Performance Measures for Non-Instructional Departments - Email … › wp-content › uploads › 2015 › 04 › ... · 2017-03-16 · secondary education and data visualization

In the following report, Hanover Research examines the use and implementation of

performance metrics in non‐instructional departments at school districts across the

country. The report also reviews a selection of commercially available software for the

collection and analysis of such metrics.

Performance Measures for Non-Instructional Departments

September 2013

Hanover Research | September 2013

© 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3

Section I: Using KPIs in Non‐Instructional Departments ..................................................... 5

Implementing KPIs ............................................................................................................. 6

COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS .............................................................................................. 8

ActPoint KPI Performance Management System .............................................................. 8

OneSource KPI ................................................................................................................... 9

BSC Designer ...................................................................................................................... 9

Section II: Indicators Used by Districts ............................................................................. 11

Information Technology .................................................................................................. 11

Business Operations ........................................................................................................ 12

Human Resources ............................................................................................................ 17

Diversity and Equity ......................................................................................................... 19

Professional Development ............................................................................................... 19

Community Engagement ................................................................................................. 20

Grants .............................................................................................................................. 21

Student Services .............................................................................................................. 22

Early and Extended Learning ........................................................................................... 22

Enrollment, Research and Program Evaluation ............................................................... 23

Risk Management ............................................................................................................ 24



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

Performance metrics are used in school districts in order to determine how efficiently operations are being conducted. Typically indicators of success relate directly to student outcomes—tracking the rate at which students pass standardized tests, or the graduation rate, or the number of students who pursue higher education. However, there are a host of district operations that are non‐instructional in nature which provide ample opportunity for analysis and improvement. Tracking performance measures and determining operational efficiencies is essential for districts to effectively use limited financial resources and ensure that they will have the most impact possible on students. The following report consists of two sections. The first briefly examines the use of key performance indicators (KPIs) in school districts in general, including suggestions for their implementation. We identify three software solutions with KPIs tailored for primary and secondary education and data visualization capabilities. The second section consists of a review of performance indicators presently in use by districts, organized by various offices present in many districts, such as technical services, enrollment, research and evaluation, business services, or human resources, among others. While performance measures are often private information that school districts do not openly share, this section includes examples of metrics that are publicly available.

KEY FINDINGS

The non‐instructional operations of a school district present many opportunities for analysis and improvement. The most common target of performance metric initiatives is business services, which encompasses finances, purchasing, food services, transportation, and facilities or custodial services. Typically, districts report using performance indicators to identify needs and improve cost effectiveness in these areas; other non‐instructional areas are less commonly the target of KPI initiatives.

The department‐level focus on school and district improvement is essential, as it presents the ability for a greater level of detail and scrutiny than heavy‐handed, top‐down district approaches would. When managers of specific departments are engaged in departmental improvement, they may identify cost savings and opportunities for efficiencies that would be missed by a central office. However, it has been noted that such offices are not used to such a level of self‐scrutiny, and implementing a KPI process may be difficult to adopt.

Software solutions are available to ease the transition to a KPI‐intensive operation. Software will typically gather a large amount of data, supplemented by user‐entered data, and calculate a variety of indicators. Performance is then displayed graphically, with pre‐drawn conclusions and suggestions for moving



forward. Software with a wide user‐base, such as the ActPoint KPI system, also provides peer benchmarking capabilities.

A wide variety of performance metrics are presently being tracked by public school districts, reflective of each district’s goals and priorities. Many opt to track only business services‐related operations, as they provide opportunities for significant cost savings. Transportation, food services, finances, and information technology are most commonly the target of performance indicator tracking. Human resources indicators are also common, demonstrating districts’ commitment to fair hiring practices, staff retention, and staff safety.

Performance indicators can also be crafted for smaller, less financially focused departments, including diversity, professional development, and student services. When a department engages students, metrics often focus on the rate of student participation and use of services, and may also reflect a desire to track student satisfaction with services provided. Satisfaction is not an easy metric to gauge, and often requires the distribution of a survey.



SECTION I: USING KPIS IN NON-INSTRUCTIONAL

DEPARTMENTS School districts continue to face shrinking budgets and reduced state and federal appropriations, leaving them to find alternative routes to remain financially viable. In many districts, this takes the form of self‐scrutiny to identify ways to improve efficiencies and save money. The use of key performance indicators or measures to identify inefficiencies is one method being implemented in school districts across the country in response to budget shortfalls. However, the need for KPIs is not only a financial one. There is increasing concern that American schools are not producing the caliber of student necessary to compete in today’s global economy. While President Obama has set a goal of leading the world in the college completion rate by 2020, the country presently falls in 16th place.1 The implementation of Common Core State Standards, an emphasis on teacher effectiveness, and the increasing use of data systems which enable large‐scale data analysis efforts also drive districts’ interest in using performance metrics.2 While data collection and school improvement efforts commonly center around student performance and achievement, “there are many other measures of a district’s overall success, especially when taking business efficiency into consideration.”3 All aspects of a district’s non‐instructional operations provide opportunities for measurement and analysis, including custodial services, food services, transportation, and financial services, among others. As the chief operating officer of one California school district stated, it is paramount that “business service providers in support of schools … are able to strategically project, track, and monitor operating expenses,” particularly in the areas of food, transportation, and procurement.4 The use of performance measures requires not only the collection and visualization of data, but leadership with a “savvy management acumen that can take advantage of the data.”5 There has been particular industry emphasis placed on developing performance measures for school districts’ transportation functions, which may be “the most complex part of any school system.”6 Transportation has the potential to continually improve efficiencies, providing better service to students, parents, and teachers, while returning money to the

1 Bloom, T. “KPIs for College and Career Readiness.” Naviance Summer Institute, July 12, 2012. p. 6.

http://www.slideshare.net/naviance/nsi‐2012‐kpis‐for‐college‐and‐career‐readiness 2 Ibid, p. 14. 3 Boyles, L. “Digging into Data: Measuring District Operations, Efficiency at Core of New Data System.” California

School Business, Spring 2013. p. 43. http://writeronthewalldotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/casbo‐spring13‐digging‐into‐data.pdf

4 Ibid. 5 Buzalka, M. “Why KPI?” Food Management, November 1, 2010. http://food‐management.com/news‐amp‐

trends/why‐kpi 6 Arroyo, S. “NAPT Summit Kicks Off with Focus on Transportation Metrics.” School Transportation News, October 22,

2012. http://stnonline.com/home/latest‐news/4821‐napt‐summit‐kicks‐off‐with‐focus‐on‐transportation‐metrics



school’s operating budget. Food services has also been a primary target of performance indicator implementation efforts, as the department is seen as a potential source of missed revenues and inefficiencies. However, the KPI process is not just about identifying money made and money lost—as one nutrition services director noted, staff needed to see why money was lost or made so that the department could implement improvement‐oriented changes.7

The department‐level focus on performance measures is essential to school improvement. The district sets the levels of certain variables over which departments have no control, such as salary increases and benefits packages. Department managers, then, must look to other metrics in order to improve specific practices and ensure that revenues are sufficient to continue providing services.8 Using department‐level KPIs empowers specific units and their managers to discover opportunities for cost savings that would be difficult using a top‐down approach.

IMPLEMENTING KPIS

In October 2012, the National Association for Pupil Transportation’s annual summit included a comprehensive session on using KPIs to manage district transportation operations. Both large and small districts reported tracking specific indicators to compare operations from one year to the next. Participants recognized that a district with no history of using KPIs may find it difficult to implement and track a full‐scale set of indicators, and recommended beginning with “something simple and easy to track … It’s really just a matter of starting.”9

Another California school district administrator noted that gaining staff buy‐in for data collection and institutional improvement efforts may be difficult. Looking at the effectiveness of a school district’s business operations is not innate in the public education arena:

You’ve got to build up the capacity of the organization to be data analysts because that’s not a natural activity … We also probably have to learn to be more self‐evaluative, self‐critical, and accepting of constructive criticism. That’s not a way that most school districts operate.10

School district administrators provided general advice for implementing KPIs, using the transportation department as an example. Administrators noted that districts should examine their mission and vision statements for ideas on what key elements to begin tracking. Often, districts have vision statements on a department‐by‐department basis, and these should be used as guiding statements. For example, transportation departments typically incorporate safety, reliability, and efficiency in their vision statements, so districts

7 Buzalka, M., Op. cit. 8 Ibid. 9 Ashley‐Oehm, D. “Key Performance Indicators – Where to Start?” School Bus Fleet, March 26, 2013.

http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/Channel/Management‐Training/Articles/2013/03/Key‐performance‐indicators‐where‐to‐start.aspx

10 Boyles, L., Op. cit., p. 48.



can begin by thinking of metrics to track that are related to these key areas. One Colorado school district elucidated further on each general theme:11

Safety: Begin to record the number of accidents daily. Define accidents simply or in accordance with your state reporting definition.

Reliability: Begin tracking the total number of road calls each day. First, define a road call—this could be as simple as tracking an interruption in service. Tally these daily, total them monthly and annually.

Efficiency: Begin tracking the number of students riding the bus monthly. GPS programs make student tracking much easier, but even if you lack GPS, bus drivers can track actual ridership on a monthly basis.

The process behind developing and using KPIs in non‐instructional departments requires a significant data collection effort. District accountability offices must take into account a range of data in order to measure performance on any given indicator. The ActPoint KPI Performance Management System gives an indication of the necessary breadth of data behind just one KPI, such as the cost per student of transportation operations in a given district. In the ActPoint system, the cost per student is based on all transportation expenditures divided by the number of daily riders. Expenditures include “direct salaries, fuel, liability insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, facility costs, capital/debt service, and transportation contract costs.”12 Factors that influence the particular indicator are listed as the following:13

Driver wage and benefit structure and labor contracts

Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facilities, insurance, and maintenance

Effectiveness of the routing plan

Ability to use each bus for more than one route each morning and each afternoon

Bell schedule

Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule changes

Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed

Contracted service costs

Types of transported programs served

Performance metrics and subsequent goals must be stated in usable, relatable terms. Department managers may not be able to conceptualize percentages and necessary theoretical improvements to services. For example, stating a performance goal as “Increase breakfast participation by 3 percent” is not as meaningful as “Serve 10 more kids at breakfast,” a goal which is more likely to actually influence management behavior.14

11 Bulleted points taken verbatim from Ashley‐Oehm, D., Op. cit. 12 “Gallery.” ActPoint KPI, p. 2. http://www.actpoint.com/?gallery 13 Bulleted points taken verbatim from Ibid. 14 Buzalka, M., Op. cit.



COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS

Below, we briefly review three software products which are available for districts wishing to track KPIs for district business services and other non‐instructional departments. The largest software application, ActPoint KPI, is the product of a collaborative effort amongst the nation’s largest school districts and thus offers significant benchmarking opportunities. The remaining two products, OneSource KPI and BSC Designer, are smaller products with more limited scope, but are being used by some districts to track KPIs.

ACTPOINT KPI PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS), a group comprising representatives from the country’s largest urban public school districts, made its KPI tracking system, the ActPoint KPI Performance Management System, commercially available in 2012.15 The system had previously been available only to CGCS members, but can now be purchased by non‐CGCS institutions. The program enables users to track key performance measures across school systems in four administrative domains: business services, finance, information technology, and human resources. The program is customizable, so while the full package includes 300 performance indicators, users may request smaller packages of 50 or 100 indicators.16 Indicators are categorized as “regular,” “essential,” and “power indicators,” allowing customers to determine the depth of analysis they wish to pursue.17 The software features reporting and data visualization tools, predictive data modeling, survey functionality, and mobile device support. Because the system has the benefit of widespread adoption amongst CGCS members, the program can also be used to benchmark a district’s performance on certain indicators against peer districts or districts of interest.18 The indicators are designed to “give non‐instructional school executives immediate strategic performance data to improve business operations and efficiencies” and save districts money.19 According to a press release from the CGCS, an independent analysis of the ActPoint KPI system found “numerous examples of urban school savings and improvements nationwide” with use of the system.20 ActPoint KPI’s informational brochure cites four specific examples of districts which have experienced cost savings through product use:21

15 Samuels, C. “Urban District Group Offers Management Tool for School Operations.” Education Week Blogs,

September 7, 2012. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2012/09/urban_district_group_offers_ma.html

16 Ibid. 17 “Performance Management System.” ActPoint KPI. http://www.actpoint.com/?pms 18 “Gallery,” op. cit., p. 5. 19 Duvall, H. “Council of the Great City Schools Launches Business Venture to Help Nation’s School Systems Save

Dollars, Improve Efficiencies.” Council of the Great City Schools, September 4, 2012. http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/29/KPI‐TransAct%20Press%20Release.pdf

20 Ibid. 21Bulleted points taken verbatim from “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System.” ActPoint KPI, p. 3

https://img.transact.com/marketing/PDF/actpoint‐kpi‐brochure.pdf



Albuquerque Public Schools used ActPoint KPI metrics as a tool in negotiations with its utility service provider, ultimately saving the district $200,000 a year.

Rochester School District used the system to make bus routes more efficient, slashing more than $1 million from transportation costs.

Cincinnati Public Schools tapped KPI’s to revamp staffing, supply, and training practices in food and custodial services. Together, these changes have saved the district between $10 million and $12 million a year.

Orange County Public Schools compared its transportation metrics to those in similar districts, ultimately concluding that it did not need 271 of its buses. Those buses are now being sold, and the revenue from the sales is estimated to be as

much as $1.9 million.

ONESOURCE KPI

OneSource KPI is a product of Horizon Software International, a software company offering solutions for K‐12 school districts, senior living facilities, and healthcare settings. The software is specifically tailored to improve the efficiency of food services operations in these settings. OneSource, in addition to KPI tracking capabilities, includes tools to increase participation in school vending programs, monitor food storage facility temperatures, provide digital signs for cafeterias, and create menus.22 The KPI Dashboard automatically gathers performance data, summarizes key points, and presents the data graphically for administrators via a user dashboard. OneSource states its primary advantage as being that it does not merely generate profit and loss reports, but rather enables administrators to recognize the factors and variables which result in profits and losses. Administrators can set goals, which the system will automatically evaluate to determine if the district is meeting them.23 Other benefits of OneSource’s KPI Dashboard include improved efficiency, a convenient report center, reduced risk of data theft, and an intuitive design. Unfortunately, no KPIs used by the system are available for preview.

BSC DESIGNER

Balanced Scorecard (BSC Designer) from KPS Labs offers KPI management software that is in use by school districts, institutions of higher education, financial organizations, utility companies, military organizations, and others.24 The software allows administrators to track performance on selected metrics, which are color‐coded and presented graphically for easy identification of progress. The company additionally offers a monthly KPI newsletter for a small subscription fee. The newsletter offers information for implementing KPIs, checklists and suggestions for KPIs to use, case studies, and more.25

22 “K‐12 Solutions.” Horizon Software International. http://www.horizonsoftware.com/K‐12/ 23 “OneSource KPI Dashboard.” Horizon Software International. http://www.horizonsoftware.com/k‐

12/OneSourceKPIdashboard.html 24 “Case Studies.” BSC Designer. http://www.bscdesigner.com/case‐studies 25 “KPI Guide Letter.” BSC Designer. http://www.bscdesigner.com/bsc‐designer/kpi‐guide‐letter



Georgia’s Monroe County Schools began using BSC Designer after receiving poor ratings from the state regarding its ability to contribute to state education objectives.26 The district implemented an array of key performance indicators as an alternative set of metrics to standard performance indicators such as graduation rate and standardized test scores. BSC Designer gave district administrators “information needed to hold principals accountable when progress goals are not met.”27 Atlanta Public Schools has also used BSC Designer’s balanced scorecard product. According to the company, prior to product implementation, Atlanta “was an example of everything that goes wrong in urban schools,” including high dropout rates, poor facilities, and underprepared teachers.28 The BSC Designer enabled the district to set measurable goals toward improvement, and just one or two indicators were tracked for each goal. The tool enabled the district to improve operations through the efficient use of data.

26 “Balanced Scorecard Helps Georgia School District Meet Goals.” BSC Designer.

http://www.bscdesigner.com/balanced‐scorecard‐helps‐georgia‐school‐district‐meet‐goals.htm 27 Ibid. 28 “Atlanta Public Schools Succeed Using Balanced Scorecard.” BSC Designer. http://www.bscdesigner.com/atlanta‐

public‐schools‐dramatically‐increase‐student‐performance‐using‐a‐balanced‐scorecard.htm



SECTION II: INDICATORS USED BY DISTRICTS This section presents comprehensive examples of performance metrics used by districts in an effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of central office departments. We exclude from consideration any performance metrics tracked by districts related to student achievement and performance on standardized tests or measuring teacher effectiveness; our focus is entirely non‐instructional. Below, we provide a brief summary of common metrics, organized by the types of non‐instructional offices found in many districts. Preceding each figure will be a brief summary of common performance metrics presently used by districts.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Indicators used to measure the performance of offices of information technology focus both on the consistency of service provision and the financial implications of the department. Indicators include the number of service outages, bandwidth used, the responsiveness of technical support, the cost of technology infrastructure, and calculated measures such as cost of IT per student. Districts may additionally wish to examine security incidents, teachers’ use and adoption of technology in the classroom, and maintenance costs.

Figure 2.1: Information Technology/Technical Services Indicators

DISTRICT/AGENCY PERFORMANCE MEASURE

ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers several information technology operations

indicators: 29

Devices – Advanced presentation devices per teacher Devices – Average age of computers Devices – Computers per employee Devices per student IT spending per student IT spending percent of district budget IT spending, spending per district FTE Network – Bandwidth per student Network – Bandwidth per user 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

29 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit., p. 2.




Colorado Springs School District No.

11

Colorado Springs SD 11 tracks six performance metrics to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of its information technology operations. KPIs used are the following:30 Close 65 percent of all heat tickets received at the support center

during initial contact Percent of time that email is available, not including maintenance Percent of time that the Student Information System is available, less

maintenance Percent of time that PeopleSoft is available, less maintenance Number of security incidents responded to at the schools Number of schools with completed individualized learning plans

BUSINESS OPERATIONS

Business operations are a major concern for districts implementing performance metrics‐based operational analysis. A majority of literature surrounding the need for and benefits of performance metrics cite a variety of business services, ranging from finance and transportation to food services and custodial services. In the figure below, we offer comprehensive examples of metrics used by school districts in areas of business operations, and separate these operations by specific function. Districts typically use KPIs to track financial metrics and ensure that revenues are maximized while minimizing expenses. Financial indicators include total revenues, revenues per student, payroll and benefits costs, tax revenues, and debt to revenue ratios. Transportation metrics are also very common, as mentioned in Section I. Transportation operations offer districts significant opportunities for cost savings with increased operational efficiencies. With regards to transportation, metrics typically concern average daily ridership, number of school buses, efficiency of bus routing, and fleet maintenance costs, among others. Food services are also commonly examined for operational efficiency using performance metrics; districts will track food program participation rates, meal costs, and food services staff labor hours per meal served. Districts may also attempt to take student satisfaction into account, although there is usually no direct measure of satisfaction without conducting a student survey. Custodial services‐related metrics include the cost of labor, the cost of maintenance and frequency with which maintenance needs to be conducted, and inventory and purchasing costs. 30 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12.” Colorado Springs School District No. 11, 2012.

http://w3.d11.org/novus/AttachmentViewer.aspx?AttachmentID=4284&ItemID=4377



Figure 2.2: Business Services Indicators


FINANCE

ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers several financial operations indicators: 31

Cash flow – Months above liquidity baseline Cash flow – Short‐term loans per $100k revenue Competitive procurements ratio Cooperative purchasing ratio Cost of risk per student Debt principal ratio to district revenue Debt servicing costs ratio to district revenue Expenditures efficiency – Adopted budget as percent of actual Expenditures efficiency – Final budget as percent of actual Fund balance ratio – Unassigned, uncommitted, and unrestricted Investment earnings per $100k revenue Invoices – Days to process Invoices processed per FTE per month P‐Card purchasing ratio PALT for informal solicitations PALT for invitations for bids PALT for requests for proposals Pay checks processed per FTE per month Payroll cost per $100k spend Payroll cost per pay check Procurement cost per $100k spend Procurement cost per purchase order Procurement savings ratio Revenues efficiency – Adopted budget as percent of actual Revenues efficiency – Final budget as percent of actual Strategic sourcing ratio Warehouse operating expense ratio Warehouse stock turn ratio Labor costs per revenue S&S expenditures per 1,000 students S&S expenditures percent of district budget S&S staff per 1,000 students Total costs as percent of revenue

Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205

Elmhurst CUSD notes the use of two “financial planning” performance indicators, both of which are measured once per year. The KPIs are part of a policy of evaluating district programs and services to ensure their cost effectiveness, as “sound fiscal policy is a priority for the district.”32 Financial indicators include the following: Operating fund balances to annual operating expenditures ratio ISBE financial profile score

31 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit., p. 2. 32 “District Improvement Process.” Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205. p. 2. http://elmhurstcusd205‐

il.schoolloop.com/file/1246559497945/1234751321630/4145217156291185162.pdf




Garnet Valley School District

Garnet Valley School District uses an extensive set of key performance indicators to complete a financial benchmarking process against several peer Delaware districts. Garnet compares itself to five local districts on the following financial measures:33 Total property tax revenue and property tax revenue per student Total property tax revenue and percent collected ytd vs. budget Total installment tax revenue and number of installment payments (5

year trend) Total tax collected at discount, face, penalty; amounts outstanding and

liened Local, state, and federal revenues (totals per student) Utilities: cost/square foot Debt: total cost and percent of budget Total cost per student Total cost of supplemental contracts; average contract cost per student Contract wage amount Cost of healthcare (family basis) Cost of PSERS and FICA, net of subsidy reimbursement Cost of other non‐mandated benefits Cost of an average supplemental contract Annual teacher, administration, and support staff wage and benefit

cost per pupil


11

Colorado Springs SD 11 tracks 11 distinct KPIs in order to measure the effectiveness of its financial and business operations. These include the following:34 Improvement in general fund salaries and benefits forecasting Improvement in forecasting general fund revenues Improvement in forecasting general fund year‐end fund balance Issue monthly financials by 28th of the month

Average payment period for invoices should be no more than 25 calendar days

Improvement in forecasting outflow of per pupil revenue to charter schools

Improvement in forecasting the in‐flow of administrative fee revenue from charter schools

Monitor customer satisfaction on all new source selections resulting in award excluding annual renewals

Increase operational and performance efficiencies within the department

Maintain or increase total rental revenue by 2 percent

33 “Financial Benchmarks – Key Performance Indicators.” Garnet Valley School District.

http://www.garnetvalleyschools.com/cms/lib02/PA01000401/Centricity/Domain/24/Key%20Financial%20Indicators_%20Peers%2010152012.pdf

34 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit.




TRANSPORTATION

ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers a number of transportation operations indicators:35 Accidents – Miles between accidents Accidents – Miles between preventable accidents Bus equipment – GPS tracking Bus fleet – Alternatively‐fueled vehicles Bus fleet – Average age of fleet Bus fleet – Daily buses as percent of total buses Bus fleet in service daily Bus usage – Daily runs per bus Cost per bus Cost per mile operated Cost per rider Incidents – Assault/battery incidents per 1,000 students Incidents – People incidents per 1,000 students On‐time performance Personnel – Buses per mechanic


11

The district tracks two performance indicators for transportation operations:36

Safety ‐ minimal frequency and severity of accidents, incidents, injuries, and maintain favorable perception of safety

Reliability – students arrive at school on time and all vehicles maintain operational status

FOOD SERVICES

ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers several food services indicators:37

Breakfast participation rate (district‐wide) Cost per meal Food cost per meal Food cost per revenue Lunch participation rate (district‐wide) Meals per labor hour

Supper participation rate (district‐wide)

35 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit. 36 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit. p. 2. 37 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit.




Saint Paul Public Schools

Saint Paul Public Schools uses KPIs to measure the effectiveness of their nutrition services department. Indicators tracked include:38 Breakfast participation Lunch participation Number of serving days

Meals per labor hour Meal equivalents served Food purchases per meal equivalent Supply purchases per meal equivalent Food and supply inventory costs Critical health inspection violations

Non‐critical health inspection violations


11

Colorado Springs SD 11 tracks two performance measures for food and nutrition services:39 High levels of satisfaction for all customers in all meal programs Financial self‐sufficiency for Fund 51 after payment of direct/indirect

expenses and ESP 4 percent bonus

CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS

ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers several custodial operations indicators:40

Custodial work – Cost per square foot Custodial workload M&O cost per student M&O costs percent of district budget Major maintenance – Cost per student Renovations – Cost per student Routine maintenance – Cost per square foot Utility costs – Cost per square foot

Work order completion time (days)

38 “St. Paul Public Schools Nutrition Services Monthly School Report.” Meal Data Business Intelligence. p. 10.

http://nacs.spps.org/uploads/spps_howtoviewonscreen_kpireport_final.pdf 39 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit. p. 2. 40 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit.




Saint Paul Public Schools

Saint Paul Public Schools makes available its custodial key performance indicators, which are measured quarterly. Reports are available per district school. Custodial reports include the following measures:41 Current year enrollment, FTEs, and students per FTE Building square feet Square feet per FTE Labor hours budgeted per quarter Actual hours per quarter Actual overtime for quarter Value of beginning inventory Total purchases Value of ending inventory Supply cost per square foot Purchases per square foot Median purchases per quarter Actual monthly trainings required

Number of trainings directed by the district

Lancaster Independent School

District

Lancaster Independent School District combines transportation and facilities costs under the Service Center Dashboard. Metrics include:42 Annual natural gas usage and cost Annual electricity usage and cost Annual water usage and cost Annual fuel usage and cost (divided into gasoline usage and diesel

usage)

HUMAN RESOURCES

Human Resources also provides opportunities for districts to track performance metrics to ensure efficient operations. Human Resources office metrics can include a number of data points regarding teacher and staff absences and retention rates, time to fill vacancies, value of workers’ compensation claims, benefits package expenses, and accuracy of data entry. Districts can use such metrics to ensure time is being spent effectively in the HR office, that teachers are not taking advantage of relaxed attendance policies, and that districts are offering salary and benefits packages that are adequate for attracting talented teachers when vacancies appear.

41 “Quarterly School KPI Report.” Saint Paul Public Schools. p. 7.

http://cust.spps.org/uploads/power_point_qu_report.pdf 42 “Lancaster ISD Service Center Dashboard.” Lancaster ISD. http://www.lancasterisd.org/Dashboard/maintenance.jsp



Figure 2.3: Human Resources Indicators


ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers several human resources indicators:43

Substitute placement rate Teacher absences per teacher Teacher retention – Average for 1‐5 years Teacher vacancies on first day of school 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 Workers’ compensation cost per $100k payroll spend Workers’ compensation cost per employee Workers’ compensation lost work days per 1,000 employees


11

Colorado Springs SD 11 tracks three KPIs relating to its human resources services. KPIs for human resources are combined with goal statements for the district; the district aims to achieve and measure the following:44

97 percent accuracy of data entry by Human Resources for data under its control

100 percent of completed personnel requisitions will be posted within three days of receipt with 100 percent new hires contacted within three days

Staff placed on administrative leave will be scheduled to meet with Human Resources within three business days of receipt of written report

Arlington Public Schools

Arlington Public Schools measures staff satisfaction through two KPIs. The goal is to have 85‐95% satisfaction by 2017. The two metrics are:45 Percent of staff reporting job satisfaction – staff attitudes Percent of staff reporting job satisfaction – work environment

43 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit. 44 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit. 45 “Staff satisfaction.” Arlington Public Schools.

http://dashboard.apsva.us/idashboards/?guestuser=guest&dashID=254



DIVERSITY AND EQUITY

Diversity and equity indicators can range from tracking the academic performance of students of different ethnicities to ensuring that staff and administrators receive diversity training. Performance indicators in this arena may also be grouped under human resources, since ensuring the diversity of staff can be a metric measured at the time of hiring.

Figure 2.4: Diversity and Equity Indicators


Colorado Springs School District No. 11

The district tracks two metrics with regards to their office of equal opportunity:46

100% of all new supervisors will complete Title VII/Sexual Harassment training

100% settlement agreements for all disputes referred to mediation

North Clackamas School District

North Clackamas Schools developed a three‐year equity plan in September of 2012 which outlines district goals in achievement, equity, and finances. Goals are associated with measurable performance indicators. Those associated with equity are the following:47 Percent of district administrators with training in Coaching for

Educational Equity Percent of classified and certified staff with training in Taking it Up State of the achievement gap between ethnic groups

Percent of non‐white instructional and administrative staff (increase diversity)

Cherry Creek Schools

Cherry Creek Schools’ department of excellence and equity tracks the following performance measures:48 Opportunities for professional development for teachers Ability to maintain the Partnerships for Academically Successful

Students program

Provision of culturally relevant resources, lesson plans, and bibliographies for students via an online system

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Professional development is essential to ensure that teachers are equipped with the most appropriate and effective teaching skills. Thus, metrics include the percentage of instructional staff receiving professional development, and the frequency with which professional development is offered.

46 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit. 47 “Equity Plan 2012‐2015.” North Clackamas Schools, September 10, 2012. p. 3.

http://www.nclack.k12.or.us/cms/lib6/OR01000992/Centricity/Domain/1/Equity%20Plan%20v2.pdf 48 “Financial Plan.” Cherry Creek Schools, July 2011. p. 187.

http://www.cherrycreekschools.org/FiscalServices/Budget/Documents/2011‐12%20Financial%20Plan%20Documents/CompleteISDB.WebVersion.pdf



Figure 2.5: Professional Development Indicators



The district tracks two metrics for staff professional development:49

Increase number of employees attending training from prior year to current year by 10 percent

100 percent of identified general leadership will be trained in crisis prevention/intervention, sexual harassment, and volunteerism

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Metrics from district departments of community engagement, communication, and public information may concern stakeholders’ satisfaction with communications and community engagement, though measuring these typically requires a survey rather than the collection of organic data. Some districts track the number of volunteers engaged with service to the district as a measure of community involvement.

Figure 2.6: Community Engagement and Public Information Indicators


Elmhurst Community Unit School District 205

Elmhurst uses key performance indicators to ensure that the district maintains “purposeful, active, positive relationships with families of its students and with the community.” Two measures are tracked, both relying upon annual survey data:50 Internal communication satisfaction, iNews and Intranet, as

measured by percentage of survey respondents External communication satisfaction, all print and e‐products, as

measured by percentage of survey respondents


Indicators regarding community engagement and public relations are listed as indicators of the efficiency of the Office of the Superintendent. 51

Number of community engagement sessions in a school year Number of Board of Education packet revisions after Friday

distribution to Board and public Improvement in creation and dissemination of key messages to all

customers for positive results Improve district website by providing internal users with support

and resources – keep website up to date

Report number of productions/projects occurred each quarter compared to same quarter in prior year

Additionally, two indicators relate to the degree to which community members are engaged in district operations as volunteers. These are listed under “personnel support services” and are the following: Increase the number of volunteers in the schools by 5 percent

Number of classroom enrichment programs, career fairs, field trips, shadow/interview experiences will increase by 10 percent

49 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit. 50 “District Improvement Process,” Op. cit. 51 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit.





Arlington Public Schools lists four metrics of family involvement and communication, which are measured by parent surveys. The district’s stated goal is to increase satisfaction (agreement with each statement) to 96 percent by 2017. The statements include:52 I feel welcomed at my child’s school APS encourages me to be an advocate for my child’s education My child’s school offers information and learning events for

families I can easily access information regarding my child’s school using

the internet.

GRANTS

Grants can be an important revenue source for districts wishing to improve operations and instruction. In districts that track performance measures related to grantseeking behavior and award levels, data are relatively straightforward and available. Typically, districts collect the amount of grant funding awarded, the amount of grant money used, and the number of grants submitted by the district. These metrics can be further manipulated to determine the percent of grant revenue versus general revenues, or the number of applications in a certain year versus another year.

Figure 2.7: Grants and Fund Development Indicators


ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI’s software considers several grants‐related indicators:53

Competitive grant funds as percent of total Grant funds as percent of total budget Grant‐funded staff as percent of district FTEs Returned grant funds per $100k grant revenue


Three KPIs relating to the district’s office of grants administration are identified. The district groups them under “personnel support services” rather than financial services, however. The grants KPIs are the following:54

Total dollar amount of grants received will meet or exceed the district’s TABOR cap

Total number of grants submitted will increase by 200 percent

Grant funds will be spent to within 10 percent of appropriated amount by year end

52 “Family Involvement and Communication.” Arlington Public Schools.

http://dashboard.apsva.us/idashboards/?guestuser=guest&dashID=258 53 “ActPoint KPI Performance Management System,” Op. cit. 54 “Key Performance Indicators Report FY 11‐12,” Op. cit., p. 2.



STUDENT SERVICES

Key performance indicators for offices of student services would vary depending on what departments are subsumed under student services. In one district identified for this report, student services includes a range of departments, from disability services to a truancy office. Metrics for each of these would involve students’ use of their services and the office’s ability to provide services of particular types.

Figure 2.8: Student Services Indicators



Cherry Creek Schools sets performance measures for its student services department, which consists of special education, early childhood services, homebound services, an intervention office, and a truancy office. Performance measures for the student services office include:55

Salaries of teachers, substitute teachers, and para‐educators involved in sub‐offices

Benefits paid to teachers, substitute teachers, and para‐educators

Cost of purchased services, supplies, and materials for related offices

The number of special education students who achieve at or above proficiency on state testing

Number of students with disabilities versus the number of specialists available for consultation

Rate of child screening for disabilities

EARLY AND EXTENDED LEARNING

Indicators relating to early and extended learning focus on the use of services by students, and the impact they have on students. For instance, an indicator regarding the success of an early literacy program might be the percentage of kindergarten students displaying particular readiness skills. Standard financial metrics can also be tracked, including the salary and benefits for related staff.

Figure 2.9: Early and Extended Learning Indicators



Cherry Creek Schools’ office of early learning tracks the following metrics:56

Salaries of teachers, substitute teachers, and para‐educators involved in sub‐offices

Benefits paid to teachers, substitute teachers, and para‐educators Cost of purchased services, supplies, and materials for related offices Rate of identification of and service to at‐risk children

Engagement efforts for parents of young children to ensure healthy development

55 “Financial Plan,” Op. cit., p. 135. 56Ibid., p. 141.




Collier County Public Schools

Collier County Public Schools’ strategic plan lists performance indicators and objectives for the district by each district goal. One goal is to expand and enhance the district’s early learning offerings, with KPIs identified as being:57 Percentage of kindergarten students scoring at low risk for reading

difficulties Rate of implementation of family literacy programs in elementary

schools

Number of pre‐k professional learning opportunities per year

ENROLLMENT, RESEARCH AND PROGRAM EVALUATION

Here, offices of enrollment and research and program evaluation are condensed into one section based on the categorization of examined districts. Job functions vary greatly across these offices, and the majority of examined metrics focus on enrollment measures.

Figure 2.10: Enrollment, Research and Program Evaluation



11

The district offers two performance measures in the Assessment, Enrollment, and Research Office. These include:58 Maintain difference between October pupil count and audited pupil

count of less than 0.25% Increase percent of students tested with Measure of Academic

Progress (MAP)

Schoolnet for the State of Idaho

In a training manual for Idaho schools, Schoolnet lists the 10 topics benchmarked through the Student Attendance and Enrollment dashboard, including:59 Total enrollment (currently enrolled students) Daily attendance (institution attendance) Dropout rate (last school) Daily attendance (currently enrolled students) LEP (percent enrolled students) Special Ed (percent enrolled students) Chronic absences (percent enrolled students) Chronically tardy (current enrollment) Dropout rate (institution drop‐out rate) Attendance spikes (percent chance of issue)

57 “Strategic Plan 2014‐2016.” Collier County Public Schools, May 14, 2013. p. 4.

http://www.collier.k12.fl.us/superintendent/docs/Strategic%20Plan%202014‐2016.pdf 58 “Fourth Quarter Key Performance Measures for Fiscal Year 2011‐2012.” Colorado Springs School District 11. April‐

June 2012. http://www.d11.org/BusinessPlan/pm/Performance%20Measures/FY%2011‐12/2011‐2012%20Performance%20Measures%20Q4.pdf

59 “Training Manual for Idaho.” Schoolnet. May‐August 2012. https://powersource.pearsonschoolsystems.com/repository/schoolnet/isee/pdf/SN_TM_KPIs_PreFormatted.pdf





Arlington Public Schools offers a metric that measures the number of strategic partnerships by school year. The district reported 159 partnerships in the 2011‐12 academic year, and notes that it is aiming for 240‐250 partnerships by 2017.60 Strategic partnerships by school year

The district also measures enrollment and participation in a number of areas, including:61 AP/IB enrollment SAT/ACT participation Dual enrollment Pre‐k enrollment Gifted services enrollment

RISK MANAGEMENT

ActPoint KPI and the Council of the Great City Schools list a number of metrics to be measured within risk management. Some of these metrics were also included in the Finance section.

Figure 2.11: Risk Management


ActPoint KPI

ActPoint KPI offers the following 10 measures related to risk management:62

Cost of risk per student Annual workers’ compensation cost per employee Average cost per workers’ compensation claim Workers’ compensation lost work days per 1,000 employees Workers’ compensation costs as percentage of payroll Average cost per liability claim Liability claims per 1,000 students Percent of liability claims litigated Employee incident rate (incidents per 1,000 employees) Employee incident rate (incidents per 100,000 work hours)

60 “Strategic Partnerships by School Year.” Arlington Public Schools.

http://dashboard.apsva.us/idashboards/?guestuser=guest&dashID=259 61 “Student Performance Data: Program/Course Enrollment, Assessments, and Graduation.” Arlington Public Schools.

http://www.apsva.us/dashboard 62 “Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools.” ActPoint KPI. October 2012.

http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Managing%20for%20Results_2012.pdf



PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.



1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20006

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585

www.hanoverresearch.com