated

Overall



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

Figure 139 Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents

40,948

60,184

60,278

61,544

61,633

65,768

70,627

70,773

76,379

79,355

80,067

84,376

86,738

88,218

91,340

93,354

98,672

99,903

121,230

121,516

126,713

127,141

127,792

154,216

170,760

212,325

217,318

224,806

232,924

234,979

235,217

240,000

253,974

267,184

310,766

316,507

333,660

374,678

420,000

455,959

751,890

1,080,000

1,206,560

127,141

- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

47

7

79

35

41

5

26

12

19

23

16

20

66

2

28

34

10

9

55

21

71

49

Median

14

45

6

37

52

48

62

4

11

25

53

8

1

101

44

3

67

32

39

57

56

District-Operated

Contractor-Operated


Operations Page 130

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 140 Bus Fleet - Alternatively Fueled Buses

Figure 141 Bus Fleet - Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses

The inverse of this measure is the spare factor. This includes daily

shuttles in additional to regular yellow buses.

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

4%

6%

7%

13%

40%

41%

72%

98%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

4

8

10

12

14

16

18

19

21

25

26

30

32

34

37

43

45

46

47

53

54

Median

55

57

66

79

101

3

23

28

7

35

48

71

44

39

6

49

56

67

11

41

5

9

73%

73%

74%

75%

77%

78%

78%

79%

79%

79%

80%

80%

81%

81%

81%

81%

82%

82%

83%

83%

84%

86%

86%

87%

87%

88%

88%

89%

89%

89%

89%

91%

91%

91%

91%

91%

92%

92%

92%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

57

10

12

19

47

71

16

48

7

2

14

28

66

49

37

53

39

79

5

54

11

52

32

Median

46

55

44

26

20

6

1

21

30

45

101

3

18

67

34

35

9

41

4

56

25

23



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

Figure 142 Bus Usage - Daily Runs per Bus

Increasing the number of daily runs per bus is a strategy to decrease

costs and is achieved by establishing a tiered bell schedule that stag-

gers the start and end times of the schools in the district so that

each bus can serve multiple schools.

Figure 143 Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization

0.71

1.00

1.00

2.00

2.07

2.08

2.14

2.15

2.36

2.62

2.80

2.95

3.03

3.08

3.22

3.28

3.29

3.36

3.47

3.63

3.68

3.70

3.80

3.85

4.06

4.15

4.24

4.33

4.45

4.48

4.62

4.83

4.93

5.25

5.47

5.54

5.56

5.77

5.97

6.02

6.06

6.11

6.12

6.14

3.75

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

43

41

8

19

35

25

21

46

11

67

39

48

54

53

6

28

56

66

45

34

5

30

Median

9

37

62

44

23

49

57

71

1

16

4

32

18

26

10

79

2

55

3

12

14

52

0.12

0.23

0.32

0.34

0.34

0.45

0.51

0.61

0.63

0.72

0.75

0.88

0.90

0.91

0.98

1.03

1.04

1.04

1.11

1.17

1.24

1.24

1.25

1.26

1.29

1.36

1.44

1.45

1.59

1.62

1.69

1.72

1.93

2.04

2.13

2.63

3.26

3.83

1.14

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

62

101

54

46

79

25

11

21

5

1

34

4

71

57

39

37

41

23

28

Median

35

49

44

6

30

52

48

47

8

12

55

3

2

7

14

16

56

53

67


Operations Page 132

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

Figure 144 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel

Most districts use their purchasing power to negotiate discounts on

fuel.

Figure 145 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline

Most districts use their purchasing power to negotiate discounts on

fuel.

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

97.6%

92.9%

92.7%

91.9%

91.6%

89.6%

89.5%

89.4%

87.9%

87.8%

87.7%

87.7%

86.1%

86.1%

84.9%

82.3%

81.6%

81.5%

81.4%

80.5%

80.2%

80.0%

79.0%

77.6%

76.4%

87.9%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

7

46

6

26

19

53

8

79

1

3

25

48

11

44

28

66

57

Median

4

52

41

16

47

12

37

55

9

35

49

67

21

71

56

20

121.7%

107.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

97.2%

95.5%

94.0%

93.5%

93.3%

93.0%

90.1%

90.1%

88.6%

86.0%

84.8%

84.8%

83.0%

82.7%

82.7%

80.8%

79.9%

78.7%

75.0%

93.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%

67

62

7

46

6

19

53

8

66

11

48

3

25

5

16

28

9

52

41

35

47

55

49

71

21

37

56



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

Figure 146 Daily Ride Time - General Education

This is the estimated average daily ride time for a single trip (one-

way).

Figure 147 Daily Ride Time - Special Education

This is the estimated average daily ride time for a single trip (one-

way).

72.0

90.0

60.0

60.0

75.0

60.0

90.0

60.0

58.0

75.0

90.0

40.0

90.0

90.0

60.0

45.0

60.0

60.0

45.0

60.0

70.0

90.0

60.0

55.0

60.0

90.0

60.0

90.0

60.0

90.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

65.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

59.0

54.8

54.0

51.8

45.0

45.0

43.0

41.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

38.0

37.8

37.0

35.0

35.0

33.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

29.0

28.0

27.0

25.0

24.0

22.3

22.0

22.0

21.0

20.5

20.0

19.0

17.5

15.0

35.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

16

67

47

8

21

35

20

30

57

18

48

66

23

41

43

4

39

11

2

10

34

Median

37

28

6

19

56

62

53

71

44

12

49

26

14

45

9

5

79

3

52

55

Daily Ride Time Maximum Allowed

90.0

72.0

60.0

90.0

60.0

55.0

90.0

60.0

60.0

45.0

90.0

60.0

75.0

90.0

60.0

55.0

65.0

60.0

75.0

40.0

90.0

90.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

70.0

90.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

90.0

75.0

72.0

65.0

62.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

60.0

53.1

51.0

50.0

50.0

49.0

45.0

45.0

44.0

43.0

41.0

41.0

40.0

38.4

36.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

35.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

29.0

28.0

25.0

24.8

24.5

21.0

20.0

42.0

0 20 40 60 80 100

- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

62

16

23

71

28

55

41

67

10

47

8

30

2

14

18

20

57

21

44

48

Median

34

66

4

11

39

7

6

37

53

79

19

12

56

9

45

3

5

26

52

49

Daily Ride Time Maximum Allowed


Operations Page 134

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

KPI DEF IN ITION S Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet

Importance

Fleet replacement plans drive capital expenditures and on-

going maintenance costs.

Younger fleets require greater capital expenditures but reduced

maintenance costs

A younger fleet will result in greater reliability and service lev-

els.

An older fleet requires more maintenance expenditure but re-

duces capital expenses.


Formal district-wide capital replacement budgets and standards

Some districts may operate in climates that reduce bus longevi-

ty

Some districts may be required to purchase cleaner burning or

expensive alternative-fueled buses

Availability of state or local bond funding for school bus re-

placement

Calculation Average age of bus fleet.

Cost per Mile Operated

Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a

pupil transportation program. It allows a baseline comparison across

districts that will inevitably lead to further analysis based on a dis-

trict’s placement. A greater than average cost per mile may be ap-

propriate based on specific conditions or program requirements in a

particular district. A less than average cost per mile may indicate a

well-run program or favorable conditions in a district.


Driver wage and benefit structure; labor contracts

Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facilities,

fuel, insurance and maintenance also play a role in the basic

cost


Ability to use each bus for more than one route or run each

morning and each afternoon

Bell schedule

Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule

changes


Type of programs served will influence costs

Calculation Total direct cost plus total indirect cost plus total con-

tractor cost of bus services divided by total miles operated.

Cost per Rider


pupil transportation program. It allows a baseline comparison across

districts that will inevitably lead to further analysis based on a dis-

trict’s placement.




fuel, insurance, and maintenance




Bell schedule


changes



Calculation Total direct cost plus total indirect cost plus total con-

tractor cost of bus services divided by number of riders.

Cost per Bus


pupil transportation program.




fuel, insurance, and maintenance




Bell schedule


changes



Calculation Total direct transportation costs plus total indirect

transportation costs divided by total number of buses (contractor

and district).

On-Time Performance

Importance This measure refers to the level of success of the

transportation service remaining on the published arrival schedule.

Late arrival of students at schools causes disruption in classrooms

and may preclude some students from having school-provided

breakfast.

Factors that Influence:

Automobile traffic

Accident

Detour

Weather

Increased ridership

Mechanical breakdown

Unrealistic scheduling

Calculation One minus the sum of bus runs that arrived late (con-

tractor and district) divided by the total number of bus runs (con-

tractor and district) over two.

Bus Equipment – GPS Tracking

Importance GPS tracking greatly expands the capacity for routing

management and reporting.

Calculation Number of buses with GPS tracking divided by total

number of buses.



OP

ERA

TION

S

TR

AN

SPOR

TATIO

N

Accidents – Miles between Accidents

Importance

Whether a district provides internal service or contracts for its

service, student safety is a primary concern for every student

transportation organization.

Tracking accidents by type allows for trending and designing

specific training programs to reduce/prevent trends noted.

Accident awareness and prevention can reduce liability expo-

sure to a district


Definition of accident and injury as defined by the survey vs.

district definition

Preventive accident training programs

Experience of driving force

Calculation Total number of transportation accidents (contractor

and district) divided by total number of miles driven (contractor and

district).

Accidents – Miles between Preventable Accidents

Importance

Whether a district provides internal service or contracts for its

service, student safety is a primary concern for every student

transportation organization.

Tracking accidents by type allows for trending and designing

specific training programs to reduce/prevent trends noted.

Accident awareness and prevention can reduce liability expo-

sure to a district


Definition of accident and injury as defined by the survey vs.

district definition

Preventive accident training programs

Experience of driving force

Calculation Total number of transportation accidents (contractor

and district) that were preventable divided by total number of miles

driven (contractor and district).

Bus Fleet – Alternatively-Fueled Buses

Calculation Number of alternatively-fueled buses divided by total

number of buses.

Importance Bus fleets using alternative fuels tend to be more eco-

friendly, and depending on fuel prices they can be a cheaper alterna-

tive.

Bus Fleet – Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses

Importance

A goal of a well-run transportation department is to procure

only the number of buses actually needed on a daily basis, plus

an appropriate spare bus ratio.

Maintaining or contracting unneeded buses is expensive and

unnecessary as these funds could be used in the classroom.


Historical trends of the number of students transported

Enrollment projections and their impact on transported pro-

grams

Changes in transportation eligibility policies

Spare bus factor needed

Age of fleet

Calculation Number of daily buses divided by total number of

buses.

Bus Usage – Daily Runs per Bus

Importance

There is a positive correlation between the number of daily

runs a bus makes and operating costs.

Efficiencies are gained when one bus is used multiple times in

the morning and again in the afternoon.

Using one bus to do the work of two buses saves dollars.


District-managed or contractor transportation

Tiered school bell times


changes

Bus capacities

District guidelines on maximum ride time

District geography

Minimum/shortened/staff development day scheduling


Types of transported programs served

Calculation Total number of daily bus runs divided by the total

number of buses used for daily yellow bus service (contractor and

district).

Bus Usage – Daily Seat Utilization

Importance

This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a pupil

transportation program.

Maximizing seat utilization reduces the number of buses need-

ed.

This data provides a baseline comparison across districts that

will inevitably lead to further analysis based on a district’s

placement.



Ability to use each bus for more than one run each morning and

each afternoon

Bell schedule

Type of programs served

Calculation Average daily ridership for elementary, middle and

high school divided by total number of passenger seats available for

all daily buses used in the yellow bus home-to-school program (both

district-operated and contractor-operated).

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel

Importance Fuel discounts reflect the degree to which the district

leverages its buying power when negotiating fuel procurements.

Calculation Per-gallon price paid by the district for diesel divided

by the per-gallon price of diesel at retail.

Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline

Importance Fuel discounts reflect the degree to which the district

leverages its buying power when negotiating fuel procurements.

Calculation Per-gallon price paid by the district for gasoline divid-

ed by the per-gallon price of gasoline at retail

Daily Ride Time – General Education

Importance Cost efficiency must be balanced with service consid-

erations. Districts wish to maximize the loading of their buses but

hopefully not at the expense of an overly long bus ride for the stu-

dents.


Operations Page 136

OP

ERA

TIO

NS

TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N

OP

ERA

TIO

NS


Bus capacities

State or district or state guidelines on maximum ride time and

earliest pick up time

District geography, attendance boundaries and zones

Programs transported

Calculation Average one-way (single trip) daily ride time in

minutes - General Education

Daily Ride Time – Special Education

Importance Cost efficiency must be balanced with service consid-

erations. Districts wish to maximize the loading of their buses but

hopefully not at the expense of an overly long bus ride for the stu-

dents.


Bus capacities

State or district or state guidelines on maximum ride time and

earliest pick up time

District geography, attendance boundaries and zones

Programs transported

Calculation Average one-way (single trip) daily ride time in

minutes - Students with Disabilities


Page 137

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

HUMAN RESOURCES

The measures in this section include such districtwide indicators as Teacher Retention Rate and Employee Separa-

tion Rate, as well as indicators that are focused more narrowly on the operation of the district’s human resources

department, such as HR Cost per District FTE, HR Cost per $100k Revenue, Exit Interview Completion Rate, and

Substitute Placement Rate. In addition, there are several measures that can be used to benchmark a district’s

health benefits and retirement benefits, including Health Benefits Enrollment Rate and Health Benefits Cost per

Enrolled Employee.

The factors that influence these measures and that can guide improvement strategies may include:

Identification of positions to be filled

Diverse pool of qualified applicants

Use of technology for application-approval process

Site-based hiring vs. central-office hiring process

Availability of interview team members

Effectiveness of recruiting efforts

Salary and benefits offered

Employee satisfaction and workplace environment

Availability of skills in local labor market

Personnel policies and practices


Human Resources Page 138

HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

L I ST OF KPIS IN HUM AN RES OURC ES Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Human Resources. Indicators in bold are those included in



POWER INDICATORS

Substitute Placement Rate

Teacher Absences per Teacher

Teacher Retention - Average for 1-5 Years

Teacher Vacancies on First Day of School

ESSENTIAL FEW

Exit Interview Completion Rate

HR Actions - Accuracy Rate

HR Actions - Days to Complete

Substitute Placements with A BA/BS or Higher

Teacher Retention - Remaining After 1 Year

Teacher Retention - Remaining After 2 Years




Teachers Highly Qualified In All Assignments

Teachers with National Board Certificate

Time to Fill Vacancies - Instructional Support

Time to Fill Vacancies - Non-School Exempt

Time to Fill Vacancies - Non-School Non-Exempt

Time to Fill Vacancies - School-Based Exempt

Time to Fill Vacancies - School-Based Non-Exempt

Time to Fill Vacancies - Teachers


Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000

Employees

Employee Relations - Misconduct Investigations per 1,000

Employees

Employee Separation Rate

Employee Separation Rate - Instructional Support Staff

Employee Separation Rate - Non-School Exempt Staff

Employee Separation Rate - Non-School Non-Exempt Staff

Employee Separation Rate - School-Based Exempt Staff

Employee Separation Rate - School-Based Non-Exempt Staff

Employee Separation Rate - Teachers

Health Benefits Cost Per Enrolled Employee

Health Benefits Cost Per Enrolled Employee - Fully Insured Districts

Health Benefits Cost Per Enrolled Employee - Self-Insured Districts

Health Benefits Enrollment Rate

HR Cost per $100K Revenue

HR Cost per District FTE

HR Staff - Benefits

HR Staff - Compensation

HR Staff - Employee Records and Staffing

HR Staff - Employee Relations

HR Staff - Employee Service Center

HR Staff - HR Information Systems

HR Staff - Labor Relations

HR Staff - Payroll

HR Staff - Recruitment

HR Staff - Risk Management

HR Staff - Training and Development

HR Staff per HR Senior Manager

Retirement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee

Retirement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee - Fully Insured Districts

Retirement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee - Self-Insured Districts


Page 139

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES


Figure 148 Teacher Retention – Quartile Analysis of Employment Length

This chart shows quartiles in teacher retention rates based on how many years ago each teacher was hired. (This can include new teachers as well

as experienced teachers.) There are sharp drops in retention from one year to two years, and two years to three years. At year four and five, teach-

er retention tends to flatten.

Note that each year represents a different group of teachers, i.e., this should not be interpreted as “longitudinal” data. Rather, it is a snapshot of all

current teachers that were hired five or fewer years ago.

84%

77%

65%

63%

59%

74%

68%

57% 58% 55%

68%

58%

47%

49%

50%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years

3rd Quartile

Median

1st Quartile



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

Figure 149 Teacher Retention – Variability across Employment Length Categories

This chart is intended to show the variability of teacher retention rates across a five-year span. Some districts have very consistent teacher reten-

tion rates from one year to the next—these districts show a progression from first year teacher retention rate (the widest bar in this chart) to the

fifth-year teacher retention rate (the narrowest bar in this chart). Conversely, other districts have more erratic trends from one class of teachers

(i.e., the group of teachers that were hired in the same year) to the next class of teachers.

Note that each year represents a different group of teachers based on how many years ago they were hired. This is not “longitudinal” data. The or-

dering of districts on this chart is by overall average retention over the five teacher classes.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

44

48

23

49

32

41

62

16

7

63

52

10

5

3

4

71

67

46

12

14

39

5 Years

4 Years

3 Years

2 Years

1 Year


Page 141

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

Figure 150 Employee Separation Rate – Quartiles by Employee Category

This chart shows the quartiles of separation rates in the various employee categories. It is sorted from left to right by the median value.

Exempt and non-exempt are employee categories.

11.2%

14.5%

20.6%

11.8%

19.4% 18.4%

8.5%

9.3%

9.7% 10.1%

10.5%

12.0%

4.6%

3.5%

5.6%

7.3% 6.1%

9.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Non-School Exempt School-Based Exempt Non-School Non-Exempt Teachers Instructional Support School-Based Non-Exempt

3rd Quartile

Median

1st Quartile



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 151 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 1 Year Ago

Figure 152 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 2 Years Ago

42%

57%

63%

63%

65%

70%

70%

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

77%

82%

84%

84%

90%

90%

93%

97%

74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

41

44

52

48

23

7

67

5

62

16

49

Median

32

12

10

39

4

3

63

14

46

71

50%

50%

52%

58%

58%

59%

61%

61%

64%

66%

68%

68%

70%

74%

74%

77%

78%

79%

80%

83%

84%

68%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

44

32

23

48

52

5

16

10

7

62

67

Median

49

3

4

63

71

12

46

39

41

14


Page 143

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

Figure 153 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 3 Years Ago

Figure 154 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 4 Years Ago

42%

44%

45%

47%

47%

47%

51%

53%

54%

55%

57%

58%

60%

62%

63%

65%

67%

69%

73%

78%

90%

57%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

63

41

23

32

62

44

48

67

16

49

7

Median

10

52

3

5

46

12

71

4

14

39

30%

41%

46%

47%

49%

50%

52%

57%

57%

58%

58%

60%

60%

61%

62%

63%

63%

67%

72%

85%

91%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

63

23

44

48

32

49

3

10

7

16

5

4

71

46

62

67

52

12

14

41

39



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

Figure 155 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 5 Years Ago

Figure 156 Substitute Placement Rate

When a teacher is absent from the classroom, a substitute teacher is

assigned to fill in.

41%

41%

41%

42%

48%

52%

53%

54%

54%

55%

55%

56%

57%

57%

58%

59%

59%

60%

63%

79%

94%

55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

44

49

63

48

7

16

71

46

32

62

10

23

41

3

14

52

5

4

12

67

39

49.3%

75.2%

76.2%

78.7%

90.3%

90.6%

90.8%

92.7%

93.6%

93.6%

94.2%

99.3%

99.4%

99.6%

91.7%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

46

14

52

10

4

16

3

Median

71

7

41

49

48

67

44


Page 145

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

Figure 157 Substitute Placements with BA/BS or Higher

Figure 158 Employee Separation Rate

This is the overall employee separation rate districts.

3.2%

10.7%

45.9%

76.0%

83.4%

83.8%

84.6%

84.7%

90.0%

92.4%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

84.6%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

3

39

7

48

14

49

10

Median

44

71

16

41

67

52

15.9%

13.4%

13.0%

12.4%

12.3%

11.4%

11.4%

11.0%

10.9%

10.6%

10.2%

9.9%

9.5%

9.4%

7.6%

6.9%

3.1%

10.9%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

5

44

52

23

71

7

39

49

41

Median

10

12

48

4

14

67

3

32

How does your substitute pool affect this measure?



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

Figure 159 Employee Separation Rate - Teachers

Figure 160 Employee Separation Rate – Instructional Support Staff

18.2%

13.5%

12.4%

12.0%

11.6%

11.6%

11.1%

11.0%

10.1%

10.0%

9.7%

9.6%

7.6%

7.0%

5.5%

4.8%

2.1%

10.1%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

39

41

23

71

7

49

52

5

44

Median

14

4

48

67

12

10

3

32

84.7%

25.7%

21.1%

20.2%

18.5%

13.7%

12.6%

11.5%

10.5%

10.4%

8.6%

8.4%

7.8%

4.3%

3.3%

2.2%

1.7%

10.5%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

16

7

44

5

52

10

49

12

23

Median

41

71

3

14

67

39

32

4


Page 147

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

Figure 161 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Exempt Staff

Figure 162 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Non-Exempt Staff

92.7%

52.5%

30.3%

14.5%

13.3%

9.9%

9.5%

9.3%

8.9%

6.3%

5.6%

3.5%

3.2%

2.9%

1.3%

9.3%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

4

10

5

52

39

23

49

3

Median

48

71

12

41

67

14

44

102.1%

34.8%

19.4%

18.5%

18.3%

17.9%

14.2%

12.0%

12.0%

11.5%

11.5%

10.8%

9.5%

9.4%

8.8%

2.7%

0.1%

12.0%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

44

12

5

52

23

41

67

14

71

Median

49

48

10

7

3

16

32

4



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

Figure 163 Employee Separation Rate – Non-School Exempt Staff

Figure 164 Employee Separation Rate – Non-School Non-Exempt Staff

23.8%

19.9%

12.2%

11.5%

10.5%

10.2%

10.0%

8.7%

8.2%

8.2%

7.0%

4.6%

4.6%

4.1%

2.2%

1.1%

8.5%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

5

52

3

67

49

48

71

23

Median

14

10

41

12

44

4

16

7

48.2%

30.6%

26.7%

20.6%

20.5%

12.6%

10.5%

10.3%

9.7%

9.5%

8.8%

7.5%

6.5%

4.7%

4.2%

4.1%

1.0%

9.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

10

71

7

5

32

44

23

12

48

Median

3

4

49

41

52

14

67

16


Page 149

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

Figure 165 Exit Interview Completion Rate

When employees leave the district, an exit interview (such as a sur-

vey form) can provide important insights into staff morale, and high-

light potential problems that can subsequently be addressed.

Figure 166 Health Benefits Enrollment Rate

This is the proportion of employees that are eligible to receive

health benefits who are actually enrolled.

1.3%

3.1%

4.2%

4.6%

4.6%

4.7%

5.1%

7.0%

8.7%

11.8%

13.0%

42.3%

52.3%

5.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

52

7

49

48

23

39

63

Median

5

14

10

44

67

41

67%

71%

72%

82%

85%

86%

87%

90%

93%

94%

95%

97%

97%

98%

100%

100%

100%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14

39

41

4

3

10

52

49

7

Median

46

32

71

16

63

12

44

67

Do you know why employees decide to leave your district?



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

Figure 167 Health Benefits Cost per Enrolled Employee

This is the aggregate yearly premium costs (district-paid) or direct

costs if a district is self-insured, relative to the number of enrolled

employees. Adjusted for cost of living.

Figure 168 HR Cost per District FTE

This is the total department costs of HR relative to the number of

district employees. Adjusted for cost of living.

24,806

10,866

10,836

9,663

9,199

7,318

6,561

5,791

5,668

5,352

3,716

2,800

1,298

6,561

$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000

62

12

46

32

63

44

10

Median

14

49

71

39

41

52

1,503

978

710

668

597

484

466

449

428

362

336

326

315

300

287

238

439

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

49

52

5

7

3

12

23

71

Median

67

32

14

39

44

4

10

48


Page 151

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

Figure 169 HR Cost per $100K Revenue

This is the total department costs of HR relative to the total district

operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.

Figure 170 Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000 Employees

This is the relative number of complaints/charges of discrimi-nation filed by employees with any governmental or regulatory agency, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

1,051

682

572

569

569

563

532

515

459

457

453

420

370

360

345

515

$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

52

3

5

7

23

14

32

71

Median

10

44

12

67

4

48

39

24.01

8.16

5.75

3.10

2.98

2.28

2.13

1.48

1.29

1.14

1.12

1.10

0.86

0.73

0.72

0.71

0.39

1.29

- 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

4

52

5

32

39

23

14

41

71

Median

7

44

67

12

3

10

16

49



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

Figure 171 Employee Relations - Misconduct Investigations per 1,000 Employees

This is the number of formal internal investigations of alleged mis-

conduct by employees relative to the number of employees.

60.1

31.2

26.8

25.8

20.7

13.3

11.7

11.6

9.9

9.5

7.4

6.1

5.7

3.8

2.9

0.5

10.8

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

52

7

41

5

49

14

44

3

Median

10

12

67

32

23

71

39

4


Page 153

HU

MA

N R

ESOU

RC

ES

KPI DEF IN ITION S Substitute Placement Rate

Importance Failure to place substitutes to fill teacher absences

can adversely affect students, as well as school staff, and should be

reduced to a minimum.


Quality of substitute pool database

Substitute back-up policy

Calculation Number of student attendance days where a substi-

tute was successfully placed in a classroom divided by the total

number of student attendance days that classroom teachers were

absent from their classrooms.

Substitute Placement with BA/BS or Higher

Importance Increasing the number of substitutes with a college

degree improves a student’s experience when a teacher is absent.

Calculation Number of teachers retained after one year divided

by number of teachers that were newly hired one year ago.

Exit Interview Completion Rate

Importance Exit interviews can provide important insight into

problems and patterns.


Placement of exit interview on separation/resignation forms

Internal review processes

Pro-active focus on customer service

Calculation Total number of exit interviews completed divided by

the total number of employee separations (including retirement,

resignation and termination) in the district.

Teacher Retention

Importance Based on review of this measure, a district may re-

allocate funds to adopt new mentor/induction programs or revise

their current programs. Districts will also have data available to jus-

tify making changes in their selection process and engaging local

universities regarding coursework designed to better prepare grad-

uates for urban teaching. By tracking, monitoring, and examining re-

tention of second year teachers, districts can measure early attrition

rates and thereby manage the cost of bringing in new teachers, re-

vised mentoring/induction program and maintain desired staff con-

tinuity.


Culture

Communication

School leadership

Professional development

Selection and hiring process

Support

Calculation Number of teachers retained after X number of years

divided by number of teachers that were newly hired Y number of

years ago.

Employee Separation Rate

Importance These measures may serve as indicators of district

policies, administrative procedures and regulations, and manage-

ment effectiveness. Measuring these allows the district to further

analyze its actions in terms of resources, allocation of funds, policy

and support to its employees. They also may be measures of work-

force satisfaction and organizational climate.


Number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) charges filed

by employees divided by total number of employees

State and local laws defining discrimination will impact

Board Policy and organizational protocol for resolution

Organizational climate

Quality and level of supervisory training

Quality and level of EEO Awareness training for all employees

Indicator as to the effectiveness of supervisors and managers

Calculation Number of discrimination complaints divided by total

number of district employees (FTEs) in 10,000s.

Health Benefits Enrollment Rate

Importance Identifies the level of employee enrollment in the dis-

trict health benefits plan.

Calculation Total number of employees enrolled in health bene-

fits plan divided by total number of employees eligible for health

benefits.

Health Benefits Cost per Enrolled Employee

Importance It is important to have a competitive benefit package

to attract and retain employees. However, health care costs repre-

sent an increasing percentage of overall employee costs. Rapid in-

creases in health care costs make it even more critical for districts to

ensure that their health care dollars are well spent and their benefits

are competitive. Health care costs are an important component in

the total compensation package of employees. While it is important

to provide good benefits it is also equally important to do it at a

competitive cost compared with other districts that are competing

for the same applicants.


Costs may be influenced by district wellness programs and

promoting healthy lifestyles

Plan benefits and coverage (individual, individual & spouse,

family, etc.) are major factors in determining costs.

Costs are influenced by availability and competitiveness of

providers.

Costs are influenced by geographic location (reasonable and

customary charges for each location).

Costs may vary based on plan structure (fully insured, self-

insured, minimum premium etc.).

Increased costs in health care will mean less money available

for salary or other benefits.

Calculation Total health benefits cost (self-insured) plus total

health benefits premium costs divided by total number of employees

enrolled in health benefits plan.



HU

MA

N R

ESO

UR

CES

HR Cost per District FTE

Importance This measure can help assess the size of the budget

for the human resources department. Since districts often have dif-

ferent structures and priorities, this indicator should be used in con-

junction with other measures that indicate actual performance.

Calculation Total HR department costs divided by total number of

district employees (FTEs).

Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000 Employees


State and local laws defining discrimination

Board Policy and organizational protocol for resolution

Organizational climate

Quality and level of EEO Awareness training for all employees

Indicator as to the effectiveness of supervisors and managers

Quality and level of supervisory training

Calculation Number of discrimination complaints divided by total


Number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) charges filed by

employees divided by total number of employees in 1000s.

Employee Relations - Misconduct Investigations per 1,000 Employees

Importance This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of

hiring and supervisory practices within a district. Administrative

costs associated with investigation and resolution diminish re-

sources that could be used more productive educational purposes.

High instances of alleged employee misconduct reflect a negative

public image on the District.


Organizational attitude and tolerance toward employee mis-

conduct

Quality of supervision

Quality of training – understanding of expectations

The hiring processes of the district

Calculation Number of misconduct investigations divided by total



Page 155

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Performance metrics in information technology (IT) assess the productivity, cost efficiency, and service levels of

the Information Technology Department. The metrics generally fall in the following categories:

a) Network services

b) Computers and devices

c) Help desk and break/fix technical support

d) Systems and software

Network-service measures examine such service-level indicators as Bandwidth per Student and Number of Days

Network Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity and such cost-efficiency indicators as Network (WAN) Cost per Student.

Measures of personal computers and devices include Average Age of Computers, which reflect the refresh goals of

a district, as well as Devices per Student.

The cost effectiveness of technical support services such as the help desk and break/fix support are measured by

Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket and Break/Fix Staffing Costs per Ticket.

Finally, the performance of systems and software is measured, in part, by the downtime of these systems, as high

rates of interruption are likely to adversely affect district end-users. The operating cost of these systems is meas-

ured with Business Systems Cost per Employee and Instructional Systems Cost per Student.


Information Technology Page 156

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

L IST OF KPIS IN INF OR MATION TECH NO LOGY Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Information Technology. Indicators in bold are those in-

cluded in this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are availa-

ble to CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.

POWER INDICATORS

Devices - Average Age of Computers

Devices - Computers per Employee

Devices per Student

IT Spending per District FTE

IT Spending per Student

IT Spending Percent of District Budget

Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps)

Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Users (Mbps)

ESSENTIAL FEW

Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices per Teacher

Network - Days Usage Exceeded 75% of Capacity

Network - Overflow Capacity

Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket

Support - First Contact Resolution Rate

Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate

Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket

Support - Mean Time to Resolve Tickets (Hours)


Devices - Tablets per Student (Student Use)

Devices per Teacher (Dedicated Teacher Use)

IT Spending - Capital Investments

IT Spending - Hardware, Systems and Services

IT Spending - Personnel Costs

Network - WAN Availability

Online Learning - Blended Courses Completed per Course Offering

Online Learning - Blended Courses Offered

Online Learning - Online Courses Completed per Course Offering

Online Learning - Online Courses Offered

Support - District Employees per Help Desk FTE

Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee

Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student

Systems Downtime - E-Mail

Systems Downtime - ERP

Systems Downtime - Finance System

Systems Downtime - HR System

Systems Downtime - LCMS/IMS

Systems Downtime - Online Assessment System

Systems Downtime - Payroll System

Systems Downtime - SIS


Page 157

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y


Figure 172 Devices per Student vs. Bandwidth per Student

This chart compares the number of student-use devices with the total available bandwidth capacity for connecting to the Internet. The districts in

the bottom-left quadrant have fewer devices and lower Internet connection bandwidth. Those districts in the top-right quadrant are ranked high in

both the number of devices and Internet connection bandwidth.

The Devices per Student measure is an indicator of performance only so far as the district uses the devices effectively for academic purposes and

makes them available for students to use. Bandwidth Capacity, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a must-have for 21st century classrooms,

and as demand from teachers and students for web-based content and applications continues to increase, school districts have an essential imper-

ative to keep pace.

14

7

28

71

13

20

9

35

41

37

12

44 24

40

49

10

11

32

30

51

48

21

16

1

4

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%

Ban

dw

idth

(M

bp

s) p

er

1,0

00

Stu

de

nts

Devices per Student

Is your district’s technology meeting the demands of the 21st cen-tury?



INFO

RM

ATI

ON

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

DATA D ISC O VER Y

Figure 173 Devices - Average Age of Computers

Figure 174 Devices - Computers per Employee

This does not include computers for student use. Includes laptops

and desktop computers for employees.

2.65

2.80

2.87

2.92

3.02

3.25

3.32

3.35

3.42

3.44

3.44

3.47

3.47

3.52

3.56

3.63

3.67

3.69

3.74

3.76

3.79

3.82

3.84

3.85

4.04

4.10

4.12

4.20

4.26

4.28

4.32

4.32

4.35

4.38

4.38

4.61

4.74

4.91

4.92

5.13

3.77

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

19

27

24

71

44

41

14

16

53

52

12

51

21

8

9

79

7

49

37

3

Median

35

48

10

47

4

101

46

39

56

45

25

40

20

74

30

11

5

32

13

28

0.25

0.42

0.50

0.68

0.75

0.76

0.79

0.82

0.83

0.85

0.88

0.89

0.96

0.99

1.05

1.08

1.17

1.19

1.21

1.21

1.23

1.32

1.42

1.76

2.28

3.83

0.98

- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

16

7

54

49

48

74

44

11

10

21

4

24

32

Median

14

13

30

51

37

52

20

101

41

12

71

40

47


Page 159

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y

Figure 175 Devices per Student

This includes student-use or mixed-use computers and tablets. It

does not include staff-assigned devices.

Figure 176 Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices per Teacher

This may include video/data projectors, document cameras/digital

overheads, and interactive whiteboards.

0.22

0.29

0.29

0.29

0.32

0.32

0.33

0.34

0.34

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.37

0.38

0.38

0.39

0.41

0.41

0.42

0.45

0.47

0.50

0.51

0.52

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.59

0.67

0.38

- 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

16

101

12

10

51

49

54

47

41

48

32

44

24

1

13

Median

37

40

9

30

71

21

7

11

28

20

14

35

4

45

0.14

0.32

0.47

0.49

0.68

0.97

1.07

1.25

1.29

1.52

1.53

1.64

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.69

1.72

1.73

1.85

1.85

1.87

1.90

1.92

1.95

2.15

2.20

2.52

2.76

2.76

1.65

- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

26

74

24

58

14

21

9

32

5

44

37

10

49

12

30

Median

48

67

13

39

16

71

7

4

52

20

47

1

101

40



INFO

RM

ATI

ON

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

Figure 177 IT Spending Percent of District Budget

This does not include capital expenditures, only operational costs of

IT. (See figure to the right.)

Figure 178 IT Spending Percent of District Budget (Including Capital Investments)

0.23%

0.31%

0.35%

0.83%

1.25%

1.29%

1.34%

1.36%

1.37%

1.52%

1.53%

1.57%

1.57%

1.64%

1.64%

1.69%

1.72%

1.73%

2.09%

2.18%

2.24%

2.28%

2.29%

2.39%

2.41%

2.45%

2.49%

2.87%

2.96%

3.90%

4.69%

4.78%

4.90%

1.72%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%

67

6

45

54

101

39

25

71

1

9

12

10

13

35

41

11

4

Median

44

16

20

32

5

40

52

7

37

48

24

30

28

47

14

21

0.23%

0.31%

0.35%

1.14%

1.31%

1.44%

1.57%

1.57%

1.60%

1.71%

1.88%

1.92%

2.18%

2.24%

2.34%

2.42%

2.44%

2.46%

2.58%

2.72%

2.72%

2.72%

2.96%

3.01%

3.02%

3.12%

3.68%

3.72%

3.94%

4.04%

5.61%

5.85%

5.89%

2.44%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%

67

6

45

54

101

71

10

13

9

35

25

41

12

32

11

16

39

Median

40

5

7

4

48

30

37

24

44

20

52

1

28

21

47

14

IT Operations

Capital Investments


Page 161

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y

Figure 179 IT Spending per Student

Figure 180 Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps)

This represents the bandwidth capacity for a district’s connection to

the Internet. SETDA recommends a target minimum of 100 Mbps

per 1,000 students/staff by the 2014-15 school year.

$19

$34

$80

$81

$82

$107

$114

$117

$126

$127

$138

$139

$139

$141

$142

$151

$162

$177

$186

$212

$220

$221

$243

$255

$262

$270

$298

$337

$388

$402

$407

$510

$612

$920

$169

$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000

67

6

45

101

54

13

39

9

16

1

41

44

3

10

11

32

71

Median

40

4

48

5

37

49

51

12

7

24

35

20

30

14

47

28

21

9.3

1.5

2.3

2.4

2.7

3.0

4.0

4.3

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.7

6.7

7.6

7.7

8.0

9.3

10.3

10.6

11.7

12.5

14.1

15.0

16.0

16.7

19.2

19.8

20.4

23.0

24.1

26.0

26.5

- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

21

24

37

44

26

6

13

48

35

7

32

12

41

10

9

20

Median

3

5

71

30

1

40

16

28

11

39

49

14

4

51

58

Bandwidth

Expansion Capacity



INFO

RM

ATI

ON

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

Figure 181 Network - Days Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity

Increased demand by bandwidth-intensive web applications and

tools means that school districts are often struggling to keep up

their network infrastructure. With a median of 164 days, this meas-

ure suggests that more than half of school districts are near peak

network capacity every day of the school year.

Figure 182 Network - WAN Availability

This is the annual uptime for the Wide Area Network (WAN).

364

212

210

185

185

182

180

180

180

180

180

172

165

165

164

157

148

131

90

72

51

25

15

12

10

10

10

8

5

164

- 100 200 300 400

53

37

21

28

71

44

26

12

32

48

5

52

13

47

7

Median

3

8

20

35

49

58

14

40

1

46

39

79

24

9

99.1367%

99.5646%

99.7260%

99.8648%

99.9146%

99.9344%

99.9541%

99.9690%

99.9702%

99.9804%

99.9807%

99.9863%

99.9922%

99.9936%

99.9957%

99.9957%

99.9962%

99.9968%

99.9973%

99.9978%

99.9984%

99.9985%

99.9989%

99.9990%

99.9990%

99.9991%

99.9993%

99.9993%

99.9996%

99.9998%

99.9998%

99.9998%

99.9999%

99.9999%

99.9999%

100.0000%

100.0000%

100.0000%

100.0000%

100.0000%

99.9981%

98.5% 99.0% 99.5% 100.0%

39

25

12

9

47

30

13

7

20

35

37

56

44

4

71

41

28

101

27

48

Median

21

14

52

58

1

3

49

79

40

26

45

5

46

19

11

6

24

53

32

51


Page 163

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y

Figure 183 Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket

Figure 184 Support - First Contact Resolution Rate

This is the proportion of support requests that were resolved on first

contact with the help desk.

1,688.8

1,014.9

898.4

863.9

581.4

491.1

348.8

291.5

225.5

220.0

214.4

154.5

149.4

145.7

109.9

107.5

105.3

100.2

97.4

92.4

88.3

87.2

85.1

85.0

81.9

78.6

78.3

70.3

64.4

63.9

59.1

54.1

53.9

46.3

43.3

42.8

39.4

38.5

33.4

27.9

18.2

12.7

11.4

87.2

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

24

21

4

46

30

48

14

20

7

62

74

53

101

28

47

25

79

16

9

49

5

27

Median

3

51

19

10

8

41

11

39

12

56

71

67

13

54

37

44

35

52

40

45

32

3.0%

5.3%

8.5%

10.4%

10.7%

12.7%

13.4%

16.0%

25.2%

26.3%

26.4%

26.8%

29.4%

31.2%

32.8%

32.9%

36.4%

40.2%

41.4%

43.4%

43.8%

46.4%

46.6%

46.7%

47.9%

50.7%

53.9%

55.8%

58.3%

58.7%

61.3%

61.9%

63.2%

66.2%

66.4%

66.4%

66.6%

67.6%

70.9%

82.0%

89.6%

43.8%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

27

53

35

49

47

25

56

79

101

19

13

28

54

41

37

11

51

20

16

3

58

Median

9

7

12

8

44

52

71

10

5

62

39

14

40

30

21

67

46

48

26

74



INFO

RM

AT

ION

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

Figure 185 Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate

Figure 186 Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket

28.4%

27.4%

22.8%

21.0%

20.6%

19.5%

17.6%

16.8%

15.6%

15.2%

14.0%

13.4%

13.3%

12.9%

11.8%

11.1%

11.1%

10.7%

10.3%

9.9%

8.2%

6.3%

6.1%

5.9%

5.0%

4.1%

3.2%

2.1%

1.7%

1.6%

0.4%

11.1%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

25

11

58

8

44

16

21

48

40

26

5

41

7

46

35

10

Median

54

4

39

1

37

52

30

13

47

71

14

79

28

9

67

278.4

161.8

131.6

108.1

81.5

68.3

57.0

54.3

52.0

44.1

43.4

36.9

36.1

34.1

33.4

27.7

27.5

26.8

26.2

25.4

25.2

24.9

24.5

22.8

21.7

21.4

20.3

20.1

19.8

17.5

16.9

13.8

13.5

13.5

12.6

11.3

11.2

10.8

9.9

8.8

7.8

6.4

25.0

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300

51

27

79

62

47

56

20

101

74

54

49

25

16

41

30

28

13

5

7

19

48

Median

53

52

12

45

44

35

37

67

9

71

4

46

8

14

21

39

10

11

3

32

40


Page 165

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y

Figure 187 Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee

This includes maintenance fees and staffing costs to maintain busi-

ness systems such as ERP, finance, and payroll.

Figure 188 Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student

This includes maintenance fees and staffing costs to maintain sys-

tems such as student information systems (SIS), learning manage-

ment systems (LMS), and content management systems (LMS).

578

485

456

384

354

293

265

260

254

239

224

203

195

194

190

178

176

165

154

151

144

141

110

104

101

93

89

80

66

57

184

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

30

5

37

47

21

4

13

40

41

1

20

3

39

14

9

Median

52

11

32

12

16

44

101

71

24

48

54

51

7

49

10

578

485

456

384

354

293

265

260

254

239

224

203

195

194

190

178

176

165

154

151

144

141

110

104

101

93

89

80

66

57

184

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

30

5

37

47

21

4

13

40

41

1

20

3

39

14

9

Median

52

11

32

12

16

44

101

71

24

48

54

51

7

49

10



INFO

RM

ATI

ON

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

KPI DEF IN ITION S Devices - Average Age of Computers

Importance The measure creates an aging index that counts the

number of computers in the district by age. Understanding the aver-

age age of computers provides data for budget and planning pur-

poses, and impacts break-fix support, supplies, and training. Aging of

machines may differ between elementary and secondary schools as

well as administrative offices. Implementation of new software ap-

plications has minimum standards that user machines must meet.

Understanding computer aging will help identify district readiness as

applications become available to staff and students. Developing

comprehensive refresh cycles impacts not only the purchasing of

equipment but also training cycles.

Many organizations in the private sector use a standard of three

years for age of computers before they are replaced. Many school

districts refresh their computers over a five-year period to get max-

imum benefits out of their equipment.



Budget development for capital, operational, and categorical

funds

Budget development for schools and department in refresh and

computer purchasing

Budget development in support, supplies, and maintenance.

Implementation and project management for new software

applications in both instructional and operations areas.

Type of machine (i.e., desktop, laptop, netbook, etc.)

Calculation The weighted average age of all district computers,

calculated as follows: number of one-year-old computers plus num-

ber of two-year-old computers times two plus number of three-year-

old computers times three plus number of four-year-old-computers

times four plus number of five-year-old computers times five plus

number of computers older than five years old times six.

Devices - Computers per Employee

Importance Indicates the number of computers used by employ-

ees.

Calculation Total number of office-use and teacher-use laptops

and desktops divided by the total number of district employees

(FTEs).

Devices per Student

Importance This tracks the movement toward a one-to-one ratio

of students to devices.

Calculation Total number of desktops, laptops and tablets that

are for student-only use or mixed-use divided by total student en-

rollment.

Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices

Importance Hi-tech presentation devices are useful for technolo-

gy-enhanced instruction.

Calculation Total number of advanced presentation devices (vid-

eo/data projectors, document cameras/digital overheads, and inter-

active whiteboards) divided by the total number of teachers (FTEs).

IT Spending per Student / Percent of District Budget

Importance The measure provides a tool for districts to compare

their IT spending per student with other districts. This measure must

be viewed in relationship to other KPIs to strike the correct balance

between the district’s efficiency and its effective use of technology.

If other KPIs such as customer satisfaction, security practices, and

ticket resolution are not performing at high levels, low costs associ-

ated with IT spending may indicate an under-resourced operation.


Budget development and staffing

IT expenditures can be impacted by new enterprise implemen-

tations

The commitment of community for support technology invest-

ments in education

IT Department standards and support model

Age of technology and application portfolio

IT maturity of district

Calculation

Percent of Budget: Total IT staffing costs plus total IT hardware, sys-

tems and services costs divided by total district operating expendi-

tures.

Per-Student: Total IT staffing costs plus total IT hardware, systems

and services costs divided by total student enrollment.

Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps)

Importance This measure compares similarly situated districts

and provides a quantifiable measure toward the goal of providing

adequate bandwidth to support the teaching and learning environ-

ment. Bandwidth per Student provides a relative measure of the ca-

pacity of the district to support computing applications in a manner

conducive to teaching, learning, and district operations. Some dis-

trict and student systems are very sensitive to capacity constraints

and will not perform well. Students and staff have come to expect

certain performance levels based on their experience with network

connectivity at home and other places in the community, and

schools must provide performance on a par with that available

elsewhere.


The number of enterprise network based applications

The capacity demands of enterprise network based applications

Fund availability to support network bandwidth costs

Capacity triggers that provide enough time for proper build out

and network upgrades

Network monitoring systems and tools that allow traffic shap-

ing, prioritization, and application restriction

Calculation Total standard available bandwidth (in Mbit/s) divid-

ed by total student enrollment in 1,000s. These data are expressed

in Mbps.

Network - Days Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity

Importance Staying below the metric threshold is critical to appli-

cation performance and user satisfaction. This metric may also pro-

vide justification for network expansion and capacity planning.


Page 167

INFO

RM

ATIO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

Y


The number of online applications sensitive to latency, digital

video, and voice will all impact the amount of bandwidth a dis-

trict needs.

School districts may experience short periods of time with ex-

ceptional network demand and large portions of time with

plenty of excess capacity.

Calculation The number of days that peak daily internet usage

reaches more than 75% of the standard available bandwidth for five

(5) minutes or longer.

Network - WAN Availability

Importance A high amount of downtime of the Wide Area Net-

work (WAN) will likely disrupt the students, teachers and staff in the

district.


The number of online applications sensitive to latency, digital

video, and voice will all impact the amount of bandwidth a dis-

trict needs.

Calculation Total minutes of all outages on WAN circuits divided

by the total number of WAN circuits.

Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket

Importance This measure assesses staffing cost per incident,

which may indicate how responsive and how efficient the help desk

is in making itself available to customers. The goal is to improve cus-

tomer satisfaction through resolving incidents quickly, effectively,

and cost efficiently. There are various costs that could be included in

this metric such as hardware, software, equipment, supplies,

maintenance, training, etc. Staffing cost per ticket was selected be-

cause data are easily understood and accessed and salary costs are

typically the biggest cost factor in a help-desk budget.


Software and systems that can collect and route contact infor-

mation

Knowledge management tools available to help desk staff and

end users

Budget development for staffing levels

Calculation Total personnel costs of Break/Fix Support costs (in-

cluding managers) divided by the total number of tickets/incidents.

Support - First Contact Resolution Rate

Importance This measure calculates the percentage of user initi-

ated contacts to the help desk, which generates a ticket that is re-

solved without escalation to the next higher support level. FCRR is

an indicator of the number of exception contacts that a support cen-

ter is receiving. It can be used as a management indicator to devise

strategies to lower cost, improve operational ability and workflow,

and improve customer satisfaction. It is more cost effective for the

organization to resolve calls on first contact because the customer is

returned to productive work more quickly. Private industry has rec-

ognized the cost-benefit of expecting that 85% of trouble calls are

resolved on first contact. This measure can also be used as a tool to

help guide quality improvement processes.


Software and systems that can collect contact information at

the help desk

Automation tools for common help desk issues like password

reset can improve performance and reduce costs – these num-

bers should be included in data collection

Knowledge and training of help desk staff in enterprise applica-

tions

Knowledge and training of end user of enterprise applications

used

New implementations will cause increase in service calls

Permissions that are set for the help desk staff. If permissions

are restricted, help desk staff will be able to resolve fewer types

of problem calls.

Capacity of the organization to respond to customer support

requests

Ability of help desk ticket application to track work tickets

Tactical assignment of responsibilities may be different in each

organization. The responsibilities of the help desk may vary

from simply opening tickets to complete troubleshooting and

problem resolution.

Calculation Number of tickets/incidents resolved on first contact

divided by the total number of tickets/incidents.

Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate

Importance This measure assesses the percentage of telephone

contacts that are not answered by the service desk staff before the

caller disconnects. CAR is an indicator of the staffing level of the ser-

vice desk relative to the demand for service. The CAR can be used as

a management indicator to determine staffing levels to support sea-

sonal needs or during times of system issues (application or network

problems). On an annual basis, it is a measurement of the effective-

ness of resource management. This measure should be used as a

tool to help guide quality improvement processes.


Effective supervision to ensure that service desk team members

are online to take calls

A high percentage could indicate low availability caused by in-

adequate staffing, long call handling times and/or insufficient

processes

Length of time the caller is on hold

Capacity of the organization to respond to customer support

requests

Proper staffing when implementing district-wide applications,

which significantly increase calls

Automation tools like password reset can reduce number of

calls to the help desk and reduce overall call volume

Increased training of help desk can reduce long handling time

freeing up staff to take more calls

Calculation Number of abandoned calls to the Help Desk divided

by total number of calls to the Help Desk.

Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket

Importance This measure assesses staffing cost per incident,

which may indicate how responsive and how efficient the help desk

is in making itself available to customers. The goal is to improve cus-

tomer satisfaction through resolving incidents quickly, effectively,

and cost efficiently. There are various costs that could be included in

this metric such as hardware, software, equipment, supplies,

maintenance, training, etc. Staffing cost per ticket was selected be-

cause data are easily understood and accessed and salary costs are

typically the biggest cost factor in a help-desk budget.


Software and systems that can collect and route contact infor-

mation



INFO

RM

ATI

ON

TEC

HN

OLO

GY

Automation tools for common help desk issues like password

reset can improve performance and reduce costs these num-

bers should be included in data collection

Other duties performed by the help desk staff that restrict

them from taking calls

Knowledge management tools available to help desk staff and

end users

Budget development for staffing levels

Calculation Total personnel costs of the Help Desk (including

managers) divided by the total number of support tickets/incidents.

Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee

Importance Can be used to evaluate total relative cost of systems.

This includes recurring costs and maintenance fees only; it does not

include capital costs or one-time implementation fees.

Calculation Personnel costs of staff for administration, develop-

ment, and support of enterprise business systems plus annual

maintenance fees for all enterprise business systems plus total out-

sourced services fees for enterprise business systems all divided by

total number of district FTEs.

Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student

Importance Can be used to evaluate total relative cost of systems.

This includes recurring costs and maintenance fees only; it does not

include capital costs or one-time implementation fees.

Calculation Personnel costs of staff for administration, develop-

ment and support of instructional systems plus annual maintenance

fees for instructional systems plus total outsourced services fees for

instructional systems all divided by total number of students in the

district.

Documents

Managing for Results - TransACT€¦ · To Members of the Council of the Great City Schools – We are pleased to present the 2013 edition of Managing for Results in America’s Great