Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A REPORT OF THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND BENCHMARK ING PRO JECT
OCTOBER 2 0 1 4
Managing for Results in America ’s Great City Schools
RESULTS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2012-13
Copyright © 2006-2014
To Members of the Council of the Great City Schools –
We are pleased to present the 2014 edition of Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools to the membership and the public. The report accompanies the web-based system, developed by TransAct Communications, Inc. Both the report and the web-based system 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 performance indicators (KPIs) in various non-academic operations of school district management. The operational areas include finance (accounts payable, cash management, compensation, financial management, grants management, procurement, and risk management); business services (food services, maintenance and facilities, safety and security, and transportation); human resources; and information technology.
We continue to improve our quality of service as it relates to the Performance Management and Benchmarking Project. The turnaround time from initial release of surveys to the release of results has dramatically improved. We launched a new “results preview” feature that reduced the time for districts to see their own data to only about 24 hours (the time it typically takes for data to undergo quality review by CGCS) after the data are submitted. And we also established a high level of stability and continuity from year to year. The surveys used in the past two cycles were identical, making the data collection process more predictable for districts.
Most charts in this report now include data quartiles. These quartile markers are color-coded with “stoplight colors” (green, yellow, red), where appropriate, to serve as a visual clue for where you might want to set your next benchmark targets. For example, if you see you are below the “red” quartile marker, you can set your target to be above that benchmark.
The members of the Council continue to find tremendous value in this project. It provides a source of national benchmarks, and serves as an important tool for performance management. 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 performance measures that spur accountability and improvements in urban public school systems. A special thanks to Jonathon Lachlan-Haché, Special Projects Consultant 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 TRO DU C TI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Frequently Asked Questions.................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
F I N AN CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 PE R AT I ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
FOOD SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
List of KPIs in Food Services................................................................................................................................................................................70 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................71 Data Discovery.......................................................................................................................................................................................................72
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Page ii
KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................84
MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
List of KPIs in Maintenance & Operations .......................................................................................................................................................88 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................89 Data Discovery.......................................................................................................................................................................................................90 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 UM AN RE SOUR C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
List of KPIs in Human Resources ..................................................................................................................................................................... 138 Featured Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 Data Discovery.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 142 KPI Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153
I NF OR M AT I ON TE C HN OL O GY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
List of KPIs in Information Technology ......................................................................................................................................................... 156 Featured Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Data Discovery.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 KPI Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 166
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
F I N AN CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Page iv
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 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 PE R AT I ON S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
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 Si te ...........................................................................................................................................81 Figure 85 Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other .........................................................................................................................81 Figure 86 Meal Accountabi lity - Percent of Sites with POS System............................................................................................................82 Figure 87 Meal Rei mbursements - Breakfasts ................................................................................................................................................82 Figure 88 Meal Rei mbursements - Lunches.....................................................................................................................................................83
MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 89 Custodial Workload vs. Cost per Square Foot ..............................................................................................................................89
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page v
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 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 Uti lity Costs per Square Foot ...................................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 111 Uti lity Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh) .................................................................................................... 101 Figure 112 Uti lity Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU) .............................................................................................. 101 Figure 113 Uti lity 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
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Page vi
Figure 143 Bus Usage - Daily Runs per Bus .................................................................................................................................................. 131 Figure 144 Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization ............................................................................................................................................. 131 Figure 145 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retai l – Diesel ...................................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 146 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retai l – Gasoline ................................................................................................................................. 132 Figure 147 Daily Ride Ti me - General Education........................................................................................................................................ 133 Figure 148 Daily Ride Ti me - Special Education ......................................................................................................................................... 133
H UM AN RE SOUR C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Figure 149 Teacher Retention – Quarti le 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 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 NF OR M AT I ON TE C HN OL O GY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
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 Capi tal 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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 1
INTRODUCTION OVE R VI E W
Th e P erformance Management an d Benchmarking P roject
In 2002 the Council of the Great Ci ty Schools and i ts 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:
x Establish a common set of key performance indicators (KPIs ) in a range of school operations , including business services , fi-nances, human resources, and technology;
x Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation’s largest urban public school systems;
x Use the resul ts to improve operational performance in urban public schools.
Since i ts 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-dis trict managers , technical advi -sors with extensive expertise in the following functional areas : busi-
ness services (transportation, food services , maintenance and oper-ations , safety and securi ty), budget and finance (accounts payable,
financial management, grants management, risk management, compensation, procurement and cash management), information technology, and human resources.
Meth odology of KP I D evelopment
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 justi fy i ts development, and extensive documentation of the metric definitions ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. (The defini tional
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 s trategically managed by setting improvement targets.
From the KPI definitions, the surveys are developed and tested to ensure the comparability, integri ty and validity of data across school
dis tricts.
P ower In dicators an d Essential F ew
The KPIs are categorized into three levels of priori ty—Power Indica-
tors , Essential Few, and Key Indicators—with each level having its own general purpose.
x 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.
x Essential Few: Management level ; can be used by chief execu-tives to assess the performance of individual departments and
divisions.
x 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 i t is just one way
of organizing the KPIs , i t is helpful for highlighting those KPIs that are important enough to warrant more attention being paid to them.
A Note on Cost of Livin g Ad ju stments
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 Ci ty and Washington, D.C., are adjusted downward in or-der to be comparable with other ci ties . Conversely, regions where the costs of goods are lower, such as Columbus , OH, and Nashville,
TN, are adjusted upwards.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Introduction Page 2
F R E Q U E N TL Y A S K E D QU E S TI O N 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 (at top-right) 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 dis tricts that are in your peer group in order to col laborate 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 websi te. You should see a message telling you that there are data that need to be
reviewed.
It is also possible that you submitted your data after the publication deadline for this report.
In ei ther case, i t may be possible to update your data in the surveys . Once you do, your resul ts 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 s till be able to submit or edi t a survey depending on the
survey cycle. You will see a message saying “This survey is now closed” i f the survey is closed to edits . If you do not see this mes-‐sage, then updates are s till allowed for the fiscal year.
If the surveys are s till open, any data that is updated will need to be reviewed and approved by CGCS or TransAct before the resul ts can
be viewed online. You can expect your data to be reviewed within 24 hours of your submission.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 3 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
ACCO
UN
TS PA
YAB
LE
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:
x Needs better automation to process invoices
x Is overstaffed or has staff that is under-trained or under-qualified
x Should revise internal controls to improve accuracy
x Needs better oversight and reporting procedures
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 4
FIN
AN
CE
ACC
OU
NTS
PA
YAB
LE
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N A CCO U N TS P A Y A B L E 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 Defini tions” 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 Certi ficate
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 Pa id Electronically
Invoices - Percent Received Electronically
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 5 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
ACCO
UN
TS PA
YAB
LE
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S 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 dis tricts 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.
2
3
4
5
89
10
1114
15
16 1823
25
28
32
35
37
39
41
43
44
4547
48
55
56
57
5866
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Pa
yme
nts
Vo
ided
Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 6
FIN
AN
CE
ACC
OU
NTS
PA
YAB
LE
FIN
AN
CE
D A TA D I S CO VE R 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 cri tical 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 dis trict’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.
$201.4$181.2
$151.2$119.2
$92.1$86.2
$81.8$79.9
$76.8$75.6$73.5
$70.6$69.0$68.0$67.4$65.3$63.5$63.4$62.4$62.2$61.3
$59.9$58.2$57.6
$54.2$53.1$52.2$51.4$49.6$48.1
$44.9$44.8
$41.5$39.5$38.1$37.9
$34.2$33.4$32.4
$28.7$22.1$21.9
$14.5
$43.1
$59.9
$72.0
$0.0 $50.0 $100.0 $150.0 $200.0 $250.0
6101
1279
31
66283533
53rd Quartile
47444556671416494820
Median1821
26223523741554371
1st Quartile78
25301339
410265854
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$25.36$20.35
$18.81$17.17
$14.23$12.48
$12.13$11.87
$10.35$10.28$10.05
$9.50
$8.69$8.68$8.59$8.39$8.37$8.29$8.18$7.99$7.85$7.75$7.68
$7.13$6.83
$6.08$5.83$5.80
$5.20$5.11$5.05$4.79$4.50
$3.82$3.73
$3.51$3.10
$2.73$2.70$2.54$2.53$2.35$2.27$2.26$2.09$1.96$1.78
$3.62
$7.13
$9.09
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00
457733
101791525
643561647
3rd Quartile21526235
128446766
95
Median585711
31855
2372620
714
1st Quartile41
432713039
81323481054
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 7 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
ACCO
UN
TS PA
YAB
LE
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
57.8
42.8
42.2
39.6
30.0
29.1
29.1
25.3
24.0
23.7
20.0
19.7
19.0
17.1
16.2
15.9
14.7
14.0
14.0
10.8
10.1
10.0
7.0
6.8
6.2
5.0
4.8
4.2
4.2
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.0
2.6
2.0
1.2
4.7
14.0
23.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
25
58
56
45
26
67
44
7
9
3rd Quartile
35
23
4
11
16
48
21
10
79
66
Median
8
71
30
6
5
62
57
20
1st Quartile
55
14
37
3
33
32
47
13
41
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
140
232
260
325
326
438
456
467
476
508
552
618
639
641
658
675
686
720
726
729
746
762
775
801
804
825
890
925
945
955
978
1,001
1,145
1,184
1,333
1,340
1,399
1,417
1,657
1,674
1,768
1,978
2,029
2,163
2,223
3,109
3,430
629
801
1336
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
77
45
33
25
15
79
43
16
101
44
56
5
1st Quartile
21
47
52
6
66
67
3
1
9
28
62
Median
11
2
57
55
14
37
35
58
26
18
20
41
3rd Quartile
7
71
39
4
32
8
10
13
23
48
54
30
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 8
FIN
AN
CE
ACC
OU
NTS
PA
YAB
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 posi tive cash flow. However, pay-ments that are made after their due date can resul t in fees and/or harm the district’s reputation .
Figure 7 Payments Voided
This can be used to identify your void rate.
84.42%
63.18%
43.38%
42.12%
38.92%
36.43%
34.76%
31.95%
24.76%
23.79%
22.58%
22.31%
19.98%
19.32%
19.07%
18.05%
17.75%
14.52%
13.11%
11.69%
11.62%
10.78%
10.64%
9.35%
8.18%
8.13%
6.50%
4.05%
4.00%
3.11%
2.08%
1.80%
1.64%
1.51%
0.45%
0.36%
5.89%
13.82%
24.03%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
54
25
45
43
56
57
39
15
14
3rd Quartile
41
8
32
18
35
20
4
5
37
Median
16
28
11
67
71
47
9
10
58
1st Quartile
55
79
62
66
44
2
3
23
48
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
5.29%2.40%
2.24%2.13%2.08%
1.99%1.78%
1.59%1.49%1.44%
1.34%
1.23%1.23%1.17%
1.11%1.09%
1.01%0.98%0.93%0.92%0.91%
0.91%0.82%0.76%0.70%0.69%0.69%0.65%0.60%0.58%0.52%0.51%
0.51%0.46%0.41%0.40%
0.31%0.29%0.26%0.21%0.17%0.16%0.11%
0.51%
0.91%
1.29%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
15101
33284148
255254423
3rd Quartile5718163943
57971
67
Median3
32101349
16735
95658
1st Quartile11
86614214537
4524777
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 9 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
ACCO
UN
TS PA
YAB
LE
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S AP Cost p er $1 00K Revenue
Importance This measures the operational efficiency of an Ac-
counts Payable Department. Factors that Influence
x Administrative policies and procedures
x Administrative organizational structure
x Administrative leadership s tyle, decision-making process and distribution of organizational authority
x Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and competencies
x Performance management systems
x Monitoring and reporting systems
x Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
x The tota l dollar amount of invoices paid annually
x Level of automation
x 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 p er In voice
Importance This measure determines the average cost to process
an invoice. According to the Insti tute of Management, the cost to handle an invoice is the second most used metric in benchmarking
AP operations. Factors that Influence
x Administrative policies and procedures
x Administrative organizational structure
x Administrative leadership s tyle, decision-making process and distribution of organizational authority
x Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and competencies
x Performance management systems
x Monitoring and reporting systems
x Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
x The tota l dollar amount of invoices paid annually
x Level of Automation
x 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.
In voices – D ays to P rocess
Importance This measures the efficiency of the payment process. Factors that Influence
x Automation
x Size of district
x 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.
In voices P rocessed p er FTE p er Mon th
Importance This measure is a major driver of accounts payable
department costs . Lower processing rates may resul t from handling vendor invoices for small quanti ties of non-repeti tive purchases; higher processing rates may resul t from increased technology using
online purchasing and invoice systems to purchase and pay for large quantities of items from vendors.
Factors that Influence
x Administrative organizational structure
x Administrative leadership s tyle, decision-making process and dis tribution of organizational authority
x Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and competencies
x Performance management systems
x Monitoring and reporting systems
x Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
x The number of invoices paid annually
x Level of automation Calculation Total number of invoices handled by the AP depart-ment divided by total number of AP s taff (FTEs), divided by 12
months.
In voices P ast D ue at Time of P ayment
Importance Minimizing the number of payments that are past due
should be a mission of the accounts payable department. Factors that Influence
x Process controls
x Department workload management
x Overtime policy Calculation Number of invoices past due at time of payment di-vided by tota l number of invoices handled by the AP department.
P aymen ts 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.
Factors that Influence
x Administrative policies and procedures
x Administrative organizational structure
x Administrative leadership s tyle, decision-making process and distribution of organizational authority
x Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and competencies
x Performance management systems
x Monitoring and reporting systems
x Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
x The tota l number of checks written annually
x Level of automation Calculation Number of payments voided divided by total number
of AP transactions (payments).
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 10
FIN
AN
CE
ACC
OU
NTS
PA
YAB
LE
FIN
AN
CE
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
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:
x Revenue inflows and expenditure outflows , and the accuracy of cash flow projections
x School board and administrative policies requiring internal controls and transparency
x Accounting standards
x Borrowing eligibility and liquidity
x State laws and regulations
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 12
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N CA S H MA N A G E M E N T Below is the complete lis t of Power Indi cators , Essential Few and other key indicators in Cash Management. Indicators in bold are those included in
this report. (See “KPI Defini tions” 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
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 13 Cash Management
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 8 Cash/Investment Equity vs. Investment Earnings
A dis trict with more available equity might hope to create additional value through investments. This chart shows the level o f equity compared
with the level of investment earnings.
(For visualization purposes, the following districts a re not shown: Dis trict 48, $110,211 equity, $1,283 earnings ; dis trict 39, $94,746 equity, $150 earnings.)
1428
71
6
13
45
23
55
54
20 35
41
37
12
44
67
49
10
3353
56
47
3052
2566
8
435
221
62
16
101
58
1
18379
4 $-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000
Inve
stm
ent E
arn
ings
pe
r $1
00K
Re
venu
e
Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 14
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
D A TA D I S CO VE R 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 dis trict 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 dis trict’s level of cash liquidi ty against the district-es tablished (internal) liquidi ty baseline. Twelve (12) months means that the district did not fall below i ts liquidity baseline floor within
the fi scal year.
$28,794$15,434$15,239
$11,895$11,428
$10,642$8,856
$8,439$7,375
$5,765$5,260
$4,712$1,358
$5$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 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000
3582316373062
1018
13567125
66643
72021493967
42
41521048
554184744352833795312
14514
District Value
55
68
910
1112121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212
0 5 10
6247
101673513
86
18775816125332795533237128
34830
91139491041
24
2543565714376620
74454
5
District Value
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 15 Cash Management
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
$0
$0
$9
$19
$22
$22
$23
$25
$28
$31
$35
$38
$39
$47
$49
$50
$54
$57
$60
$73
$83
$87
$91
$91
$93
$101
$102
$104
$133
$150
$164
$188
$200
$289
$295
$303
$572
$577
$750
$944
$1,283
$32
$78
$160
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400
47
2
54
14
30
21
18
23
49
55
28
1st Quartile
4
52
25
3
79
58
62
66
71
8
Median
13
12
53
35
20
43
33
5
101
39
3rd Quartile
67
41
10
16
56
6
45
37
44
1
48
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.00%0.00%0.02%0.05%0.08%0.09%0.10%0.11%0.11%0.13%0.14%0.14%
0.15%0.15%0.16%0.18%0.18%0.18%0.24%0.25%0.26%0.26%0.26%0.31%
0.31%0.35%0.35%0.40%0.40%0.40%0.41%0.46%0.51%
0.59%0.66%
0.73%
0.73%0.84%0.84%0.84%
1.05%1.16%
1.26%1.30%1.35%
1.55%1.66%
3.33%
0.15%
0.31%
0.73%
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50%
247142128
43
5218
97179
1st Quartile3523392066
83019
55512
101Median
133353435410586216564941
3rd Quartile571125374548
632677744
1
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 16
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
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 tota l operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.
$34
$3,803
$4,624
$7,272
$7,948
$10,831
$11,659
$11,672
$12,133
$12,164
$15,479
$15,591
$19,830
$24,037
$25,516
$25,675
$25,884
$26,752
$28,345
$29,388
$32,159
$32,846
$33,967
$34,522
$39,679
$39,911
$40,199
$40,208
$42,800
$43,658
$45,041
$45,277
$47,840
$49,559
$50,432
$51,992
$54,596
$55,475
$56,771
$61,896
$68,245
$94,746
$110,211
$15,535
$32,846
$46,558
$0 $30,000 $60,000 $90,000 $120,000
54
49
25
47
30
55
62
2
67
58
23
1st Quartile
7
18
6
43
41
53
13
1
33
66
12
Median
52
79
28
4
5
8
101
71
21
44
3rd Quartile
3
10
56
20
45
14
16
35
37
39
48
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$120.5
$105.5
$88.6
$70.5
$57.8
$35.4
$35.2
$33.8
$30.1
$27.2
$26.7
$25.5
$25.5
$25.3
$25.0
$24.5
$23.5
$22.1
$21.2
$19.4
$18.6
$18.2
$17.8
$17.8
$17.5
$17.3
$15.7
$15.3
$14.4
$12.2
$10.5
$9.9
$8.8
$5.8
$4.0
$3.4
$3.3
$1.3
$14.6
$20.3
$27.1
$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 $140.0
12
33
56
62
5
28
66
44
1
101
3rd Quartile
41
25
7
13
79
37
49
39
52
Median
8
35
48
10
71
23
21
43
54
1st Quartile
3
67
4
18
58
55
14
45
30
53
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 17 Cash Management
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Cash Flow - S h ort-Term Loans p er $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.
Factors that Influence
x The timing of revenue inflows and expenditure outflows and the arbitrage ability to cover the borrowing
x Abili ty to meet required spending for tax-exempt borrowing el-igibility
x 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
In vestment Earnin gs p er $1 00K Reven ue
Importance This measure analyzes the risk of the investments versus i ts projected returns. Factors that Influence
x Revenue types
x Types of receipt percentages
x Investments internal or external
x Investment policy Calculation Total investment earnings divided by total district op-erating revenue, divided by $100,000.
Cash Flow - Mon ths ab ove Liq uidity Baselin e
Importance This measure hi ghlights cash-flow performance rela-tive to an established minimum liquidity level.
Factors that Influence
x Cash management policies and s trategies
x Bus iness tracking systems Calculation Twelve months minus the number of months that the dis trict was below the target liquidity baseline.
Cash / Investment Eq uity p er $1 00K 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.
In vestment Earnin gs as P ercen t of Cash/Equity Investmen t
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 S taf fing Cost p er $100K Revenue
Importance This measure helps evaluate s taffing costs.
Calculation Total Treasury personnel costs divided by total district operating revenue, divided by $100,000.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 18
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 19 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPEN
SATIO
N
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:
x Needs better automation to improve accuracy and reduce workload
x Should consider switching to software that is more accurate and efficient
x Has problems with time management or workload management, or should have clearer policies around timelines
x Has staff that is under-skil led or under-trained
x Should adopt a policy to increase direct deposits
Additionally, the following factors should be considered when evaluating performance levels:
x Number of contracts requiring compliance
x Frequency of payrolls
x Complexity of state/local reporting requirements
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 20
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPE
NSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N CO M P E N S A TI O N 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 members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.
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)
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
Pay Checks - Direct Deposits
Pay Checks - Percent Off-Cycle
Payrol l Cost per $100K Revenue
Payrol l Outsourcing as Percent of Costs
Payrol l Staff - Cost Per FTE
Payrol l Staff - District FTEs per Payroll FTE
Payrol l Staffing Ratio - Clerical and Support
Payrol l Staffing Ratio - Managers
Payrol l Staffing Ratio - Professionals
Payrol l 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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 21 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPEN
SATIO
N
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S 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 dis tricts ’ s tudent enrollments. Several of the largest districts appear to dominate the bottom-left quadrant (the most cost-efficient), whereas more medium-s ized districts are in the middle (average cost efficiency) and top-right (the least cost-efficient).
(For visualization purposes , some dis tricts are not displayed: District 12 at $566, $10.26; district 6 at $311, $12.86; dis trict 15 at $424, $9.81; and dis trict 79 at $427, $7.15.)
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
16
18
21
23
25
26
28
30
32
33
35
37
39
41
43
44
45
47
48
49
52
53
54
56
57
66
67
71
77
101
$-
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
Pa
yro
ll C
ost p
er P
ay C
hec
k
Payroll Cost per $100K Spend
How does your district compare with similarly sized districts?
How much should district size matter as you set benchmark tar-gets for these measures?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 22
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPE
NSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 16 Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month
This is a productivi ty measure that compares your s taffing 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.
542587616630640660715745749
938945960
1,178
1,1831,1891,2081,2111,3121,3151,3501,3691,4091,4611,584
1,6001,8801,8981,9421,9972,0292,0502,054
2,3132,3282,430
2,5712,714
2,7542,885
3,1893,2723,314
3,4783,892
4,2064,2634,2744,341
5,185
1,178
1,600
2,714
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
101771512
61
7911
567625620
1st Quartile4
577137164421
72
4525
Median41
32823354366534914481033
3rd Quartile89
18302654321358523947
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$566$427$424
$311$292
$265$248
$235$233$229$224$218
$212$201
$186$183$182
$167$165
$158$157$155$154$154
$145$144$143$139$138$133$131$131$131$128$125
$115$114$109$108$106$103
$86$62$56$56$55
$37
$120
$154
$215
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
127915
621162377
4351149
3rd Quartile513
194456576714483728
Median33
266
10145105371
73043
1st Quartile39184113
825
95232265447
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 23 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPEN
SATIO
N
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
$12.89$10.26
$9.81$9.05
$8.42$8.33
$7.61$7.15$7.15
$6.71$6.35
$6.11
$6.08$5.91
$5.64$5.06
$4.79$4.75$4.62$4.62
$4.47$4.11
$3.88$3.83
$3.76$3.75
$3.49$3.34$3.30$3.21$3.10
$2.93$2.87
$2.48$2.36$2.24
$2.21$2.20$2.17$2.10
$1.89$1.75$1.66$1.56$1.46$1.32$1.24$1.23
$0.82
$2.22
$3.80
$6.10
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00
61215
1011
7716
5791162563rd…6721
43743
75735204528
3Median
667141234844
253493325
91st…393014
8101854585226321347
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
498.6
256.4
201.0
166.6
163.9
144.4
115.1
110.7
106.0
102.6
90.5
85.0
68.7
61.5
59.4
53.1
41.4
38.0
36.8
30.2
26.7
22.0
21.9
16.2
13.8
13.7
12.0
11.7
10.3
10.2
8.0
7.9
6.0
4.6
3.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.0
0.2
0.1
8.0
26.7
90.5
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
3
19
54
62
55
33
28
35
41
67
37
3rd Quartile
13
11
101
18
15
52
16
1
56
5
Median
47
14
4
30
12
71
57
43
66
58
1st Quartile
48
79
7
53
8
39
32
9
44
26
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 24
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPE
NSA
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
225.1
127.9
102.8
65.5
65.0
58.5
55.7
52.0
50.1
42.3
39.8
37.9
32.2
31.0
30.1
28.9
28.8
27.5
27.2
18.3
18.3
16.3
14.1
14.1
13.9
13.7
12.9
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.0
8.7
8.1
7.1
5.6
2.7
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.1
10.8
18.3
40.4
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
5
77
52
25
57
3
28
71
10
37
3rd Quartile
21
30
54
4
53
6
34
11
49
58
Median
23
14
15
18
35
26
41
39
45
1
1st Quartile
101
2
8
16
79
44
7
66
67
48
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0%
7%
7%
23%
23%
23%
27%
29%
35%
35%
42%
57%
69%
90%
90%
94%
110%
122%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
5
66
101
37
1st Quartile
12
16
4
26
Median
32
39
54
11
3rd Quartile
55
8
52
Address or PersonalInformation
Direct Deposits
W-4 (WithholdingAllowances)
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 25 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPEN
SATIO
N
Figure 22 W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s)
Figure 23 Pay Checks - Di rect Deposits
This is the percent of pay checks issued that were direct deposits.
0.894%
0.426%
0.229%
0.216%
0.157%
0.075%
0.071%
0.063%
0.062%
0.048%
0.045%
0.039%
0.038%
0.038%
0.035%
0.034%
0.034%
0.031%
0.030%
0.028%
0.027%
0.023%
0.022%
0.019%
0.018%
0.016%
0.016%
0.012%
0.011%
0.011%
0.010%
0.010%
0.010%
0.010%
0.008%
0.006%
0.015%
0.030%
0.051%
0.000% 0.200% 0.400% 0.600% 0.800% 1.000%
21
20
39
62
16
23
79
32
34
3rd Quartile
37
3
5
44
10
56
58
55
52
Median
30
101
11
48
47
66
43
33
12
1st Quartile
28
54
13
8
53
7
35
67
14
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
17.0%47.7%
59.9%70.5%71.3%73.3%73.6%74.3%76.4%76.5%76.9%
80.9%81.1%
82.7%83.2%83.4%85.2%85.9%86.4%87.4%87.5%89.1%89.1%90.2%91.3%
92.1%93.6%94.7%95.2%95.3%95.9%96.0%96.1%96.3%97.2%97.7%98.5%
98.6%98.8%99.1%99.1%99.1%99.2%99.3%99.5%99.6%99.7%99.7%100.0%100.0%
81.5%
91.7%
98.6%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
62491811
6772545
73057
24
1st Quartile6716
5135647
12021
1019
26Median
79525839
315
83335445410
3rd Quartile23416653141228483271554337
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 26
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MPE
NSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S P ay Ch ecks P rocessed p er FTE p er Mon th
Importance This measure is a driver of a payroll department's
costs . Lower processing rates may resul t 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 s taff (FTEs), divided by 12 months.
P ayroll Cost p er $100K S pend
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. Factors that Influence
x Number of employees processing the payroll
x Ski ll level of the employees processing payroll
x Types of software/hardware used to process the payroll
x Processes and procedures in place to collect payroll data
x Number of employees being paid
x Number of contracts requiring compliance
x Frequency of payrolls
x Complexity of s tate/local reporting requirements Calculation Total Payroll personnel costs plus total payroll non-personnel costs divided by total dis trict payroll spend, divided by $100,000.
P ayroll Cost p er P ay Ch eck
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. Factors that Influence
x Number of employees processing the payroll
x Ski ll level of the employees processing payroll
x Types of software/hardware used to process the payroll
x Processes and procedures in place to collect payroll data
x Number of employees being paid
x Number of contracts requiring compliance
x Frequency of payrolls
x Complexity of s tate/local reporting requirements Calculation Total Payroll personnel costs plus total payroll non-personnel costs divided by tota l number of payroll checks.
P ay Ch ecks - Errors p er $10K P ay Ch ecks
Importance High error rates can indicate a lack of adequate con-trols .
Factors that Influence
x Process controls
x Staff turnover
x Staff experience
x Payment system
x Level of automation Calculation Total number of paycheck errors divided by total number of paychecks handled by Payroll department, divided by $10,000.
P ayroll S taff - O vertime Hours p er P ayroll FTE
Importance This measures the efficiency and effectiveness of the payroll department. Excessive overtime can be an indication that
s taffing levels are inadequate or that processes and procedures need to be revised and s treamlined to make the work mo re effi-cient. An absence of any overtime may indicate s taffing levels that
are too high for the volume of work the department is processing. Calculation Total number of Payroll overtime hours divided by to-
ta l number of Payroll staff (FTEs).
P erson nel Recor d S elf-Service Usage p er D istrict FTE
Importance This measures the level of automation of the payroll department, which can reduce error rates and processing costs.
Factors that Influence
x Software used may not provide employee self-service
x Employee self-service modules of the software may not be in use
x Implementation of these modules may be too costly
x 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 tota l number of district employees (FTEs).
W - 2 Correction Rate (W -2c’s)
Importance W-2(c) forms are the resul t of errors in the initial W-2 fi l ing. Corrections can be costly in terms of s taff time.
Factors that Influence
x Process controls
x Qual ity controls Calculation Total number of W-2(c) forms issued divided by total
number of W-2 forms issued.
P ay Ch ecks - D irect D eposits
Importance Use of di rect deposit can increase the levels of auto-mation and decrease costs.
Factors that Influence
x Payment systems
x Pay check policy Calculation Total number of pay checks paid through di rect de-
pos it divided by the tota l number of pay checks i ssued.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 27 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIAL M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
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:
x School board and administrative policies and procedures
x Budget development and management processes
x Unrestricted fund balance use policies and procedures
x Operating funds definition
Additionally, other conditions and factors should be considered as you evaluate your district’s financial health and forecast for the future:
x Revenue experience, variability, and forecasts
x Expenditure trends, volatil ity, and projections
x Per capita income levels
x Real property values
x Local retail sales and business receipts
x Commercial acreage and business property market value
x Changes in local employment base
x Changes in residential development trends
x Restrictions on legal reserves
x Age of district infrastructure
x Monitoring and reporting systems
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 28
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N FI N A N CI A L MA N A G E M E N T 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 Defini tions” 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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 29 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIAL M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S 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 dis trict was able to do with those borrowed funds. Often borrowing is done in order to make
worthwhile investments, such as school buildings.
7
28
71
6
13
23
55
54
20
35
41
12 44
6710
39
33
3447
30
52
66
48
843
5
21
62101
58
1
18
3
79
4
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%
De
bt
Serv
icin
g C
ost
s R
atio
to
Dis
tric
t R
eve
ne
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?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 30
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
D A TA D I S CO VE R 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.
268.4%
188.4%
168.4%
150.8%
146.6%
137.6%
132.3%
126.9%
125.4%
123.4%
113.3%
102.1%
94.1%
92.8%
90.8%
87.5%
80.7%
78.8%
76.6%
70.7%
68.3%
68.3%
59.8%
59.2%
46.9%
40.6%
39.8%
35.7%
34.6%
31.0%
27.4%
19.8%
19.3%
16.5%
13.5%
8.3%
0.2%
0.2%
34.9%
73.7%
120.9%
0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0% 300.0%
37
41
23
39
45
54
20
8
101
58
3rd Quartile
5
33
48
13
47
71
7
52
4
Median
3
35
10
21
43
67
79
44
53
1st Quartile
66
30
12
34
28
1
62
6
55
18
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
29.5%
17.7%
17.1%
15.2%
13.8%
13.5%
12.0%
11.7%
11.5%
10.6%
10.0%
9.6%
9.5%
8.6%
8.5%
8.0%
7.9%
7.5%
6.6%
6.3%
5.5%
5.4%
4.9%
4.4%
4.4%
3.8%
3.1%
2.9%
2.5%
2.4%
1.0%
0.7%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
3.0%
7.0%
10.8%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
23
52
5
1
41
39
20
4
7
3rd Quartile
71
43
8
58
13
54
33
3
30
Median
48
47
10
34
67
21
35
66
79
1st Quartile
44
12
28
101
6
62
2
18
55
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 31 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIAL M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
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-ta in 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 i f the need arises, especially i f they are unassigned.
0.8%
3.1%
3.9%
4.2%
4.9%
6.0%
6.5%
6.8%
8.0%
8.4%
8.5%
8.7%
9.6%
9.9%
11.2%
12.6%
12.6%
13.0%
13.2%
13.4%
13.4%
13.8%
13.8%
14.4%
14.5%
15.3%
16.2%
16.3%
16.8%
17.8%
18.5%
20.1%
21.7%
22.1%
22.4%
26.0%
28.3%
30.1%
32.6%
32.7%
37.2%
41.4%
49.3%
51.8%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
6
49
62
16
2
13
14
55
101
30
1st Quartile
8
47
67
1
5
21
4
25
44
66
18
Median
28
56
53
23
10
52
7
43
54
3
3rd Quartile
37
71
45
48
39
20
12
34
35
41
Unrestricted
Restricted
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
0.8%
1.6%
2.1%
2.7%
2.9%
3.0%
3.6%
4.6%
5.4%
5.8%
6.0%
6.2%
6.2%
7.9%
8.4%
8.7%
9.4%
10.0%
10.3%
10.7%
10.8%
10.8%
10.8%
11.1%
11.4%
11.7%
13.0%
13.1%
13.6%
13.8%
14.2%
15.9%
16.9%
17.1%
17.4%
18.1%
18.4%
21.1%
24.1%
25.0%
25.4%
27.9%
29.0%
33.8%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
6
49
62
16
55
2
13
14
4
101
1st Quartile
8
30
47
25
67
1
18
5
53
66
37
Median
21
44
56
7
28
23
12
10
52
20
3rd Quartile
54
3
43
41
45
71
35
48
39
34
Unassigned
Assigned
Committed
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Have your fund balance levels been enough to avoid cash flow and/or programming problems?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 32
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 29 Expenditure Efficiency – Adopted Budget Di fference from Actual
A ratio above zero means that the district spent less than expected.
Figure 30 Revenue Efficiency – Adopted Budget Di fference from Actual
A ratio below zero means that the dis trict received more revenue
than expected.
-36.5%
-21.9%
-21.0%
-21.0%
-18.2%
-16.2%
-15.8%
-11.7%
-9.8%
-8.0%
-7.6%
-6.4%
-3.5%
-2.8%
-2.0%
-1.4%
-0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.4%
1.7%
1.9%
2.3%
2.7%
2.8%
3.6%
4.2%
6.0%
6.0%
6.3%
9.5%
11.5%
12.8%
19.5%
27.5%
-40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0%
62
7
67
12
58
16
43
79
41
25
4
6
20
10
30
23
18
52
13
2
35
49
47
34
101
53
71
3
14
39
8
21
45
1
56
66
48
5
44
28
District Value
23.6%
21.7%
12.9%
11.0%
8.6%
7.8%
4.5%
3.3%
2.9%
2.7%
1.8%
1.6%
1.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
-1.0%
-1.2%
-1.3%
-1.4%
-1.5%
-1.6%
-3.1%
-5.4%
-6.0%
-6.7%
-7.8%
-9.2%
-9.4%
-11.0%
-11.1%
-12.1%
-14.0%
-14.8%
-18.9%
-20.1%
-22.0%
-23.5%
-24.3%
-25.8%
-36.6%
-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
101
28
53
5
44
66
8
56
54
1
49
79
2
13
71
3
21
39
52
14
47
10
30
18
23
34
6
20
45
25
48
4
37
58
41
43
35
7
16
12
67
62
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 33 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIAL M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
Figure 31 Expenditure Efficiency – Final Budget Di fference from Actual
A ratio above zero means that the district spent less than expected.
Figure 32 Revenue Efficiency – Final Budget Di fference from Actual
A ratio below zero means that the dis trict received more revenue
than expected.
-26.6%
-22.3%
-21.9%
-19.4%
-18.4%
-15.8%
-10.1%
-8.6%
-7.8%
-6.3%
-3.8%
-3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.6%
2.2%
4.0%
4.9%
6.1%
6.4%
7.0%
7.3%
7.4%
8.3%
9.2%
9.5%
9.7%
10.9%
11.1%
12.0%
12.8%
13.2%
13.3%
15.3%
17.9%
18.2%
22.1%
36.5%
-30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
62
12
7
67
58
43
41
16
79
4
6
20
35
52
71
18
47
25
13
1
30
101
53
45
8
23
55
49
14
66
3
54
21
2
56
34
5
10
39
44
48
28
District Value
29.6%
26.0%
13.0%
11.5%
9.8%
8.1%
7.8%
7.8%
7.7%
7.6%
6.9%
6.0%
5.1%
5.0%
4.7%
4.4%
4.1%
3.5%
2.7%
1.2%
0.9%
0.7%
0.0%
-1.0%
-1.2%
-1.4%
-1.5%
-2.3%
-2.9%
-4.3%
-5.2%
-8.8%
-9.6%
-12.8%
-17.1%
-17.3%
-18.9%
-20.2%
-21.3%
-22.0%
-22.9%
-28.0%
-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
28
101
2
5
49
44
66
34
56
8
21
39
10
55
14
54
3
79
23
13
1
71
25
48
52
47
37
18
20
6
53
45
4
41
16
58
43
35
67
7
12
62
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 34
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 33 Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish
242240
236226
213212210
201198
194186
180180
180180
173173172172171170169169
165164164
163163163
159158157
144144141138137
137128
123121
115115
10277
7265
6037
31
137
164
180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
541558522044
2141149713018
3rd Quartile574379
34
48351321
5626732
Median47121628
10125233741
939
1st Quartile533455
78
451
56106619
633
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Are you satisfied with the length of time it took to publish your annual financial report?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 35 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIAL M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S D eb t P rincipal Ratio to D istrict Revenue
Importance This evaluates the total level of debt that the district currently owes relative to i ts annual revenue. Factors that Influence
x Tax base and growth projections
x Capital projects
x Levels of state and grant funding
x Interest rates (cost of borrowing)
x Fund balance ratio Calculation Total debt principal divided by total debt servicing costs .
D eb t S ervicing Costs Ratio to D istrict Reven ue
Importance This evaluates the annual amount paid in debt servic-ing relative to annual district revenue.
Factors that Influence
x Interest rates (cost of borrowing)
x Level of debt
x Tax base and growth projections
x Revenue sources to pay down debt
x Fund balance ratio Calculation Total debt servicing costs divided by total district op-erating revenue.
Fu n d Balance Ratio to D istrict Revenue
Importance This measure assesses the fiscal heal th of the district supported by the general fund, including financial capaci ty to meet
unexpected or planned future needs . A high percentage indicates greater fiscal health and financial capaci ty to meet unexpected or future needs . A low percentage indicates risk for the dis trict in its
abi lity to meet unexpected changes in revenues or expenses. Factors that Influence
x School board and administrative policies and procedures
x Administrative leadership and decision making processes
x Budget development and management processes
x Revenue experience, variability, and forecasts
x Expenditure trends, volatility, and projections
x Planned uses of fund balance
x Restrictions on legal reserves
x Unreserved fund balance use policies and procedures
x Local fiscal authority policies and procedures
x Operating funds definition Calculation Total fund balance that was unassigned divided by to-ta l district operating expenditures.
Exp en diture Ef ficiency
Importance This measure assesses efficiency in spending against the final approved general fund expenditure budget. A high per-centage nea ring 100% indicates efficient utilization of appropriated
resources. A low percentage, or a percentage signi ficantly exceeding 100%, indicates major variance from the final approved budget and
signi fies that the budget was inaccurate, misaligned with the a ctual needs of the school system, signi ficantly impacted by unforeseen factors , and/or potentially mismanaged. Dis tricts experiencing a low
percentage or a significantly high percentage should thoroughly in-vestigate the causes for the variances and reevaluate thei r budget development and management processes to improve accuracy and
alignment. Dis tricts having significant variances in expenditures to budget when measured against the original budget, but near 100%
when measured against the final amended budge t, are monitoring and adjusting thei r budgets during the year to meet the changing conditions of the dis trict. Such dis tricts should also consider reevalu-
ating thei r budget development and management processes to im-prove accuracy and alignment.
Factors that Influence
x School board and administrative policies and procedures
x Budget development and management processes
x Administrative organizational s tructure, leadership s tyles , deci-s ion making processes, and distribution of authority
x Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and competencies
x Performance management, monitoring, and reporting systems
x General Fund definition Calculation Total budgeted expenditures in the final budget di-vided by tota l district operating expenditures.
Reven ue Ef ficiency
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 signi ficantly exceeding 100%, indicates major variance from the final approved budget and
signi fies that the budget was inaccurate, misaligned with the actual needs of the school system, signi ficantly impacted by unforeseen factors , and/or potentially mismanaged. Dis tricts e xperiencing a low
percentage or a significantly high percentage should thoroughly in-vestigate the causes for the variances and reevaluate thei r budget
development and management processes to improve accuracy and alignment. Districts having signi ficant 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 thei r budgets during the year to meet the changing condi-tions of the district. Such districts should also consider reevaluating
thei r budget development and management processes to improve accuracy and alignment.
Factors that Influence
x School board and administrative policies and procedures
x Budget development and management processes
x Administrative organizational s tructure, leadership s tyles , deci-s ion making processes and distribution of authority
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 36
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
x Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
x Performance management, monitoring, and reporting systems
x General Fund definition
Calculation Total budgeted revenue in the final budget divided by tota l district operating revenue.
An n u al Fin ancial Rep ort – D ays to P u blish
Importance Timely publication of annual financial reports is an
important part of responsible financial management and govern-ance.
Factors that Influence
x Reporting processes
x Time management and goal-setting
x Staff experience and credentials Calculation Number of calendar days to publish the annual finan-cia l report, from end-of-year date to publishing date.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
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
availabil ity 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:
x Monitoring and reporting systems
x Escalation procedures to address timeliness
x Administrative leadership style, decision-making process, and distribution of organizational authority
x School Board, administrative policies, and management process
x Procurement regulations and policies
x Reserve funds to supplant the risks of high grant dependency
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 38
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N G R A N TS MA N A G E M E N T 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 Defini tions” 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
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 39 Grants Management
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS MA
NA
GEM
ENT
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 34 Grant Funds vs. Grant-Funded Staff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
13
14
16
20
23
26
28
30
33
35
39
41
4748
52
54
56
58
62
66
67
79
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Gra
nt-
Fun
ded
Sta
ff a
s P
erce
nt o
f Dis
tric
t FTE
s
Grant Funds as Percent of District Budget
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 40
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 35 Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget
This answers the basic question, “How much of dis trict 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 s taff.
6.6%
6.9%
9.0%
9.9%
10.0%
10.1%
10.5%
10.9%
10.9%
11.0%
11.2%
11.4%
11.5%
12.1%
12.2%
12.3%
12.6%
12.8%
12.9%
12.9%
13.3%
13.6%
13.6%
13.6%
14.8%
15.2%
15.3%
15.3%
16.0%
16.9%
17.3%
17.4%
18.2%
18.7%
19.2%
19.8%
20.0%
21.0%
29.1%
31.0%
33.8%
37.0%
43.1%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
33
7
13
48
49
44
35
3
41
47
1st Quartile
1
71
79
66
4
43
8
14
52
45
39
Median
20
5
28
26
10
53
2
58
54
18
3rd Quartile
23
34
12
30
62
67
16
56
6
Federal
State
Local
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
44.9%
44.1%
38.9%
37.4%
30.3%
26.4%
21.0%
20.0%
18.5%
17.3%
14.8%
13.7%
13.4%
13.1%
12.9%
12.0%
11.8%
11.3%
11.3%
10.9%
10.7%
10.6%
10.6%
10.6%
9.8%
9.7%
9.5%
9.5%
9.2%
9.0%
8.8%
8.5%
7.9%
7.6%
9.7%
11.5%
18.2%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
101
16
67
56
12
62
6
10
58
3rd Quartile
54
23
41
30
2
79
35
26
Median
32
1
28
5
4
66
20
39
1st Quartile
13
3
52
7
47
33
48
14
8
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Does your level of grant fund dependency expose your district to risk?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 41 Grants Management
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.
$23,444 (not shown)
$15,853 (not shown)
$9,119
$7,397
$5,970
$1,817
$1,187
$1,111
$972
$972
$777
$642
$574
$572
$514
$505
$503
$499
$408
$408
$231
$208
$195
$178
$163
$145
$110
$110
$104
$104
$53
$42
$40
$38
$10
$8
$4
$0
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000
20
71
45
48
28
44
30
39
14
3rd Quartile
33
15
41
19
13
8
32
79
43
Median
1
56
53
62
58
5
101
77
35
1st Quartile
52
11
12
4
54
9
18
26
Federal State Local 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 42
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 38 Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total
This answers the question, “How much of a district’s grant funding
comes from competi tive 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 i t takes before spending begins
on a grant project after i t has been approved by the grantor. It is an efficiency measure for the office that processes grant approvals.
0%
0%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
7%
8%
8%
9%
9%
10%
12%
12%
12%
12%
13%
13%
15%
16%
16%
17%
19%
20%
20%
21%
22%
22%
23%
25%
34%
34%
35%
37%
4%
12%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
6
47
14
15
58
11
67
33
66
53
1st Quartile
62
9
10
30
56
4
101
8
13
18
Median
20
79
23
48
12
35
39
19
1
3
3rd Quartile
32
43
5
45
49
7
26
52
71
54
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
128.0
73.4
65.5
63.9
60.0
59.2
45.0
35.0
34.2
33.6
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
26.0
20.3
20.0
20.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
11.0
10.0
10.0
6.7
5.0
5.0
1.7
1.3
0.5
10.5
26.0
34.6
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0
14
71
18
101
20
4
15
79
3rd Quartile
26
12
5
47
7
62
30
19
Median
39
53
10
48
3
35
49
1st Quartile
58
1
66
8
43
33
54
32
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Should it be easier for district personnel to use their grant funds?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 43 Grants Management
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Figure 40 Grants Receivables Aging
This is the average number of days i t takes to invoice and receive
grant reimbursements.
60
60
60
53
50
42
41
38
38
38
36
35
34
30
29
26
25
25
24
24
21
20
19
16
15
14
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
9
9
3
1
- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
7
58
62
56
12
18
33
1
3rd Quartile
4
52
26
45
30
8
3
9
10
Median
39
101
43
19
14
53
48
71
1st Quartile
13
20
35
5
66
28
79
47
32
Days to Process Days to Receive Payment
1st Quartile Median
3rd Quartile
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?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 44
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Gran t Fu nds as P ercent of Total Bu dget
Importance Shows the magnitude of a district's reliance on addi-
tional and alternative funding sources. Factors that Influence
x District demographics that drive eligibility for categorical grants
x Philosophy, policies, procedures embra ced by a district in iden-ti fying and pursuing grants
x Local economic conditions Calculation Total grant fund expenditures divided by total district operating revenue.
Gran t-Funded S taff as P ercent of D istrict FTEs
Importance This measure shows the level of dependency on grant funds for district personnel funding.
Calculation Number of grant-funded s taff (FTEs) divided by total number of district employees (FTEs).
Retu rned Grant Fu nds p er $1 00K Grant Revenue
Importance Identify and improve cycle time of grant-fund availa-
bili ty. Ensure that no delays exis t 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 , s tate, and local governments, as well as other sources such as foundations.
Factors that Influence
x Who monitors awards and the grant program coordinator to assure timeliness
x Timeliness of award notification from federal and state entities
x School board and administrative policies; as well as budget de-velopment and management process and procurement regula-tions and policies
x 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
x A low number of days between the date the budget is approved until the date of the fi rs t expenditure would indicate an effec-tive use of grant funds
x A high number of days would indicate an ineffective use of sup-plemental resources that could limit or reduce the district’s
abi lity to obtain additional revenues in the future Calculation Total grant funds returned (not spent) divided by total grant funds expenditures over 100,000.
Comp etitive Gran t Fu nds as P ercent of Total
Importance This can be used to evaluate the level of competi tive grant funding in a district. Competi tive grant funds can provide use-
ful resources , but can be di fficul t for long-term planning and can ra ise concerns about sustainability.
Factors that Influence
x Experience and network of grant writers
x Level of focus on obtaining competitive grants
x Vis ion of district mission Calculation Grant funds expenditures that are from competi tive
grants divided by tota l grant funds expenditures.
D ays to Access New Grant Fu nds
Importance Identify and improve cycle time of grant fund availa-bili ty. Ensure that no delays exis t 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 , s tate, and local governments, as well as other sources such as foundations. Factors that Influence
x Who monitors awards and the grant program coordinator to assure timeliness
x Timeliness of award notification from federal and state entities
x School board and administrative policies, as well as budget de-velopment and management process and procurement regula-
tions and policies
x 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
x A low number of days between the date the budget is approved until the date of the fi rs t expenditure would indicate an effec-
tive use of grant funds
x A high number of days would indicate an ineffective use of sup-plemental resources that could limit or reduce the district’s abi lity to obtain additional revenues in the future
Calculation Total aggregate number of days that passed after new grant award notification dates to the fi rst expenditure date di-vided by the tota l number of new grant awards in the fiscal year.
Gran ts Receivables Ag ing
Importance Aging greater than 30 days may indicate that expend-i tures 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.
Factors that Influence
x Funding agency reimbursement process
x Level of automation
x Complexity of grant
x Frequency of billing
x Payrol l 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 tota l number of grant receivable invoices.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 45 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
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:
x Procurement policies, particularly those delegating purchase authority and P-Card usage
x Utilization of technology to manage a high volume of l ow dollar transactions
x e-Procurement and e-Catalog processes util ized by district
x P-Card reconcil iation software and P-Card database interface with a district’s ERP system
x Budget, purchasing, and audit controls, including P-card credit-limit controls on single transaction and
monthly l imits
x Utilization of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs)
x Degree of requirement consolidation and standardization
x Use of P-Cards on construction projects and paying large dollar vendors , e.g., utilities, textbook publish-
ers, food, technology projects
x Number of highly complex procurements, especially construction
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 46
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N P R O CU R E M E N 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
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
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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 Uti lization P-Card Average Transaction Amount P-Card Single Transaction Limit
PALT for Invi tations for Bids - (A) Days to Prepare PALT for Invi tations for Bids - (B) Days of Advertising and Open Bid-
ding PALT for Invi tations 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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 47 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 41 Cost per Purchase Order vs. Cost per Spend
The s ize of the circles represent relative district s ize by s tudent enrollment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
19
23
32
33
37
39
44
45
47
48
49
52
53
54
55
67
71
77
101
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
Co
st p
er
$10
0K S
pen
d
Cost per Purchase Order
Is your procurement department cost-effective?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 48
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
D A TA D I S CO VE R 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.
$228
$160
$134
$127
$122
$120
$117
$114
$100
$94
$93
$86
$86
$85
$71
$67
$66
$61
$58
$55
$52
$51
$46
$43
$41
$40
$40
$39
$39
$38
$36
$36
$35
$35
$35
$32
$27
$25
$24
$24
$22
$21
$18
$35
$51
$90
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
5
7
67
71
3
4
33
23
2
15
32
3rd Quartile
16
66
101
45
9
77
37
52
44
35
8
Median
19
48
26
14
47
58
11
49
20
6
1st Quartile
18
41
1
10
57
55
53
13
39
12
54
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$277
$276
$198
$189
$184
$162
$160
$156
$152
$144
$143
$140
$134
$131
$119
$116
$113
$109
$103
$102
$101
$100
$95
$95
$93
$92
$91
$88
$82
$81
$76
$74
$72
$65
$57
$56
$55
$52
$29
$81
$102
$144
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
67
56
23
28
101
66
7
2
4
5
3rd Quartile
16
14
71
39
48
1
6
18
20
53
Median
47
37
8
10
3
41
35
33
44
1st Quartile
45
13
52
49
30
26
55
54
12
58
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 49 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
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 s trategic sourcing relative to the to-
ta l amount of purchasing.
0.2%
0.6%
0.6%
1.6%
1.9%
2.0%
2.4%
3.5%
3.6%
3.7%
4.2%
5.4%
7.5%
7.8%
8.7%
22.5%
41.6%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
23
77
71
1st Quartile
8
39
10
55
Median
16
9
48
47
3rd Quartile
37
66
7
Savings from Requestsfor Proposals
Savings fromInvitations for Bids
Savings from InformalSolicitations
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
1.2%
3.8%
4.7%
6.9%
7.4%
12.0%
12.8%
14.0%
17.0%
18.5%
20.4%
22.3%
25.2%
52.3%
53.6%
57.8%
60.4%
72.2%
72.9%
76.6%
80.8%
83.1%
93.9%
94.2%
7.1%
20.4%
66.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
2
20
5
19
101
66
7
1st Quartile
67
49
1
4
13
55
3
Median
48
71
39
33
37
11
3rd Quartile
9
47
14
16
32
10
8
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
What are some of the factors that might influence this result? (Hint: See "KPI Definitions".)
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 50
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 46 Competitive Procurements Ratio
This is the amount spent through competi tive purchasing relative to
the tota l amount of purchasing.
Figure 47 Cooperative Purchasing Ratio
This is the amount spent through cooperative purchasing relative to
the tota l amount of purchasing.
0.0%
0.1%
2.2%
4.2%
10.1%
11.8%
20.2%
22.3%
30.1%
41.2%
45.8%
49.8%
54.6%
56.5%
56.6%
58.7%
64.2%
66.2%
69.8%
70.7%
71.0%
74.7%
88.9%
90.4%
91.7%
20.2%
54.6%
69.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
1
2
12
77
4
32
19
1st Quartile
101
3
37
47
55
16
Median
14
23
9
33
39
71
3rd Quartile
54
48
44
8
45
13
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
1.7%
3.0%
4.0%
4.1%
4.5%
5.5%
5.7%
5.9%
6.3%
6.8%
7.1%
8.8%
9.9%
11.4%
11.9%
12.1%
13.7%
14.0%
14.7%
5.0%
6.8%
11.7%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
77
9
33
49
53
1st Quartile
5
26
23
10
55
Median
47
19
8
39
3rd Quartile
2
67
71
48
16
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 51 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
Figure 48 P-Card Purchasing Ratio
Figure 49 PALT for Requests for Proposals
The Procurement Adminis trative Lead Time captures the processing
time from receipt of requisition to when the contract was issued.
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.8%
2.8%
3.0%
3.3%
3.3%
3.5%
4.0%
4.0%
4.6%
4.7%
4.9%
5.1%
5.3%
5.7%
6.9%
8.4%
9.4%
9.9%
10.3%
11.4%
11.8%
28.0%
2.4%
4.0%
6.3%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
67
47
45
20
14
52
101
1
1st Quartile
16
55
19
44
8
54
23
Median
4
11
5
13
32
3
48
7
3rd Quartile
9
39
71
66
10
12
49
37
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
150144
140135134
120120120
113111110108.5
104103
10098
9390
878079
737371.570
6665
60605858585757
50505048
44414038373534
3022
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200
95
32135211333947
716
3rd Quartile48
103
71264148571467
Median7744
1016
192356583753
12
1st Quartile45181528664934122055
Days to Prepare
Days ProposalsAccepted
Days to Issue afterClose
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Which phase could be shortened to move your district up into the next highest quartile?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 52
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 50 PALT for Invitations for Bids
The Procurement Adminis trative Lead Time captures the processing
time from receipt of requisition to when the contract was issued.
Figure 51 PALT for Informal Solicitations
165
165
124
110
96
90
87
83
82
80
80
79.75
79
79
76
72
72
67
65
61
61
58
55
52.5
50
50
45
45
45
40
40
38
37
36
34
33.25
33
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
25
24
20
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200
13
32
5
9
15
39
41
26
11
7
77
3rd Quartile
33
57
44
16
71
56
101
48
67
58
10
Median
3
14
1
6
53
8
20
66
49
23
37
1st Quartile
4
18
19
28
2
47
45
55
52
34
12
Days to Prepare
Days of Advertisingand Open Bidding
Days to Issue afterClose
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
120
30
20
20
17
15
15
15
14
12
10
10
10
10
8
7
7
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
7
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
58
2
20
33
26
8
10
1
3
3rd Quartile
7
49
32
71
77
23
9
Median
57
55
45
12
37
13
66
11
14
39
41
18
47
53
1st Quartile
34
15
44
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 53 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
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 ;
faci lity maintenance; and transportation maintenance.
4.0%
6.1%
7.4%
9.1%
9.7%
10.5%
11.1%
12.5%
13.3%
14.3%
14.3%
14.8%
21.7%
23.1%
23.1%
23.3%
26.0%
27.3%
30.8%
31.3%
32.0%
33.3%
33.3%
37.0%
45.5%
48.1%
50.0%
57.1%
62.5%
80.0%
100.0%
12.9%
23.3%
35.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
13
7
66
44
39
1
47
58
1st Quartile
41
30
14
48
32
5
23
Median
8
11
18
37
26
10
35
3
3rd Quartile
9
28
16
4
49
55
2
34
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
159.1%
126.6%
40.4%
28.5%
21.4%
16.5%
15.6%
6.3%
5.0%
15.6%
21.4%
40.4%
0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0%
77
23
5
3rd Quartile
71
16
Median
13
9
1st Quartile
55
33
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
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?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 54
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
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 va lue.
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 ; faci lity maintenance; and transportation maintenance.
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.8
2.9
3.0
5.3
1.5
2.0
2.8
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
23
10
39
1st Quartile
71
77
26
Median
16
5
13
3rd Quartile
55
33
9
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 55 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Comp etitive P rocurement Ratio
Importance This measure is important because competi tion maximizes procurement savings to the dis trict, provides opportuni-ties for vendors , assures integri ty, and builds school board and tax-
payers' confidence in the procurement process. Factors that Influence
x Procurement policies governing procurements that are ex-empted from competi tion, emergency or urgent requirement procurements , di rect payments (purchases without contracts or POs), minimum quote levels and requirements , and sole sourc-
ing
x Degree of shared services that may be included in purchase dol-lars with other public agencies
x Vendor registration/solicitation procedures that may determine magnitude of competition
x Professional services competi tion that may be exempted from competition
x In some instances , districts may have selection cri teria for cer-tain programs, such as local preference, environmental pro-
curement, M/WBE, etc., that result in less competition
x Uti l ization of technology and e-procurement tools
x Market availability for competition; e.g., utilities Calculation Total amount of purchasing through competi tive pro-
curements divided by the sum of total procurement outlays , total P-card purchasing and total construction spending.
P rocu rement Cost p er $100K S p end
Importance This measure identi fies the indirect cost of the pro-
curement function as compared to the total procurement dollars purchased by the dis trict. Assuming all other things being equal, this
is a relative measure of the adminis trative efficiency of a district’s procurement operations. Factors that Influence
x Degree of P-Card utilization
x e-Procurement automation
x Delegation of purchasing authority
x Purchasing office professional s taff grade s tructure, contract services, and other expenditures
x Number of highly complex procurements especially construc-tion
x Ski ll level of staff Calculation Total purchasing department costs divided by total procurement outlays over $100,000.
P rocu rement Cost p er P urchase O rder
Importance This measure, along with other indicators , provides an opportunity for districts to assess the cost/benefits that might re-sul t from other means of procurement (e.g., P-Card program, order-
ing agreements, and leveraging the consolidating requirement). Factors that Influence
x Uti l ization of BPAs
x Strategic sourcing (minimizing total vendors)
x Purchasing Department expenditures and FTE degree of e -procurement automation and P-Card utilization
x 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.
P rocu rement S aving s Ratio
Calculation Total savings from Invi tations for Bids , Requests for Proposals, and informal solici tations divided by total procurement
outlays (excluding P-cards and construction). Factors that Influence
x Procurement policies , e.g., delegated purchase authori ty level , procurements exempted from competi tion, minimum quote
requirements, sole-source policies , vendor regis tra-tion/solicitation procedures (may determine magnitude of competition)
x Uti l ization of technology and e-procurement tools
x Use of national or regional vendor databases (versus district on-ly) to maximize competi tion, use of on-line comparative price analysis tools (comparing e -catalog prices), etc.
x Identification of al ternative products/methodology of providing services.
x Degree of leveraging required volume through s tandardization and utilization of cooperative contracting
Importance This measure compares a district's savings or "cost
avoidance" that resul t 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).
S trategic S ourcing Ratio
Importance This measure is a s trong indicator of potential cost
savings that can result from leveraging consolidated requirements with competi tive procurements, and minimizing spot buying and maverick spending. The National Purchasing Insti tute (NPI)
Achievement of Excellence in Procurement Award ci tes 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 identi fying competi tive suppliers for longer-term agreements to buy materials and services. Simply put, s trategic
sourcing is organized agency buying that di rectly affects the availa-ble contracts for goods and services , i .e., i tems under contract are readily accessible, while others are not.
Factors that Influence
x Technical training of procurement professional s taff
x Effectiveness of spend analysis regarding frequently purchased i tems
x Pol icies on centralization of procurement
x Balance between choice and cost savings
x Dol lar approval limits without competitive bids Calculation Total spending utilizing strategic sourcing divided by tota l procurement outlays (excluding P-cards and construction).
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 56
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
Coop era tive P urchasin g Ratio
Importance This measure assesses the use of cooperative pur-
chasing agreements that dis tricts can use to leverage thei r collective buying power to maximize savings through economies of scale. Ad-di tionally, cooperative agreements provide purchasing efficiencies
by having one buyer from one dis trict buy for many districts , and de-creasing the cycle time for new requirements.
Factors that Influence
x Procurement laws and policies
x Commodity levels (some goods and services lend themselves to leveraging volume more than others)
x Degree of item standardization with other entities
x Number of available and eligible cooperative agreements
x 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 P u rchasing 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 ci ted 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 i tems. 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, an d requires diligent oversight to prevent inappropriate use and spend analysis to identify contract savings opportunities.
Factors that Influence
x Procurement policies , particularly those delegating purchase authority and P-Card usage
x Utili zation of technology to manage a high volume of low dollar transactions
x e-Procurement and e-Catalog processes utilized by district
x P-Card reconciliation software and P-Card database interface with a district’s ERP system
x Budget, purchasing, and audit controls , including P-Card credit l imit controls on single transaction and monthly limits
x Accounts Payable policies for P-Card as an al ternative payment method
x Use of P-Cards on construction projects and paying large dollar vendors , e.g., utili ties, textbook publishers , food, technology
projects. Calculation Total dollar amount purchased using P-cards divided by tota l procurement outlays (including P-card purchases).
P ALT f or Requests f or P roposals
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 wri ting, including electronically using e-commerce tools via telephone, etc., and can be processed without
school board approval typically using more efficient small purchase procedures. Factors that Influence
x Federal, s tate, and local school board procurement policies and laws, including formal solicitation requirements , minimum ad-vertis ing times and procurement dollar l imits
x Frequency of school board meetings
x Budget/FTE allocation for professional procurement staff
x Training on scope of work and specification development for
contract sponsors
x The award process including RFP proposal evaluation, vendor presentations, # of proposals, negotiations , pre -proposal con-ferences, site visits, and vendor reference checks
x Use of standard boilerplate bid and contract documents
x Use of current ERP and e -procurement technology to s tream-line internal procurement processes and external solici tation process with vendors
x Frequency of vendor protests
x Complexity and size of procurement
x 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.
P ALT f or In vitations f or Bids
Importance This measure establishes a “cycle time” benchmark for commencing and completing the acquisi tion process fo r formal competi tive bidding (IFBs). It is an important measure that examines the balance between competi tion/objectivi ty, procedural compli-
ance, and the need to get products/services in place in a timely manner to meet customer requirements.
Factors that Influence
x Federal, s tate, and local school board procurement policies and laws, including formal solicitation requirements , minimum ad-vertis ing times, and procurement dollar l imits
x Frequency of school board meetings
x Budget/FTE allocation for professional procurement staff
x Training on scope of work and specification development for contract sponsors
x The award process, including IFB evaluation, pre -bid confer-ences, site visit requirements, and vendor reference checks
x Use of standard boilerplate bid and contract documents
x Use of current ERP and e -procurement technology to s tream-line internal-procurement processes and external solici tation and response process with vendors
x Frequency of vendor protests
x Complexity and size of procurement
x Degree of commodity standardization within the district Calculation Average number of days to administer Invi tations for
bids from receipt of requisition to the date that the contract was is-sued.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 57 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
P ALT f or In formal S olicitations
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 rather than the formal bid or formal proposal threshold
where quotes can be obtained in wri ting, including electronically us-ing e-commerce tools via telephone, etc., and can be processed
without school board approval typically using more efficient small purchase procedures. Factors that Influence
x Degree of P-Card utilization
x Extent of delegated purchase authori ty for small dollar pro-curements
x State/local laws and regulations
x Small purchase policies/procedures
x Utili zation of e-procurement automation tools including online sol icitation broadcasts and responses
Calculation Average number of days , from receipt of requisi tion by the purchasing department to date that purchase order issued, to process all informal solicitations.
P rocu rement S taf f with P rofessional Certificate
Importance This measure assesses the technical knowledge of the dis trict’s procurement s taff, which di rectly affects processing time,
negotiations , procedural controls , and strategies applied to maxim-ize cost savings . The procurement function should show procure-ment professional s taff focusing on--
x Strategic issues versus transactional processing
x 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
x Balance of service with internal controls and compliance. Factors that Influence
x Budget/FTE allocations to central procurement functions and employee professional development
x Procurement policies such as delegated purchasing authori ty, formal procurement dollar threshold, small purchase proce-
dures, P-card utilization, etc.
x Utili zation of technology and knowledge required for e -procurement and e-commerce
x Value that an organization places on i ts procurement functions and procedures
x Pol icies favoring internal promotion over technical recruitment
x Incentive pay Calculation Number of purchasing department s taff with a pro-fessional certi ficate divided by total number of purchasing s taff
(FTEs).
W arehouse O perating Expense Ratio
Importance The operational cost of maintaining an intermediate s torage/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. Factors that Influence
x Warehouse building utility cost and space efficiency
x Tota l SKUs for indirect and direct cost allocations
x Number of warehouse personnel and material handling equip-ment/vehicles
x Type of warehouse (environmentally controlled or not)
x Cycle time requirements Calculation Total operating expenses of all measured warehouses (including school/office supplies, textbooks, food service items, facil-
i ty maintenance items, and transportation maintenance i tems) di-vided by tota l va lue of all issues/sales from the warehouse(s).
W arehouse S tock Tu rn 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 s tock turn increases. After a certain point - typically 8-10 turns - the reverse occurs , according to the National Insti tute 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 s tock 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—
x Inventory usage and amount of inventory that is not turned over (“dead stock”),
x Optimum inventory investment and warehousing s ize, and
x Warehouse activity/movement. Factors that Influence
x Inventory financing costs
x Inflation
x Purchasing policies Calculation Total dollar value of annual issues/sales at purchase price at all measured warehouses (including school/office supplies, textbooks, food service i tems, facility maintenance i tems, and trans-
portation maintenance items) divided by the twelve-month average.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 58
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OCU
REM
ENT
FIN
AN
CE
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
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:
x Searching for better medical management programs
x Improving access to quality medical care
x Providing benefits in a timely fashion
x Conducting risk factor analysis and prevention
x Adopting policies that avoid l itigation
x Improving the reporting and tracking process for correcting hazardous conditions
x Revising safety protocols/guidelines/Employer Policies
x Improving injury investigations used to determine cause of injury
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 60
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
L I S T O F KPIS I N R I S K MA N A G E M E N 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
this report. (See “KPI Defini tions” at the back of this section for more complete descrip tions of these measures .) All other KPIs are available to CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
Liability Claims - Percent Open a s of Year-End
Liability Cost per Claim
Workers ' Compensation Claims - Percent Indemnity
Workers ' Compensation Claims - Percent Li tigated
Workers ' Compensation Cost per Claim
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 61 Risk Management
FIN
AN
CE
RISK
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
D A TA D I S CO VE R 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 adminis tration costs . Other cost drivers for risk management are currently not included in this measure.
Figure 56 Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend
$204
$152
$134
$129
$122
$121
$120
$118
$113
$110
$110
$103
$101
$96
$95
$93
$92
$92
$89
$84
$75
$73
$68
$68
$67
$54
$53
$51
$50
$49
$44
$43
$42
$38
$36
$22
$9
$51
$89
$110
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
62
45
32
53
77
12
56
79
14
3rd Quartile
16
101
3
47
25
11
30
52
21
23
Median
13
4
7
33
54
8
5
48
2
1st Quartile
39
37
44
71
66
9
10
55
18
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$11
$51
$311
$331
$337
$407
$413
$420
$423
$426
$515
$531
$543
$559
$568
$572
$587
$609
$610
$625
$664
$764
$815
$815
$817
$860
$893
$906
$924
$926
$996
$1,055
$1,060
$1,138
$1,197
$1,258
$1,348
$1,391
$1,535
$1,617
$1,714
$1,750
$519
$714
$1,040
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
18
28
66
4
41
9
2
71
52
48
54
1st Quartile
21
57
37
10
7
53
25
1
39
33
Median
3
49
5
11
8
47
101
44
43
45
3rd Quartile
77
79
56
14
30
12
13
19
32
35
16
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 62
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 57 Worke rs’ Compensation Cost per Employee
Figure 58 Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees
$968
$955
$876
$752
$730
$638
$615
$615
$548
$478
$472
$459
$425
$416
$404
$397
$378
$369
$356
$325
$319
$316
$312
$304
$293
$286
$255
$240
$237
$235
$235
$210
$190
$185
$176
$172
$136
$133
$127
$120
$78
$26
$216
$317
$469
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200
62
34
58
32
35
16
56
43
101
30
13
3rd Quartile
12
23
20
47
79
54
8
14
11
3
Median
25
44
7
53
5
39
1
21
33
49
1st Quartile
52
37
48
10
2
71
66
41
4
55
28
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
1,613
1,210
1,152
1,002
839
624
623
586
535
518
471
436
357
347
330
293
288
237
230
174
173
158
155
149
142
140
113
103
78
77
72
56
55
41
23
16
111
234
522
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
11
1
25
21
56
52
43
58
48
3rd Quartile
16
32
3
7
39
30
79
23
49
Median
37
13
54
4
47
2
20
41
34
1st Quartile
55
33
14
5
101
8
10
71
62
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 63 Risk Management
FIN
AN
CE
RISK
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Figure 59 Liabi lity Claims - Percent Li tigated
Figure 60 Liabi lity Claims per 1,000 Students
39.1%
37.3%
33.7%
28.1%
27.3%
20.0%
19.7%
19.2%
16.2%
14.3%
14.3%
13.2%
12.7%
10.3%
10.0%
9.5%
8.2%
7.7%
7.4%
7.2%
6.8%
6.5%
5.4%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
2.8%
2.6%
2.5%
2.1%
2.1%
1.9%
1.6%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
0.3%
2.6%
7.4%
14.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
5
54
44
37
34
12
11
10
39
30
3rd Quartile
52
23
57
7
14
62
56
4
16
Median
53
47
25
18
71
9
49
101
48
1st Quartile
79
33
21
77
13
66
32
3
8
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
11.19
7.59
4.52
3.29
3.05
2.62
2.46
2.03
1.96
1.81
1.79
1.73
1.64
1.60
1.60
1.58
1.51
1.44
1.41
1.39
1.27
1.25
1.20
1.20
1.09
0.83
0.71
0.70
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.60
0.59
0.49
0.45
0.43
0.34
0.27
0.26
0.12
0.66
1.27
1.79
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
79
13
3
47
21
1
32
48
77
9
3rd Quartile
8
14
71
37
33
10
53
62
66
16
11
Median
25
28
56
55
23
44
34
18
54
1st Quartile
101
12
52
7
5
30
45
39
2
4
6
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 64
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 61 Liabi lity Cost per Student
Figure 62 Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees
$70
$50
$49
$48
$41
$39
$39
$38
$34
$34
$33
$28
$27
$26
$25
$23
$19
$19
$18
$15
$14
$14
$13
$12
$11
$11
$10
$10
$10
$9
$9
$9
$8
$6
$6
$6
$2
$2
$10
$16
$33
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80
53
4
62
14
79
11
101
21
52
56
3rd Quartile
47
48
3
12
32
77
13
33
54
Median
23
71
66
16
9
37
30
25
7
1st Quartile
39
55
18
8
5
6
44
10
2
45
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
122
100
93
90
88
85
72
71
69
69
68
64
57
56
55
55
55
54
54
53
52
49
48
46
46
44
44
40
40
38
37
37
37
36
34
32
31
30
29
26
13
37
52
68
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
53
3
13
12
30
66
4
58
25
7
41
3rd Quartile
44
101
43
33
16
8
52
56
32
Median
28
34
55
11
48
14
21
37
39
10
1st Quartile
79
62
2
5
1
49
71
20
23
47
54
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 65 Risk Management
FIN
AN
CE
RISK
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Figure 63 Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees
122
100
98
93
91
88
85
82
79
74
72
72
71
70
70
69
64
64
62
62
59
59
54
53
52
52
46
45
44
43
42
37
37
36
33
33
32
32
31
24
18
42
59
72
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
53
3
43
13
12
30
66
41
32
10
4
3rd Quartile
5
58
25
56
7
44
47
37
52
Median
34
20
33
21
11
28
48
2
14
55
1
1st Quartile
79
62
8
39
23
101
49
71
16
54
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Does your district have an enterprise-wide risk management task force?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 66
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Cost of Risk p er S tudent
Importance This metric is important for long-term budget plan-ning. School funding is based on s tudent enrollment. Factors that Influence
x Frequency and severity of claims filed
x Safety program’s efforts to correct hazardous conditions Calculation Total liability premiums, claims , and adminis tration costs plus total workers' compensation premiums, claims , and ad-
ministration costs divided by tota l district enrollment.
Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payro ll S pend
Importance This is a metric that can be used to measure success of programs or initiatives aimed at reducing workers' compensation
costs . Factors that Influence
x Medical management programs
x Qual ity of medical care
x Li tigation
x 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 tota l payroll outlays over $100,000.
Workers’ Compensat ion Cost p er 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 ini tiatives . It can also be a way to
measure trends over time or to bench mark against other employ-ers . Factors that Influence
x Medical management programs
x Qual ity of medical care
x Li tigation
x 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 number of district of dis trict employees (number of W-2's is-sued).
Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1 ,000 Emp loyees
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. Factors that Influence
x Qual ity of medical care (Medical Provider Networks)
x Type of injury
x Use of nurse case managers
x Li tigation
x Availability of modi fied or al ternative 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.
Liab ility Claims - P ercent Litigated
Importance This is an important metric as litigation is expensive and increases the cost of the claim.
Factors that Influence
x Severi ty of injuries
x Settlement rate
x Motivation of plaintiff Calculation Number of liability claims li tigated divided by total number of l iability claims filed during the fiscal year.
Liab ility Claims p er 1 ,000 S tudents
Importance This metric can be used to measure your performance against other entities of s imilar s ize and with similar claims.
Factors that Influence
x Frequency of claims
x Type of claims
x Severi ty of injuries Calculation Total number of liability claims filed during the fiscal
year divided by tota l district enrollment over 1,000.
Liab ility Cost p er S tudent
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 enti ties of similar size and with similar cla ims.
Factors that Influence
x Li tigation
x Frequency of claims
x Injury type Calculation Total liability premiums, claims , and adminis tration
costs divided by tota l 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 . Factors that Influence
x Risk factor prevention
x Medical management programs
x Qual ity of medical care
x Timely provision of benefits Calculation Total number of workers ' compensation claims filed during the fiscal year divided by total number of district employees (W-2's i ssued) over 1,000.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 67 Risk Management
FIN
AN
CE
RISK
MA
NA
GEM
ENT
W ork place Incidents p er 1 , 000 Employees
Importance This metric would be used to measure the success of
programs and ini tiatives aimed at reducing workplace inju-ries/incidents. Factors that Influence
x Disciplinary actions
x RIF notices
x Management support
x Effectiveness of safety programs
x Safety tra ining
x Injury investigations used to determine cause of injury
x Maintenance of facilities
x 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.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Finance Page 68
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T
FIN
AN
CE
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 69 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
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.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 70
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
L I S T O F KPIS I N F O O D SE R VI CE S 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
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
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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 - Uti lities, Custodial and Trash Removal
Operating Cost Ratio - Vehicle Fleet Outside Meal Services - Catering as Percent of Revenue
Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other
Outs ide 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)
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 71 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 64 Food Cost vs. Labor Cost
Food and labor costs are the two largest cost factors of school nutri tional services. This chart shows the ratio between these two factors so that dis-tricts can identi fy 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
16
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
30
33
34
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
48
49
52
55
56
57
58
62 66
67
71
77
79
101
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Lab
or
Co
st p
er R
eve
nue
Food Cost per Revenue
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 72
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 65 Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites)
This is the participation rate for school sites that offer breakfasts.
Figure 66 Breakfast Participation Rate (DistrictWide, 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.)
9.9%
13.6%
19.1%
20.6%
20.7%
21.6%
21.8%
22.6%
22.8%
23.1%
24.0%
24.1%
26.1%
26.2%
27.5%
27.5%
28.2%
29.3%
30.5%
31.3%
31.5%
31.8%
33.5%
34.7%
35.0%
35.6%
35.9%
37.7%
38.5%
39.3%
41.9%
42.0%
44.5%
44.8%
45.6%
45.9%
47.9%
47.9%
48.2%
48.8%
51.5%
53.2%
54.0%
58.0%
63.2%
24.1%
33.5%
44.8%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
77
1
7
55
9
13
62
4
101
56
8
71
1st Quartile
5
14
48
12
44
37
47
79
49
6
Median
67
52
41
16
10
2
30
58
54
66
28
3rd Quartile
26
20
43
35
34
18
33
3
19
39
23
25
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
10.7%14.0%14.9%
21.6%22.3%22.9%23.2%23.4%24.0%24.2%
24.3%24.9%25.7%25.9%26.2%27.0%28.8%
31.2%32.0%33.4%33.8%
34.5%35.7%35.7%36.1%37.5%
40.3%42.9%43.8%44.5%46.3%46.8%
50.1%50.4%50.8%52.2%
55.2%55.9%56.3%
60.3%69.3%
81.0%
24.3%
34.2%
47.6%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
7717
5552
4101
1385
1st Quartile56447162144837471223
6Median
79671610415430582866
23rd Quartile
2033182621
319392545
Secondary Schools
Elementary Schools
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Overall (K-12)
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall break-fast participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 73 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
Figure 67 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate
This is the participation rate of s tudents that are eligible for free or
reduced-price (F/RP) breakfasts.
Figure 68 Breakfast F/RP 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 on breakfast partic-ipation by grade spans. (Data that are missing may be under review.)
26.0%
30.1%
30.4%
30.5%
30.8%
30.9%
32.3%
35.2%
35.6%
35.6%
35.7%
36.2%
37.1%
37.7%
39.1%
39.4%
41.1%
41.6%
42.1%
42.7%
43.0%
43.3%
44.0%
44.5%
44.8%
48.6%
51.7%
52.1%
52.7%
54.4%
57.5%
62.6%
67.2%
70.3%
76.8%
81.9%
35.6%
41.9%
51.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
101
52
4
7
62
1
56
13
79
1st Quartile
14
37
8
55
6
67
71
48
41
Median
5
47
58
66
44
54
28
16
10
3rd Quartile
2
33
18
20
26
39
3
21
23
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
26.0%
30.1%
30.4%
30.5%
30.8%
30.9%
32.3%
35.2%
35.6%
35.6%
35.7%
36.2%
37.1%
37.7%
39.1%
39.4%
41.1%
41.6%
42.1%
42.7%
43.0%
43.3%
44.0%
44.5%
44.8%
48.6%
51.7%
52.1%
52.7%
54.4%
57.5%
62.6%
67.2%
70.3%
76.8%
81.9%
35.6%
41.9%
52.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
101
52
4
7
62
1
56
13
79
1st Quartile
14
37
8
55
6
67
71
48
41
Median
5
47
58
66
44
54
28
16
10
3rd Quartile
2
33
18
20
26
39
3
21
23
High
Middle
Elementary
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Overall (K-12)
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price breakfast participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 74
OPE
RATI
ON
S
FOO
D SE
RVIC
ES
OPE
RATI
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 (Districtwide, by Grade Span)
The “overall” element in this chart shows the same information as 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.)
36.5%38.3%38.9%
44.1%47.8%
50.0%50.6%52.1%52.2%53.1%53.1%54.1%
56.1%57.6%57.7%58.0%58.5%59.0%59.3%60.0%60.1%60.4%60.6%
60.7%60.7%60.9%
63.6%63.9%64.0%65.0%65.4%65.6%66.8%
69.1%
69.2%69.6%70.2%70.8%72.8%73.9%74.2%76.0%77.1%
81.7%87.2%
54.08%
60.6%
69.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
177
7598
441437561655
1st Quartile6249131079
22052483912
Median7147261858
42830
32543
3rd Quartile54356734
641
10166193323
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
37.6%37.9%38.6%
42.8%43.0%44.7%
50.0%50.2%52.2%53.6%
55.8%56.1%56.6%58.3%59.1%
62.2%62.5%
64.7%64.8%64.8%65.0%
65.0%66.7%67.0%67.1%67.6%
70.4%71.0%71.2%71.2%
73.3%
73.3%74.8%75.8%77.3%78.8%79.3%
81.5%84.4%86.0%
99.2%
54.7%
65.0%
73.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
17
525
7744
8231437
1st Quartile165655104847137971
428
Median2054186239122658
325
3rd Quartile2
21101
6674119336645
Secondary Schools Elementary Schools 3rd Quartile
Median 1st Quartile Overall (K-12)
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price lunch participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 75 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
Figure 71 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate
This is the participation rate of s tudents 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.
52.0%
58.7%
64.0%
67.6%
68.5%
68.7%
70.1%
70.4%
70.6%
70.8%
71.0%
73.0%
73.7%
73.9%
75.2%
75.8%
78.7%
79.1%
79.2%
79.4%
80.1%
80.6%
81.6%
81.9%
82.0%
82.1%
85.2%
86.1%
86.7%
87.3%
87.3%
88.6%
90.5%
92.0%
95.6%
103.8%
70.7%
79.2%
85.4%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
52
14
28
37
44
79
5
1
16
1st Quartile
56
7
58
8
62
18
54
39
101
Median
20
4
47
13
6
48
2
55
67
3rd Quartile
41
33
26
71
10
3
66
23
21
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
52.0%
58.7%
64.0%
67.6%
68.5%
68.7%
70.1%
70.4%
70.6%
70.8%
71.0%
73.0%
73.7%
73.9%
75.2%
75.8%
78.7%
79.1%
79.2%
79.4%
80.1%
80.6%
81.6%
81.9%
82.0%
82.1%
85.2%
86.1%
86.7%
87.3%
87.3%
88.6%
90.5%
92.0%
95.6%
70.6%
79.2%
85.9%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
52
14
28
37
44
79
5
1
16
56
7
58
8
62
18
54
39
101
20
4
47
13
6
48
2
55
67
41
33
26
71
10
3
66
23
21
High Middle Elementary 3rd Quartile
Median 1st Quartile Overall (K-12)
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 76
OPE
RA
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.
$4.57
$3.96
$3.93
$3.84
$3.82
$3.81
$3.71
$3.71
$3.70
$3.64
$3.63
$3.63
$3.61
$3.60
$3.51
$3.49
$3.42
$3.41
$3.41
$3.39
$3.27
$3.26
$3.26
$3.12
$3.10
$3.09
$3.09
$3.08
$3.06
$3.02
$2.97
$2.92
$2.89
$2.89
$2.85
$2.84
$2.83
$2.76
$2.69
$2.64
$2.60
$2.58
$2.52
$2.51
$2.47
$2.46
$2.22
$2.16
$2.84
$3.11
$3.62
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00
6
49
7
43
2
47
18
71
35
10
55
57
3rd Quartile
23
12
41
44
4
37
66
48
28
21
79
39
Median
30
34
54
8
52
14
3
67
9
13
19
20
1st Quartile
5
1
33
25
56
58
62
26
45
16
101
773rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$0.82
$0.83
$0.94
$1.00
$1.02
$1.12
$1.20
$1.27
$1.27
$1.31
$1.31
$1.32
$1.33
$1.35
$1.37
$1.37
$1.38
$1.38
$1.38
$1.44
$1.44
$1.45
$1.46
$1.50
$1.50
$1.53
$1.55
$1.56
$1.56
$1.57
$1.59
$1.62
$1.64
$1.68
$1.68
$1.70
$1.71
$1.71
$1.77
$1.79
$1.88
$1.99
$2.20
$1.32
$1.45
$1.63
$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50
56
44
79
16
1
101
62
20
71
5
45
1st Quartile
67
13
26
14
30
77
3
33
8
39
Median
7
35
58
19
47
18
41
55
43
34
37
3rd Quartile
48
9
23
57
10
66
52
2
6
4
49
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 77 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
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 i t is sometimes capped by the dis-trict or s tate.
Figure 76 Total Cost as Percent of Revenue
A ratio below 100% indicates that the food services operation
brought in more revenue that i t spent, meaning that i t is self -sustaining.
-13.2%
-6.5%
-6.3%
-4.5%
-2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
2.9%
2.9%
3.0%
4.2%
4.2%
4.9%
8.4%
9.5%
10.4%
11.4%
13.4%
14.6%
16.8%
17.5%
18.4%
20.1%
20.3%
20.6%
21.5%
24.5%
25.4%
28.2%
30.1%
30.3%
31.0%
31.3%
32.7%
34.4%
34.5%
35.5%
40.3%
45.6%
51.4%
65.5%
67.8%
2.9%
15.7%
30.3%
-20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
26
67
57
79
55
54
58
33
66
77
37
5
1st Quartile
35
28
16
21
49
2
7
3
52
39
25
Median
41
34
12
44
71
19
23
56
48
18
6
3rd Quartile
45
8
10
62
14
47
13
4
20
9
101
43
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
121.5%
120.8%
113.3%
110.5%
105.9%
105.5%
105.4%
104.8%
103.9%
103.9%
103.3%
102.9%
102.1%
101.0%
100.4%
100.3%
100.0%
99.6%
99.6%
99.3%
99.1%
98.7%
98.6%
98.6%
98.3%
97.2%
97.0%
97.0%
95.6%
95.6%
95.4%
95.3%
95.2%
94.3%
94.1%
93.6%
93.5%
92.6%
92.4%
92.0%
88.2%
88.0%
83.4%
83.1%
79.5%
71.4%
55.8%
93.9%
98.6%
102.5%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%
77
54
26
49
57
37
2
71
30
52
43
35
3rd Quartile
7
1
41
67
55
66
48
8
44
58
16
18
Median
56
5
6
28
3
47
10
14
101
21
39
1st Quartile
12
79
34
9
13
4
62
33
19
45
20
233rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 78
OPE
RA
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 di rectly on
food costs.
Figure 78 Labor Cost per Revenue
This is the percent of food services money that was spent on district
s taff.
70.2%
59.7%
59.3%
56.8%
54.3%
50.4%
49.7%
49.4%
49.2%
49.0%
48.9%
46.9%
45.9%
45.6%
44.8%
44.0%
43.9%
43.4%
42.8%
42.6%
42.5%
41.8%
41.7%
41.6%
41.4%
41.4%
41.3%
41.2%
40.7%
40.5%
40.3%
39.9%
38.4%
37.9%
37.9%
37.7%
37.2%
36.0%
35.9%
35.3%
31.2%
30.1%
26.9%
24.0%
23.6%
37.8%
41.6%
46.38%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
77
49
26
52
58
9
37
4
2
66
57
48
3rd Quartile
21
34
8
101
5
41
30
19
10
67
12
Median
14
43
3
13
39
35
55
62
33
18
45
16
1st Quartile
6
47
1
7
71
20
56
79
25
23
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
60.1%
57.2%
57.1%
56.6%
54.6%
52.9%
51.3%
51.0%
48.9%
48.7%
47.3%
46.6%
46.4%
45.3%
45.1%
44.8%
44.5%
44.1%
43.7%
43.4%
43.3%
42.7%
41.6%
41.6%
41.0%
39.9%
39.6%
39.1%
39.0%
38.4%
37.6%
37.4%
37.1%
37.0%
36.5%
36.4%
36.4%
36.3%
35.3%
31.5%
30.5%
30.2%
29.4%
26.5%
25.5%
23.7%
36.4%
41.3%
46.4%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
79
54
56
71
7
35
1
57
6
16
30
47
3rd Quartile
37
49
26
55
12
18
21
2
67
14
5
43
Median
3
101
41
62
66
77
10
58
52
34
13
48
1st Quartile
19
8
39
20
9
33
4
25
45
23
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 79 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
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 s tocks.
11.3
11.8
12.1
12.6
12.9
13.4
14.5
14.8
15.1
15.4
15.5
15.7
15.7
16.0
16.1
16.2
16.5
16.7
16.7
16.9
17.4
18.1
18.9
19.2
19.5
20.4
20.4
20.6
20.8
21.2
23.5
24.4
25.5
25.7
27.1
27.9
28.0
28.9
29.0
30.9
33.2
15.5
17.4
23.5
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
7
10
79
71
55
47
49
13
6
8
34
1st Quartile
3
5
48
66
14
56
41
25
16
4
Median
23
20
57
1
18
30
2
39
26
3rd Quartile
67
101
19
58
52
62
33
9
77
44
43
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
2.0%2.3%
3.2%3.4%3.5%3.5%3.6%3.8%
4.1%4.1%4.3%4.4%4.4%4.5%4.6%4.7%4.7%4.7%4.7%4.8%4.9%4.9%4.9%5.1%5.2%5.2%5.3%5.3%5.3%5.4%5.4%5.4%5.6%5.6%5.8%5.9%5.9%6.0%6.2%6.3%6.3%6.5%6.6%6.7%6.7%6.9%7.1%
7.8%10.3%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0%
711
777
5234
235
62679
1st Quartile18
5101
34758231910414445
Median8
1467554312166649134837
3rd Quartile543330622025
928562157
Entitlements
Bonuses
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Do you take advantage of USDA Commodities to the fullest extent possible in order to reduce food costs?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 80
OPE
RA
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%
5%
16%
18%
26%
29%
31%
34%
35%
37%
38%
43%
47%
57%
76%
92%
93%
99%
100%
100%
0
0%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
1st Quartile
77
18
35
47
44
28
71
55
23
34
58
79
45
13
1
19
37
57
25
7
49
Median
39
4
41
6
52
10
30
9
56
12
101
14
54
62
3rd Quartile
8
48
16
5
43
2
67
3
33
66
26
20
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
1%
1%
1%
5%
12%
16%
26%
29%
31%
33%
36%
40%
40%
47%
74%
78%
11%
30%
40%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
20
2
5
9
1st Quartile
56
12
101
14
Median
54
62
16
48
3rd Quartile
26
43
67
33
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 81 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
Figure 83 ServeSafe or Equivalent Staff per Si te
Figure 84 Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.11
0.13
0.48
0.63
0.76
0.81
0.87
0.88
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.96
0.99
1.03
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.07
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.25
1.32
1.32
1.63
1.78
1.81
2.09
2.48
2.60
2.62
2.74
2.93
3.12
4.80
5.19
5.36
5.65
5.94
6.20
- 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
4
5
45
35
25
58
7
10
30
19
1st Quartile
47
79
18
2
77
33
66
62
16
14
71
Median
6
3
28
44
8
9
56
41
52
55
26
3rd Quartile
12
48
101
54
39
49
20
23
43
34
13
ServSafe
ServSafe Equivalent
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Total/Sort
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
1.3%
2.6%
3.1%
4.2%
4.4%
4.5%
4.9%
5.5%
7.0%
8.5%
10.0%
12.4%
15.5%
0.8%
3.1%
5.5%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
33
52
39
10
34
14
1st Quartile
9
48
77
23
Median
47
8
30
26
18
35
3rd Quartile
58
54
3
37
19
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 82
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 85 Meal Accountability - Percent of Si tes with POS System
A point-of-sale (POS) system is essential for a utomated meal counts.
Figure 86 Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts
16.7%
21.3%
38.9%
52.9%
77.8%
78.8%
83.4%
84.9%
85.5%
91.3%
92.1%
92.6%
93.1%
93.2%
93.6%
94.0%
94.3%
95.3%
95.3%
98.2%
98.3%
98.6%
98.7%
98.8%
99.3%
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%
92.3%
98.6%
100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
79
66
43
62
45
18
16
1
30
67
12
1st Quartile
77
56
48
49
23
47
26
39
101
52
25
Median
10
5
14
57
7
20
4
2
41
3rd Quartile
8
9
35
44
34
55
28
71
13
58
37
19
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
67.6%77.4%78.8%80.9%82.3%83.3%83.7%84.0%84.2%84.7%85.8%86.3%86.5%87.2%87.4%88.6%88.7%88.8%89.0%89.8%89.9%89.9%89.9%90.2%90.5%90.6%90.8%91.0%91.1%91.3%91.3%91.4%92.7%92.7%92.7%92.7%93.7%94.3%94.5%94.6%94.9%95.5%95.5%95.9%96.3%97.5%99.5%100.0%100.0%100.0%
105.7%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
6610
543
8352558
7523720
1st Quartile26397933
316441848
149
9Median
2121367145528
430625471
3rd Quartile775647193441
6101
21455723
Free Reduced-Price 1st Quartile
Median 3rd Quartile Total/Sort
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 83 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
Figure 87 Meal Reimbursements - Lunches
72.3%73.2%
76.6%76.8%77.5%78.0%78.4%78.6%78.6%79.9%81.3%81.9%82.0%82.3%82.6%82.8%83.2%83.7%84.1%84.2%85.3%85.4%86.3%87.1%87.3%87.3%87.4%87.8%88.1%88.7%89.3%89.3%89.4%89.9%90.2%90.4%90.8%91.2%91.3%91.4%91.4%91.5%91.7%92.2%92.3%
95.1%95.3%96.5%
100.0%100.0%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%
514
17
665549134412
816
1st Quartile1048
92371195235
4622533
Median3777586756
32647432028
1013rd Quartile
7939
23018
6413454214557
Free Reduced-Price 1st Quartile
Median 3rd Quartile Total/Sort
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 84
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Break fast P articipation
Importance Studies show a posi tive correlation between break-fast and school attendance, alertness , heal th, behavior, and aca-demic success.
A s trong breakfast program indicates a commitment by the food service program and dis trict leadership to preparing students to be
“ready to learn” in the classroom. Factors that Influence
x Menu selections
x Provis ion II and III and Universal Free
x Free/Reduced percentage
x Food preparation methods
x Attractiveness of dining areas
x Adequate time to eat Calculation Total breakfast meals served divided by total district
s tudent enrollment times the number of school days in the year.
Lu n ch P articipation Rate
Importance High participation rates indicate customer satisfaction
because food selections are appealing, quick to eat, and economical. Factors that Influence
x Menu selections
x Dining areas that are clean, attractive, and "kid-friendly"
x Adequate number of Point of Sale (POS) s tations to help move l ines quickly and efficiently
x A variety of menu selections
x Adequate time to eat
x Food preparation methods Calculation Total lunch meals served divided by total dis trict s tu-dent enrollment times the number of school days in the year.
Cost p er Meal
Importance Total costs relative to meal volume demonstrates ef-ficacy of the food service operation.
Factors that Influence
x The "chargebacks" to food service programs such as energy costs , custodial, non-food service adminis trative s taff, trash removal, and dining room supervisory s taff
x Direct costs such as food, labor, supplies, equipment, etc.
x Meal quality
x Participation rates
x Purchasing practices
x Marketing
x Leadership expertise
x Meal prices
x Staffing formulas Calculation Total di rect 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 p er Meal
Importance Food cost is the second largest expenditure that food service programs incur.
Careful menu planning practices , competi tive 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. Factors that Influence
x USDA menu & nutrient requirements
x A la carte items
x Convenience vs . scratch food items
x Purchasing and production practices
x Meal prices
x Participation rates
x Use of commodities
x Use of a warehouse or drop-ship deliveries
x 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.
Fu n d Balance p er Revenue
Importance A posi tive fund balance can provide a contingency
fund for equipment purchases , technology upgrades , and emergen-cy expenses. A “break-even” s tatus indicates that there is just enough revenue to
cover program expenses, but none left for program improvements. Factors that Influence
x USDA allows a food service program to have no more than a three month operating expenses fund balance.
x Districts may have taken part or all of the food services fund balance for non-food service activities.
x Food services may have funded large ki tchen remodeling pro-jects , implemented new POS systems, and thereby reduced a
fund balance with a large capital outlay project Calculation Fund balance divided by tota l revenue.
Total Cost p er Revenue
Importance This measure gives an indication of the financial s ta-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 capi tal replacement, technology, and other improvements . Districts that
report expenses higher than revenues may ei ther be drawing from thei r fund balance, or may be subsidized by the dis trict’s general fund.
Factors that Influence
x The "chargebacks" to food service programs such as energy costs , custodial, non-food service adminis trative s taff, trash
removal, dining room supervisory s taff
x Direct costs such as food, labor, supplies, equipment, etc.
x Meal quality
x Participation rates
x Purchasing practices
x Marketing
x Leadership expertise
x Meal prices
x Staffing formulas
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 85 Food Services
OPER
ATIO
NS
FO
OD
SER
VICES
Calculation Total di rect costs plus indirect and overhead costs di-vided by tota l revenue.
Food Cost p er Reven ue
Importance Food cost is the second largest expenditure that food service programs incur.
Careful menu planning practices , competi tive 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.
Factors that Influence
x USDA menu & nutrient requirements
x A la carte items
x Convenience vs . scratch food items
x Purchasing and production practices
x Meal prices
x Participation rates
x Use of commodities
x Use of a warehouse or drop-ship deliveries
x Theft Calculation Tota l food costs divided by tota l revenue.
Lab or Cost p er 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 benefi t plans , and di rectors can control labor cost by im-plementing productivity s tandards and s taffing formulas.
Factors that Influence
x Salary schedules and health and retirement benefits
x Number of annual work days and annual paid holidays
x Staffing formulas and productivi ty standards
x Union contracts
x Type of menu i tems Calculation Tota l labor costs divided by tota l revenue.
Meals p er 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 benefi t plans , and di rectors can control labor cost by im-plementing productivity s tandards and s taffing formulas.
Factors that Influence
x Salary schedules and health and retirement benefits
x Number of annual work days and annual paid holidays
x Staffing formulas and productivi ty standards
x Union contracts
x Type of menu i tems Calculation Tota l labor costs divided by tota l revenue.
US D A Commodities - P ercen t of Total Revenue
Importance Maximizing the use of USDA commodities can reduce costs . Calculation Total value of commodities received divided by total
revenue.
US D A Commodities - P ercen t as D onations (Bonuses)
Importance Districts can bring down overall food costs when they
maximize the number of "bonuses" that are periodically offered by USDA Foods. Factors that Influence
x Frequency of bonuses offered by USDA Foods
x Regions where UDSA Foods bonuses are offered
x Agi l ity of food services staff to change menus quickly Calculation Value of commodity donations (bonuses) received, divided by total value of commodities received (including enti tle-
ments and donations).
P rovision II En rollment 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.
Factors that Influence
x History of schools serving meals to all participating children at no charge for 4 years
x Stability of income of school's population
x Increased participation to offset increased costs and loss of full pay and reduced-price meal charges.
Calculation Number of s tudents enrolled in Provision II breakfast program divided by total number of students with access to break-
fast meals.
P rovision II En rollment Rate - Lun ches
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.
Factors that Influence
x History of schools serving meals to all participating children at no charge for 4 years
x Stability of income of school's population
x Increased participation to offset increased costs and loss of full pay and reduced-price meal charges.
Calculation Number of s tudents enrolled in Provision II lunch pro-gram divided by total number of students with access to lunch
meals.
S ervS afe or Eq u ivalent S taf f p er S ite
Importance The measure is indicative of a district’s intention to
provide a safe and sanitary dining environment for s tudents and s taff. Factors that Influence
x State requirements for food service workers
x District policy for s taff Calculation Number of s taff that are ServSafe -Certified or equiva-lent divided by the tota l number of sites that serve meals.
O u tside Meal S ervices - Meals to Ch arter/Other
Importance Charter schools, private schools, and community cen-ters may benefi t 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 tota l number of meals served.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 86
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Meal Accou ntability - P ercen t of S ites with P OS S ystem
Importance A point-of-sale system is necessary for accountabili ty
of meals served. Calculation Number of si tes with a point-of-sale system divided by the tota l number of sites that serve meals.
Meal Reimb ursements - 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 tota l number of breakfast meals served.
Meal Reimb ursements - Lu nches
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 tota l number of lunch meals served.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 87 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
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 util ities 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.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 88
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
L I S T O F KPIS I N MA I N TE N A N CE & OP E R A TI O N S 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 Defini tions” 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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
M&O Staff - Field Staff as Percent of All Staff M&O Staff - Non-Exempt Workers as Percent of Field Staff Bui lding 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
Tota l Costs
Major Maintenance - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Tota l 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
Tota l 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 Certi ficate Recycl ing - 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.)
Uti l ity Usage - Water Usage for Irrigation Work Order Cancel/Void Rate
Work Order Completion Rate
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 89 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S 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 s taffing levels and high costs , suggesting
that the number of staff is driving up costs. Conversely, dis tricts to the bottom-right have lower s taffing 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 s taff-
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 thei r facili ties
have good reason to want to invest more in custodial s taff and supplies in order to provide clean, safe facilities.
2
34
5
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
16
18
20
21
23
25
30
3233
34
35
37
39 41
43
44
45
4849
52
55
56
57
58
63
66
67
71
77
79101
$0.50
$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 Wo
rk -
Co
st p
er S
quar
e Fo
ot
Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.)
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 90
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
D A TA D I S CO VE R 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
$3.64$3.57
$3.40$3.38
$2.65$2.45
$2.41$2.39$2.37
$2.28$2.26
$2.20
$2.08$2.03$2.02$2.00
$1.94$1.94
$1.89$1.89$1.87$1.87$1.86
$1.77$1.77$1.75$1.72$1.68
$1.64$1.61$1.60$1.60$1.56$1.55
$1.45$1.42
$1.37$1.31
$1.23$1.21$1.20$1.20$1.20$1.17
$0.94$0.73
$1.47
$1.82
$2.17
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00
35776743256612
958185663
3rd Quartile72
79101
216
7116
35234
Median4
1320443347105532
511
1st Quartile373023483941284914
85745
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$686
$625
$620$572
$538
$513$507
$472$466
$441
$423
$423
$417$401
$348
$347$344
$341$337
$337
$309
$293
$288$283
$263
$261$259
$256$245
$244
$242$227
$213$212
$212$210
$210
$206$204
$203
$197$186
$182
$220
$293
$423
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800
43
3577
25
3358
66
1234
7918
3rd Quartile
252
21
320
667
4
730
Median
7147
5
289
5613
37
2355
44
1st Quartile11
1014
32
4516
48
41101
8
39
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
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.)
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 91 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
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 faci lities were divided up evenly.
Figure 92 Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot
12,42214,71915,130
16,93317,66917,74717,81218,248
20,23821,54021,65822,699
23,08823,21723,28923,36523,48723,55423,67923,96124,74824,82525,12425,501
25,85425,90525,97326,30126,59326,86327,502
28,87128,88829,12229,534
29,70130,11330,37230,50631,37131,50632,19233,247
37,24441,223
45,69252,381
22,893
25,501
29,617
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
715625674434101858323935
1st Quartile48492314
98
12101
162
1979
Median43136621
7113726
54177
3rd Quartile33
420555263
31
45305762
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$0.26
$0.24
$0.19
$0.19
$0.17
$0.17
$0.16
$0.16
$0.15
$0.14
$0.14
$0.13
$0.13
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.11
$0.11
$0.11
$0.11
$0.11
$0.10
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.09
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.07
$0.07
$0.07
$0.06
$0.04
$0.04
$0.02
$0.02
$0.02
$0.08
$0.11
$0.14
$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30
34
77
25
20
35
19
4
55
3
5
3rd Quartile
52
43
58
10
67
66
1
41
37
Median
39
71
101
57
9
48
16
11
13
56
1st Quartile
7
21
8
45
18
33
30
14
49
12
32
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
How might this relate to building cleanliness and cost efficiency? Which one of these is affected more by your result above?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 92
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 93 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot
This is the total cost of routine maintenance relati ve to the total
square footage.
Figure 94 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order
$2.59
$2.45
$2.16
$2.01
$1.75
$1.71
$1.57
$1.57
$1.56
$1.56
$1.55
$1.50
$1.47
$1.45
$1.45
$1.41
$1.38
$1.36
$1.25
$1.19
$1.18
$1.18
$1.07
$1.06
$1.03
$1.02
$0.97
$0.97
$0.96
$0.93
$0.91
$0.90
$0.90
$0.90
$0.87
$0.82
$0.77
$0.77
$0.74
$0.73
$0.73
$0.59
$0.54
$0.36
$0.35
$0.18
$0.14
$0.85
$1.06
$1.48
$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00
34
67
56
101
6
25
28
35
52
39
19
44
3rd Quartile
7
14
47
3
43
55
9
33
32
20
71
12
Median
11
13
5
10
23
66
21
4
30
8
26
1st Quartile
41
37
16
48
49
58
18
63
2
77
45
1
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$1,141
$1,082
$1,014
$853
$827
$710
$675
$667
$652
$600
$598
$592
$591
$578
$552
$546
$504
$492
$483
$470
$428
$425
$396
$391
$386
$374
$373
$370
$357
$355
$350
$342
$337
$332
$322
$321
$314
$279
$265
$252
$242
$206
$190
$178
$174
$332
$396
$592
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200
26
25
6
32
3
30
56
52
13
7
19
3rd Quartile
47
58
35
12
5
101
9
43
37
39
18
77
Median
33
28
66
67
2
14
23
63
55
4
48
1st Quartile
21
20
41
49
11
10
8
71
44
16
45
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 93 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
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 thei r facilities, in-creasing the total lifecycle cost of the facility.
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
1.0%
1.5%
1.9%
2.5%
3.5%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
4.0%
4.4%
4.7%
5.0%
6.8%
8.2%
8.9%
9.0%
9.1%
11.6%
12.5%
14.0%
20.0%
28.6%
100.0%
0.8%
3.8%
8.9%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
9
11
16
7
18
66
1
13
1st Quartile
71
37
2
6
28
41
49
32
Median
44
12
20
30
47
48
43
3
3rd Quartile
21
52
23
10
14
39
57
26
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$1,094
$976
$467
$414
$354
$303
$302
$228
$200
$107
$95
$90
$80
$79
$70
$60
$57
$48
$48
$47
$42
$38
$32
$32
$31
$26
$19
$19
$18
$13
$8
$8
$4
$3
$1
$23
$48
$154
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200
34
41
4
43
21
7
3
5
30
3rd Quartile
16
37
10
33
23
52
28
13
Median
1
44
32
66
35
14
55
101
6
1st Quartile
45
19
48
39
56
8
67
20
11
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Are you protecting your facilities assets through preventive maintenance?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 94
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 97 Major Maintenance – Del ivered 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 s taff, and clerical staff).
Figure 98 Major Maintenance – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs ,
such as archi tects, drafters and engineering consultants , including in-house drafters and designers . Delivered construction costs in-clude personnel , material , and suppl y costs , including in-house and
contracted work.
37.0%
41.9%
64.9%
71.1%
74.4%
76.2%
76.7%
77.6%
79.9%
84.5%
84.5%
85.0%
85.3%
86.6%
87.4%
87.7%
89.0%
89.4%
89.5%
90.4%
91.1%
92.9%
93.7%
95.1%
96.1%
96.2%
96.2%
97.9%
98.5%
99.0%
99.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
82.2%
89.4%
96.2%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
14
101
48
52
7
34
43
6
33
1st Quartile
44
23
32
37
66
5
16
49
Median
19
21
10
3
4
41
30
28
35
3rd Quartile
1
39
11
13
57
56
55
45
20
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
0.0%
1.4%
2.7%
3.4%
3.7%
4.1%
4.3%
5.1%
5.5%
5.7%
6.0%
7.1%
7.1%
8.3%
9.1%
9.2%
10.4%
10.8%
22.6%
25.6%
29.4%
32.9%
72.1%
4.2%
7.1%
10.6%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
14
11
35
32
4
28
1st Quartile
30
21
66
5
41
3
Median
37
10
44
49
23
3rd Quartile
16
7
43
34
52
101
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 95 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
Figure 99 Renovations – Cost per Student
Figure 100 Renovations – Del ivered 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 s taff, and clerical staff).
$1,478
$1,399
$1,329
$941
$672
$602
$589
$536
$499
$437
$426
$416
$384
$376
$275
$255
$240
$221
$181
$163
$142
$132
$117
$107
$79
$78
$71
$60
$49
$34
$31
$4
$3
$2
$78
$231
$483
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
34
12
101
39
37
6
26
20
33
3rd Quartile
28
52
48
3
11
25
10
7
Median
18
16
30
66
5
4
35
1
1st Quartile
55
71
32
43
44
14
21
56
8
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
2.2%
21.8%
39.5%
58.3%
66.5%
71.6%
71.7%
71.9%
72.0%
72.6%
73.7%
77.8%
80.1%
82.4%
83.0%
83.4%
85.0%
87.8%
89.8%
90.2%
92.0%
92.4%
92.4%
92.6%
92.7%
92.8%
93.2%
93.3%
94.3%
94.9%
97.4%
99.1%
100.0%
100.0%
72.1%
86.4%
92.8%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
56
1
43
5
52
28
55
37
66
1st Quartile
25
32
7
16
71
33
3
11
Median
30
6
35
63
101
34
4
10
3rd Quartile
48
44
49
18
39
14
12
57
20
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 96
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 101 Renovations – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs ,
such as archi tects, drafters and engineering consultants , including in-house drafters and designers . Delivered construction costs in-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.
0.3%
1.4%
1.7%
2.7%
3.7%
5.4%
5.5%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
6.9%
7.7%
9.7%
10.0%
10.7%
12.6%
13.2%
14.5%
15.4%
19.4%
19.9%
20.8%
22.2%
22.8%
25.0%
33.6%
34.0%
39.4%
43.4%
44.4%
181.3%
5.9%
12.6%
22.5%
0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0%
12
18
14
39
4
10
49
48
1st Quartile
101
44
34
63
11
35
6
Median
30
3
71
43
33
16
25
32
3rd Quartile
66
7
28
37
55
5
52
1
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$2,706
$2,407
$2,168
$952
$815
$767
$702
$701
$628
$581
$578
$524
$382
$334
$322
$320
$311
$269
$259
$251
$91
$42
$39
$30
$7
$5
$4
$2
$79
$328
$702
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
20
23
28
18
37
35
6
3rd Quartile
14
52
41
4
71
12
55
Median
44
66
11
48
16
47
39
1st Quartile
1
32
10
56
5
21
2
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 97 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
Figure 103 New Construction – Del ivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs
Figure 104 New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs ,
such as archi tects, drafters and engineering consultants , including in-house drafters and designers . Delivered construction costs in-clude personnel , material and supplies costs, including in -house and
contracted work.
8.7%
21.3%
29.1%
32.4%
59.1%
69.9%
71.6%
73.6%
77.0%
85.9%
86.0%
90.8%
91.6%
91.9%
92.3%
92.3%
92.4%
94.6%
96.8%
96.9%
97.0%
97.3%
97.6%
98.1%
98.6%
99.1%
99.2%
72.6%
91.9%
96.9%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1
56
37
5
71
32
11
1st Quartile
10
16
49
47
6
52
Median
48
44
39
55
4
66
18
3rd Quartile
41
14
20
35
28
12
23
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
1.2%
1.4%
1.8%
2.0%
2.4%
2.5%
3.3%
4.9%
5.6%
6.2%
6.4%
7.9%
8.2%
8.9%
9.6%
11.6%
13.2%
21.5%
24.0%
24.6%
31.6%
59.7%
129.4%
150.0%
1006.3% (not shown)
3.3%
8.2%
24.0%
0.0% 40.0% 80.0% 120.0% 160.0%
35
28
14
20
41
18
1st Quartile
66
4
52
39
48
44
Median
55
37
6
49
47
10
16
3rd Quartile
32
11
71
5
56
1
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 98
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
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.
$3,832
$3,765
$3,339
$2,973
$2,791
$2,528
$2,014
$1,966
$1,923
$1,831
$1,828
$1,750
$1,712
$1,518
$1,486
$1,486
$1,321
$1,264
$1,259
$1,233
$1,193
$1,103
$1,080
$1,058
$981
$968
$943
$920
$910
$880
$858
$837
$835
$770
$760
$683
$681
$597
$535
$507
$504
$429
$364
$285
$225
$770
$1,080
$1,750
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
20
34
28
23
6
12
37
52
41
101
35
3rd Quartile
18
4
33
39
43
3
14
66
25
7
11
71
Median
48
21
19
67
30
55
16
44
47
5
10
1st Quartile
26
58
77
56
32
2
13
9
8
45
1
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
29.8%
29.6%
27.2%
26.2%
22.7%
21.2%
17.7%
15.0%
14.8%
13.9%
13.9%
13.6%
12.7%
11.9%
11.6%
10.0%
9.7%
9.5%
9.1%
9.0%
9.0%
8.9%
8.4%
8.4%
7.5%
6.8%
6.7%
6.7%
6.3%
5.4%
4.9%
4.7%
4.6%
3.7%
2.4%
1.2%
6.7%
9.3%
14.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
34
23
101
6
20
37
39
12
18
3rd Quartile
14
52
48
4
16
49
3
66
7
Median
71
5
35
56
67
10
47
33
43
1st Quartile
13
30
25
58
8
21
2
1
45
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 99 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
Figure 107 Work Order Completion Time (Days)
This is the average amount of time it takes to complete a work or-
der.
Figure 108 Recycl ing – Percent of Material Stream
102
86
65
64
40
39
36
32
32
29
26
23
23
21
11
9
9
8
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
9
32
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
37
30
11
16
8
13
1
5
3rd Quartile
21
20
41
7
3
35
55
52
Median
23
49
44
4
28
14
6
71
1st Quartile
25
39
33
9
63
10
101
66
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
1.5%
1.7%
4.1%
8.4%
8.4%
12.3%
13.5%
15.5%
16.2%
16.4%
18.7%
19.2%
22.0%
23.6%
26.9%
27.0%
28.1%
32.7%
36.4%
42.4%
43.9%
54.0%
11.3%
19.0%
29.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
18
25
30
66
21
1st Quartile
37
28
55
8
19
41
Median
52
43
5
62
67
48
3rd Quartile
16
14
3
9
11
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 100
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 109 Uti l i ty Costs per Square Foot
Adjusted for cost of living.
$2.87 $2.00
$1.88 $1.83
$1.77 $1.74
$1.70 $1.69
$1.68 $1.66
$1.58 $1.55 $1.55 $1.53 $1.52 $1.52 $1.51 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50
$1.46 $1.44 $1.43 $1.42 $1.42 $1.42 $1.40
$1.35 $1.34
$1.28 $1.26 $1.25
$1.21 $1.20 $1.19
$1.18 $1.13
$1.09 $1.09
$1.06 $1.04
$0.96 $0.91
$0.88 $0.87 $0.86
$0.81 $0.79
$0.68 $0.58
$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50
$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50
647677941342010253928
93rd Quartile
48234932194371214418
713
Median63
2265214586266
48
10130
1st Quartile551133374516
312
556
1
Electricity Heating Fuel Water Sewer 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 101 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
Figure 110 Uti l i ty Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh)
Figure 111 Uti l i ty Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU)
This measure is heavily influenced by region.
17.4
15.8
14.9
14.1
14.0
13.8
13.5
13.0
12.8
12.5
12.0
11.6
11.1
11.0
11.0
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.6
10.6
9.8
9.6
9.3
9.2
9.2
9.0
8.5
8.3
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.2
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.2
5.7
4.8
4.6
4.2
3.9
7.1
9.4
11.7
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
39
34
32
28
13
41
10
47
48
9
20
3rd Quartile
19
63
44
71
8
23
18
49
2
66
33
Median
4
37
7
67
55
21
52
43
12
11
101
1st Quartile
14
30
62
3
58
1
25
16
26
5
56
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
71.6
66.4
65.1
52.0
52.0
50.8
49.1
46.6
46.5
43.1
42.7
41.8
33.9
33.4
22.8
20.8
15.1
14.5
12.0
10.2
10.1
7.6
5.9
5.6
3.3
1.9
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
10.2
42.8
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
52
14
43
12
21
34
3
33
58
5
3rd Quartile
19
20
66
4
49
18
9
28
41
11
Median
71
16
10
39
23
48
8
7
44
25
1st Quartile
26
30
47
2
67
1
55
56
63
37
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 102
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 112 Uti l i ty Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)
Figure 113 Bui lding Square Footage by Type
55.8
37.4
29.5
28.4
26.1
25.8
22.6
19.8
19.8
14.4
14.1
13.2
13.1
13.0
11.7
11.4
11.2
11.0
8.4
8.1
7.8
7.3
7.0
6.3
5.0
2.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
7.3
11.7
19.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
13
10
49
41
14
56
63
9
3rd Quartile
30
58
8
5
52
21
55
Median
12
20
16
43
37
4
28
1st Quartile
25
26
7
47
62
39
48
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
82.0%82.7%83.8%84.0%
87.6%89.0%
91.7%91.8%92.3%93.0%93.4%94.4%94.8%95.4%95.8%96.0%96.9%96.9%97.3%97.8%97.9%98.1%98.1%98.1%98.5%98.8%98.9%99.0%99.1%99.3%99.4%99.5%99.5%99.6%99.6%99.6%99.7%99.8%99.8%99.8%99.8%99.8%99.9%
100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
56621667111439
10148715541
813
949234432
166
7204710
535571828215825
212374319
43
2652
630333445637779
Site-Built Modular Portable
Do your facilities provide excellent spaces for learning?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 103 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
Figure 114 Bui lding Square Footage by Usage
This shows the ratio of academic buildings to non-academic buildings . Additionally, i t shows the ratio of vacant buildings to occupied buildings . Va-
cant buildings are often the result of shifting populations.
87.0%
87.1%
87.4%
87.4%
88.7%
90.1%
90.3%
90.6%
90.6%
90.9%
91.1%
92.0%
92.3%
92.9%
93.4%
93.9%
94.0%
94.4%
94.5%
94.5%
94.7%
95.2%
95.2%
95.2%
95.4%
95.5%
95.7%
95.7%
95.7%
95.8%
95.9%
96.0%
96.0%
96.1%
96.3%
96.3%
96.3%
96.4%
96.8%
96.9%
97.0%
97.0%
97.1%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
2.6%
20.0%
3.9%
3.8%
2.0%
3.1%
0.1%
9.2%
0.6%
34.9%
38.2%
3.1%
0.2%
16.8%
19.9%
9.0%
0.8%
11.1%
22.2%
0.5%
2.2%
2.2%
1.8%
1.6%
2.1%
9.5%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
4.0%
60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 110.0% 120.0% 130.0% 140.0%
5
33
19
56
52
4
2
41
66
79
18
57
39
34
3
11
63
20
6
30
14
37
35
43
101
12
45
23
62
9
13
21
44
1
25
16
55
49
32
8
48
10
47
26
58
77
Academic Non-Academic Vacant
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 104
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 115 Green Buildings – Bui ldings Green Certified or Equivalent
This shows the proportion of facili ties that have earned a green cer-
tifi cate, such as LEED, or are built in alignment with green certi fica-tion cri teria.
0.1%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.3%
1.9%
2.2%
2.2%
3.3%
4.1%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.5%
5.9%
6.5%
7.8%
8.7%
9.8%
15.2%
15.3%
15.3%
18.9%
21.4%
26.1%
26.9%
79.0%
79.0%
93.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
26
10
55
3
7
57
66
5
101
45
11
58
52
37
2
44
47
9
39
71
48
41
16
32
33
23
49
28
14
19
56
12
Green Certified
Green Equivalent
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 105 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Cu stod ial W ork – Cost p er S quare 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
identi fy opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to reduce costs. Factors that Influence
x Cost of labor
x Col lective bargaining agreements
x Cost of supplies and materials
x 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 a ll non-vacant buildings.
Cu stod ial W ork – Cost p er S tudent
Importance This measure is an important indicator of the efficien-cy of the custodial operations. The value is a ffected not only by op-
erational 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 identi fy opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to reduce costs.
Factors that Influence
x Cost of labor
x Cost of supplies and materials
x Scope of duties assigned to custodians Calculation Total custodial work costs (contractor and dis trict op-
erated) divided by tota l student enrollment.
Cu stod ial S upply Cost p er S quare Foot
Importance This measure is an important indicator of the efficien-cy of the custodial operations. The value is a ffected not only by op-
erational 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 identi fy opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to reduce costs.
Factors that Influence
x Cost of labor
x Cost of supplies and materials
x Scope of duties assigned to custodians Calculation Total custodial supply cost of dis trict-operated custo-
dial services divided by total square footage of buildings managed by the district. This measure only applies to district-operated sites.
Rou tin e Maintenance – Cost p er S quare Foot
Importance This provides a measure of the total costs of routine
maintenance relative to the district size (by building square footage). Factors that Influence
x Age of infrastructure
x Experience of maintenance staff
x Tra ining of custodial staff to do maintenance work
x Deferred maintenance backlog Calculation Cost of dis trict-operated maintenance work plus cost
of contractor-operated maintenance work divided by total square footage of non-vacant buildings.
Rou tin e Maintenance – Cost p er W ork O rder
Importance This provides a measure of the costs of each routine maintenance work order.
Factors that Influence
x Age of infrastructure
x Experience of maintenance staff
x Tra ining of custodial staff to do maintenance work
x Deferred maintenance backlog Calculation Total costs of all routine maintenance work divided by tota l number of routine maintenance work orders.
Rou tin e Maintenance – P roportion Contractor- Operated
Importance Can be used to identify dis tricts 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 Main ten ance – Cost p er S tudent
Importance This looks at the cost of major maintenance projects relative to the size of the district (by s tudent enrollment).
Factors that Influence
x Number of capital projects
x Deferred maintenance backlog
x Passage of bond measures
x Age of infrastructure
x District technology plan Calculation Total cost of major maintenance work divided by total
s tudent enrollment.
Major Main ten ance – D elivered Con struction Costs as P ercent 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.
Ren ovations – Cost p er S tuden t
Importance This indicates the level of spending on major renova-
tions relative to the size of the district (by student enrollment). Factors that Influence
x Number of capital projects
x Age of infrastructure
x District technology plan
Calculation Total cost of renovations divided by total s tudent en-rol lment.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 106
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Ren ovations – D elivered Construction Costs as P ercent of Total
Importance This can be used to evaluate the cost of delivered
construction relative to design costs and personnel costs. Calculation Construction costs of major rehab/renovation pro-jects divided by tota l costs of all major rehab/renovation projects.
Ren ov ations – D esign to Con struction Cost Ratio
Importance This can be used to evaluate the cost of delivered 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 Con struction – Cost p er S tudent
Importance This looks at the total amount of construction spend-ing relative to district size (by s tudent enrollment). Factors that Influence
x Number of capital projects
x Population growth trends
x Qual ity of buildings Calculation Total costs of new construction projects divided by to-ta l s tudent enrollment.
New Con struction – D esign to Con struction Cost Ratio
Importance This can be used to evaluate the cost of delivered 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 p er S tudent
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 (dis trict and contractor) plus total major mainte-
nance/minor renovations costs plus total major rehab/renovations a l l divided by tota l number of students.
M&O Cost Ratio to D istrict Bu dget
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 (dis trict and contractor) plus total major mainte-nance/minor renovations costs plus total major rehab/renovations plus new construction divided by dis trict budget.
Recyclin g – P ercent of Material S tream
Importance This measures the degree to which districts recycle. Factors that Influence
x Placement of recycling bins near waste bins
x Number of recycling bins deployed
x Material collection contracts
x Commitment to environmental stewardship
x State requirements Calculation Total material s tream that was recycled (in tons) di-vided by tota l material stream (in tons).
Utility Cost p er S quare Foot
Importance This measures the efficiency of the dis trict's building
utili ty operations . It may also reflect a dis trict’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. Factors that Influence
x Age of buildings and physical plants
x Amount of air-conditioned space
x Regional climate differences
x Customer support of conservation efforts to upgrade lighting and HVAC systems
x Energy conservation policies and management practices Calculation Total utility costs (including electrici ty, heating fuel , water, and sewer) divided by total square footage of all non-vacant
bui ldings.
Utility Usag e – Electricity Usage p er S quare Foot (k Wh)
Importance This measures the level of electricity usage. Districts with high usage should investigate ways to decrease usage in order
to reduce costs. Factors that Influence
x Use of high-efficiency light bulbs
x Automated light switches
x Shutdown policy during winter break
x Regulation of heating and air conditioning Calculation Total electrici ty usage (in kWh) divided by total square footage of a ll non-vacant buildings.
Utility Usag e – Heatin g Fuel Usage p er S quare Foot (k BTU)
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 a ll non-vacant buildings.
Utility Usag e – W ater (Non- Irrigation) Usage p er S quare Foot (Gal. )
Importance Can be used to evaluate water usage. Factors that Influence
x Low-flow toilets and urinals
x Maintenance of faucet aerators
x Motion-sensor faucets to reduce vandalism Calculation Total water usage (in gallons) excluding i rrigation di-vided by tota l square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Bu ild in g S quare Footag e b y 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 Si te-Built: Total square footage of all permanent si te-buil t buildings
divided by tota l 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 tota l square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 107 Maintenance & Operations
OPER
ATIO
NS
MA
INTEN
AN
CE & O
PERA
TION
S
Portable: Total square footage of all portable buildings divided by to-ta l square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Bu ild in g S quare Footag e b y Usage
Importance Can be used to evaluate ratios of building usage. Calculation
Academic: Total square footage of all academic buildings divided by tota l square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Non-Academic: Total square footage of all non-academic buildings divided by tota l square footage of all non-vacant buildings. Vacant: Total square footage of all vacant buildings divided by total
square footage of a ll non-vacant district buildings.
Green Bu ildings – Building s Green Certif ied or Eq uivalent
Importance This measure compares the number of energy effi-
cient or "green" buildings in the district. Factors that Influence
x Community support for environmental and sustainability measures
x Grant availability
x District policy
x Environmental site assessment
x Local health issues
Calculation Square footage of all permanent buildings (academic and non-academic) with a green-building certi ficate plus square
footage of all permanent buildings (academic and non-academic) that were buil t in alignment with a green building code but not certi-fied.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 108
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NCE
& O
PER
ATI
ON
S
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 109 Safety & Security
OPER
ATIO
NS
SA
FETY & S
ECUR
ITY
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 l ikely to apply to these measures:
x Level of crime in the surrounding neighborhoods
x Configuration of school (office, front desk, etc.) to make access control a possibility
x Inclusion of security systems in a district’s construction and modernization program
x Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the need for more staff
x Documented need for additional safety and security staff—for example, documented crime statistics and trends.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 110
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
L I S T O F KPIS I N SA F E TY & SE CU R I TY Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Safety & Securi ty. Indicators in bold are those included in
this report. (See “KPI Defini tions” 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
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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
Si tes
Incidents - Assaults - Fi rearm 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 Si te
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 Si tes
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
Securi ty Plans - Academic Sites with NIMS-Compliant Plan Tra ining Hours per Law Enforcement personnel, Contracted
Tra ining Hours per Security personnel, Contracted Tra ining Hours per Security/Police personnel, District Vulnerability Assessments of Construction/Renovation Designs -
Percent of Projects
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 111 Safety & Security
OPER
ATIO
NS
SA
FETY & S
ECUR
ITY
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 116 Incident Rate vs. Staffing Level
This chart compares incident rates against the safety and securi ty s taffing levels . In theory, a district with a high number of incidents might want to
address this i ssue with higher numbers of staff or other strategies.
(Not shown: District 21, 146 incidents, 4.6 s taff; District 7, 162 incidents, 3.4 s taff; District 101, 199 incidents, 1.2 s taff.)
14
28
71
6
26
13
45
23
20
9
35
41
37
12 44
1039
33
34
25
488
43
16
58
1
34
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
S&S
Sta
ff p
er 1
,00
0 S
tud
ents
People Incidents per 1,000 Students
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 112
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 117 Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students
Figure 118 Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students
46.0
29.4
28.8
18.4
18.3
17.7
14.8
12.9
12.5
11.7
9.3
7.9
6.1
6.0
5.3
5.0
4.8
4.5
4.3
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
2.3
4.5
12.1
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
52
19
2
34
4
48
6
47
26
3rd Quartile
58
71
28
43
21
25
8
45
3
Median
101
9
14
37
7
33
1
16
1st Quartile
44
13
35
41
23
39
10
20
12
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
1,374.2
1,319.2
1,143.4
409.5
199.3
162.3
146.2
62.5
47.6
45.7
44.9
38.4
37.5
36.4
34.1
30.3
26.1
22.7
19.2
18.8
18.7
16.8
16.1
14.1
12.2
11.2
10.5
7.8
6.3
5.8
5.3
3.6
2.5
1.4
0.7
10.9
22.7
46.7
0.0 500.0 1,000.0 1,500.0
52
19
47
2
101
7
21
34
58
3rd Quartile
37
33
48
4
6
45
26
1
Median
28
43
10
9
71
23
25
13
14
1st Quartile
8
41
35
3
16
39
44
20
12
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 113 Safety & Security
OPER
ATIO
NS
SA
FETY & S
ECUR
ITY
Figure 119 S&S Expenditures per Student
Figure 120 S&S Expenditures as Percent of District Budget
$12
$19
$30
$37
$39
$41
$42
$46
$49
$49
$50
$55
$56
$56
$58
$58
$59
$61
$63
$71
$72
$85
$91
$92
$98
$99
$104
$122
$138
$148
$158
$158
$167
$176
$178
$187
$202
$203
$266
$310
$450
$50
$72
$158
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500
5
77
48
44
47
66
23
26
12
16
10
1st Quartile
1
8
56
9
3
67
41
13
37
Median
6
101
4
52
39
14
71
45
30
35
2
3rd Quartile
20
19
7
43
58
21
28
34
33
25
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.13%
0.30%
0.33%
0.36%
0.36%
0.39%
0.42%
0.44%
0.47%
0.53%
0.55%
0.56%
0.60%
0.67%
0.68%
0.69%
0.70%
0.73%
0.73%
0.74%
0.77%
0.84%
0.89%
0.90%
0.90%
0.94%
0.98%
1.00%
1.12%
1.16%
1.18%
1.31%
1.37%
1.41%
1.45%
1.46%
1.99%
2.15%
0.54%
0.74%
1.09%
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
5
12
66
47
26
48
23
3
44
45
1st Quartile
67
10
1
52
6
4
16
41
35
Median
8
37
43
13
71
56
20
21
30
3rd Quartile
14
2
39
101
58
33
28
7
25
34
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 114
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 121 S&S Staff per 1,000 Students
Figure 122 Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.7
4.6
5.3
5.4
7.3
1.1
1.4
2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
47
16
9
44
12
13
56
10
71
8
1st Quartile
48
39
41
52
1
23
101
4
26
3
Median
67
35
37
6
45
33
14
5
43
19
3rd Quartile
28
58
2
7
30
20
21
34
66
25
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.5
3.7
9.1
9.6
13.0
14.8
15.3
17.5
21.0
21.9
25.2
26.1
28.2
28.9
29.2
31.5
33.5
35.9
41.4
43.1
45.0
50.0
63.7
70.2
75.2
79.1
83.6
100.0
109.0
194.9
9.5
27.2
46.3
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
25
13
21
44
43
12
6
57
66
1st Quartile
58
56
28
30
71
48
19
20
33
Median
23
7
101
4
8
35
39
10
41
3rd Quartile
1
34
37
16
14
47
3
9
2
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
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?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 115 Safety & Security
OPER
ATIO
NS
SA
FETY & S
ECUR
ITY
Figure 123 Crisi s Response Teams - Dri lls per Team
Figure 124 Crisi s Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site
0.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.9
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.9
4.0
5.2
6.0
8.4
9.2
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.4
11.1
11.2
14.7
15.4
16.0
16.9
17.3
1.8
4.0
10.2
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
35
6
33
67
13
10
101
48
1st Quartile
23
4
66
19
56
14
21
20
Median
8
1
26
16
41
9
3
25
3rd Quartile
52
39
37
12
71
2
47
28
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.29
0.39
0.71
0.78
0.80
0.92
0.96
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.04
1.04
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.19
0.86
1.00
1.05
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
57
7
63
33
34
25
13
48
6
1st Quartile
14
67
19
1
30
3
9
2
41
Median
28
47
66
26
71
23
16
10
3rd Quartile
39
20
4
101
52
56
8
37
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
Do your crisis response teams conduct enough drills to be effec-tive in case of a real emergency?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 116
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 125 Health/Safety Inspections - Si tes Inspected Annually
Figure 126 Health/Safety Violations per Site
This is the total number of heal th and/or safety violations identified
in the district divided by the total number of sites.
31.0%
34.4%
70.9%
78.6%
83.2%
86.7%
88.7%
90.0%
91.5%
92.9%
94.6%
95.0%
96.2%
98.3%
98.5%
98.8%
99.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
87.7%
95.0%
99.5%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
35
25
4
6
66
2
1st Quartile
28
19
39
14
21
Median
44
10
16
52
63
8
3rd Quartile
3
1
34
23
20
7
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value67.4
34.9
32.4
16.2
14.7
6.9
4.0
2.8
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.7
1.5
10.8
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
13
48
10
8
44
3rd Quartile
35
21
2
52
Median
63
39
25
66
12
1st Quartile
45
1
4
6
7
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 117 Safety & Security
OPER
ATIO
NS
SA
FETY & S
ECUR
ITY
Figure 127 Incidents - Bul lying/Harassment Incidents per 1,000 Students
Figure 128 Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Si te
28.8
21.6
21.0
19.5
17.1
13.2
12.2
11.4
6.6
5.5
5.3
4.6
3.6
3.5
2.6
2.1
1.9
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.0
1.0
3.6
12.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
19
7
33
2
14
3
4
3rd Quartile
47
52
9
23
25
6
Median
26
10
58
8
1
71
1st Quartile
48
13
39
20
16
34
28
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
74.20
24.55
22.02
14.36
9.46
4.93
3.89
3.76
1.57
1.55
0.69
0.64
0.55
0.46
0.40
0.34
0.32
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.19
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.11
0.34
2.66
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
9
63
35
5
101
10
58
33
3rd Quartile
34
6
1
28
44
41
8
Median
37
7
39
12
48
57
20
67
1st Quartile
26
2
71
4
3
16
23
25
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 118
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Figure 129 Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent Of Si tes
This is the proportion of sites that are equipped with an intru-
s ion/burglary a larm system.
34%
61%
68%
72%
74%
83%
86%
89%
89%
90%
93%
94%
96%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
25
6
57
58
13
1
10
48
28
1st Quartile
16
67
101
14
19
7
37
20
39
26
21
41
2
52
4
3
30
9
8
47
5
71
23
34
56
43
66
1st Quartile
District Value
Are your sites equipped to prevent theft or vandalism? Are your alarm systems effective?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 119 Safety & Security
OPER
ATIO
NS
SA
FETY & S
ECUR
ITY
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S In cid ents - Assault/Battery In cidents p er 1 ,000 S tudents
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-rol lment.
Factors that Influence
x Avai lable resources to allocate for safety and security
x Staffing formulas
x Documented need for additional safety and securi ty s taff through data such as crime s tatistics
x Utili zation of technology such as securi ty cameras to offset the need for more s taff
x Enrol lment Calculation Total number of assault/battery incidents divided by tota l student enrollment in thousands.
In cid ents - P eople Incidents p er 1 ,000 S tudents
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-
rol lment. Factors that Influence
x Avai lable resources to allocate for safety and security
x Staffing formulas
x Documented need for additional safety and securi ty s taff
through data such as crime s tatistics
x Utili zation of technology such as securi ty cameras to offset the need for more s taff
x Enrol lment Calculation Total number of people incidents divided by total s tu-
dent enrollment in thousands.
S &S Exp enditures p er 1 ,000 S tud ents
Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-
port for safety and securi ty operations as a percent of dis trict gen-eral fund budget. A low percentage could be an indication that secu-ri ty needs are not being met by the district or that other revenue
sources are needed to support securi ty for dis trict s taff and s tu-dents.
Factors that Influence
x Overal l general fund budget
x Level of crime s tatistics of surrounding neighborhoods
x District policy for security
x Budget allocations Calculation Total safety and securi ty expenditures divided by total s tudent enrollment in thousands.
S &S Exp enditures P ercent of D istrict Budget
Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-port for safety and securi ty operations as a percent of dis trict gen-
eral operating budget. A low percentage could be an indication that securi ty needs are not being met by the dis trict or that other reve-nue sources are needed to support securi ty for district s taff and s tu-
dents. Factors that Influence
x Overal l general fund budget
x Level of crime s tatistics of surrounding neighborhoods
x District policy for security
x Budget allocations Calculation Total safety and securi ty expenditures divided by dis-trict operating expenditures.
S &S S taff p er 1 ,000 S tuden ts
Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-
port for safety and securi ty operations as a ratio to student enroll-ment. A low ratio could be an indication that securi ty needs are not
being met by the district or that other revenue sources are needed to support security for district staff and s tudents. Factors that Influence
x Overal l general fund budget
x Level of crime s tatistics of surrounding neighborhoods
x District policy for security
x Budget allocations Calculation Total safety and securi ty s taff members divided by to-ta l s tudent enrollment in thousands.
Train in g Hours p er S afety/Security P ersonn el
Importance Most school districts complete crisis response training prior to the opening of each school year. Factors that Influence
x Emergency response priority with school/district leadership
x Emergency response resources
x Thoroughness of school/district cri sis response plan
x Weather
x Avai lability of outside agencies and personnel to participate Calculation Total number of hours of safety-related drills and trainings for all safety and securi ty personnel divided by total num-
ber of safety and security personnel.
Crisis Resp onse Teams - D rills p er Team
Importance Ideally, district sites with a designated crisis response
team have all conducted drills of some sort. Factors that Influence
x Geography of district
x Priori ties of district leadership
x Previous traumatic events or cri sis
x Emergency response resources
x Updated procedures and protocols
Calculation Total number of team drills conducted by crisis re-sponse teams divided by the tota l number of crisis response teams.
Crisis Resp onse Teams - Teams p er Academic S ite
Importance Dis tricts should build capaci ty to respond to crises by
having designated crisis response teams. Factors that Influence
x Geography of district
x Priori ties of district leadership
x Previous traumatic events or cri sis
x Emergency response resources
x Updated procedures and protocols
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 120
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
Calculation Total number of crisis response teams divided by the tota l number of academic sites.
Health /Safety Inspections - S ites Inspected Ann ually
Importance Regular heal th 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
s i tes.
Health /Safety Violation s p er S ite
Factors that Influence
x Risk mitigation efforts
x Focus of leadership on health and safety Calculation Total number of health/safety violations identi fied at
site inspections divided by the total number of district sites that were inspected.
In cid ents - Bu llying/Harassment p er 1 , 000 S tudents
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-
rol lment. Factors that Influence
x Avai lable resources to allocate for safety and security
x Staffing formulas
x Documented need for additional safety and securi ty s taff through data such as crime s tatistics
x Utili zation of technology such as securi ty cameras to offset the need for more s taff
x Enrol lment Calculation Total number of bullying/harassment incidents divid-ed by tota l district enrollment in thousands.
In cid ents - In trusion/Burglary In cidents p er S ite
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents
in each dis trict, adjusted for the size of the district (by number of s i tes). Factors that Influence
x Avai lable resources to allocate for s afety and security
x Staffing formulas
x Documented need for additional safety and securi ty s taff through data such as crime s tatistics
x Utili zation of technology such as securi ty cameras to offset the need for more s taff
x Effectiveness of security alarm systems Calculation Tota l number of intrusion/burglary incidents divided by tota l number of district sites.
In tru sion/Burg lary Alarm S ystems - P ercent of S ites
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents in each dis trict, adjusted for the size of the district (by number of s i tes).
Factors that Influence
x Avai lable resources to allocate for safety and security
x Staffing formulas
x Documented need for additional safety and securi ty s taff through data such as crime s tatistics
x Utili zation of technology such as securi ty cameras to offset the
need for more s taff
x Effectiveness of security alarm systems Calculation Total number of intrusion/burglary incidents divided by tota l number of district sites.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 121 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
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:
x Types of transported programs served
x Bell schedule
x Effectiveness of the routing plan
x Spare bus factor needed
x Age of fleet
x Driver wage and benefit structure and labor contracts
x Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed
x Enrollment projections and their impact on transported progra ms
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 122
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
L I S T O F KPIS I N TR A N S P O R TA TI O N Below is the complete lis t of Power Indicators , Essential Few, and other key indicators in Transportation. Indicators in bold are those included in
this report. (See “KPI Defini tions” 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
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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
Accidents - Mi les between Accidents (Contractor-Operated) Accidents - Mi les between Accidents (District-Operated) Accidents - Mi les between Preventable Accidents (Contractor-
Operated) Accidents - Mi les 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 Mi les per Deadhead Mi le Bus Usage - Live Mi les per Deadhead Mi le (Contractor-Operated) Bus Usage - Live Mi les per Deadhead Mi le (District-Operated)
Bus Usage - Mi les per Bus Bus Usage - Mi les per Bus (Contractor-Operated) Bus Usage - Mi les 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 - Al ternative 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 Tra iner Personnel - Routes per Planner
Publ ic Transit - Pass/Token Cost as Percent of Retail Publ ic 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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 123 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 130 Cost per Mi le 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.
For FY 2011-12, the correlation coefficient of these two measures was a modest 0.35, while the FY 2012-13 resul ts shown below have a correlation
coefficient of only 0.11. This may be due to geographic differences (e.g., district size and population densi ty), 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.
1
23
4
5
6
78
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
18
1920
21
25
2628
30 3334
35
37
39
41
4445
4849
50
52
55
56
57
58
62
63
66
67
71
79
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00
Co
st p
er
Rid
er
Cost per Mile Operated
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 124
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
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. For FY 2011-12, the correlation co-
efficient of these two measures was 0.19, while the FY 2012-13 results shown below have a correlation coefficient of 0.36.
1
23
4
5
6
78
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
18
19 20
2123
25
2628
30 3334
35
37
39
41
43
4445
4849
50
52
54
55
56
57
58
62
63
66
67
71
79
101
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$- $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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 125 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 132 Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet
Figure 133 Cost per Mi le Operated
Adjusted for cost of living.
16.9
13.0
12.4
12.3
12.3
12.0
12.0
11.8
11.6
11.0
10.9
10.2
9.7
9.5
9.4
9.2
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.5
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.2
6.1
6.0
5.9
4.8
4.7
4.3
3.9
3.0
2.8
6.3
8.5
11.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
62
57
2
10
11
18
56
16
13
79
3rd Quartile
5
7
49
19
37
33
25
58
8
Median
39
21
66
14
9
28
48
71
30
1st Quartile
35
12
52
6
20
55
26
67
4
3
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$8.21
$7.74
$7.04
$6.97
$6.78
$6.74
$6.58
$6.50
$6.46
$6.13
$5.77
$5.72
$5.32
$5.30
$5.30
$5.13
$4.95
$4.89
$4.87
$4.77
$4.71
$4.47
$4.39
$4.39
$4.25
$4.20
$4.17
$4.10
$3.98
$3.95
$3.93
$3.88
$3.70
$3.64
$3.56
$3.23
$3.20
$3.14
$2.96
$2.94
$2.86
$2.59
$2.35
$1.95
$1.29
$3.64
$4.39
$5.72
$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00
6
33
26
28
45
58
79
12
21
1
11
34
3rd Quartile
37
62
63
5
7
48
66
20
9
16
35
Median
13
52
30
4
10
41
71
3
56
49
1st Quartile
19
44
55
8
39
14
18
2
25
50
67
57
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 126
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 134 Cost per Rider
Adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 135 Cost per Bus
Adjusted for cost of living.
$4,588
$3,916
$3,397
$3,220
$3,186
$2,554
$2,443
$2,349
$1,848
$1,769
$1,716
$1,633
$1,526
$1,521
$1,309
$1,255
$1,242
$1,241
$1,185
$1,168
$1,112
$1,108
$1,081
$1,010
$1,008
$1,001
$993
$968
$934
$927
$829
$803
$756
$695
$687
$684
$676
$676
$665
$654
$610
$602
$559
$540
$500
$463
$427
$425
$415
$676
$1,008
$1,526
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
54
62
101
57
11
58
66
16
56
4
79
25
3rd Quartile
43
39
63
26
6
28
45
35
44
34
9
30
Median
33
48
52
1
49
41
12
19
20
71
10
7
5
1st Quartile
50
13
2
8
3
37
23
55
18
21
14
67
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$92,881
$83,611
$83,585
$81,452
$77,328
$76,739
$76,350
$73,323
$71,118
$69,390
$68,521
$67,438
$67,282
$66,963
$66,934
$66,400
$64,670
$61,539
$60,426
$60,209
$58,350
$57,588
$57,446
$56,093
$55,969
$55,934
$55,909
$55,852
$55,567
$55,547
$51,935
$51,032
$50,680
$50,589
$48,780
$47,661
$46,755
$46,522
$45,275
$44,508
$42,215
$40,346
$37,095
$35,069
$30,121
$29,437
$27,057
$26,525
$25,132
$46,755
$55,969
$67,282
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
57
79
26
12
11
48
58
52
28
62
63
35
3rd Quartile
54
1
45
9
34
3
33
44
66
7
55
41
16
Median
21
6
71
13
20
4
30
37
56
10
5
43
1st Quartile
49
18
39
19
2
101
14
23
25
8
67
50
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 127 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 136 On-Time Performance
Figure 137 Bus Equipment - GPS Tracking
92.717%
94.070%
97.820%
98.000%
98.054%
98.134%
98.217%
98.833%
98.929%
98.958%
99.244%
99.581%
99.646%
99.708%
99.854%
99.860%
99.866%
99.887%
99.898%
99.903%
99.903%
99.991%
99.993%
99.994%
98.217%
99.646%
99.898%
90.000% 92.000% 94.000% 96.000% 98.000% 100.000%
52
26
5
39
55
11
1st Quartile
4
16
33
34
3
14
37
Median
71
25
7
101
30
3rd Quartile
28
23
35
20
48
67
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
8%
26%
28%
31%
36%
37%
37%
44%
56%
69%
72%
80%
85%
90%
90%
90%
91%
91%
92%
93%
96%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
72%
96%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
49
43
23
25
66
8
13
16
67
5
21
1st Quartile
14
71
12
20
19
50
56
18
1
9
Median
11
41
3
33
44
35
54
3rd Quartile
48
52
10
4
39
26
7
101
37
45
28
55
34
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 128
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 138 Accidents - Mi les between Accidents
16,942
20,529
20,767
20,781
23,360
28,116
29,332
32,024
34,622
35,609
36,179
36,756
44,478
48,549
48,895
49,686
52,121
52,374
54,175
54,681
57,291
59,860
62,379
66,529
67,975
68,040
69,732
69,958
70,445
82,880
85,223
85,953
90,632
91,067
93,714
113,363
136,657
145,465
146,228
148,669
185,294
254,917
304,225
36,179
59,860
90,632
- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
26
37
5
101
41
19
79
33
13
45
35
1st Quartile
28
7
10
62
9
16
34
55
21
71
49
Median
20
39
1
11
2
12
3
52
44
6
30
3rd Quartile
66
8
14
25
48
4
18
67
63
57
Contractor-Operated
District-Operated
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Overall
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 129 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 139 Accidents - Mi les between Preventable Accidents
20,781
37,113
40,161
45,163
53,238
55,954
58,663
65,087
69,764
72,855
79,859
83,139
90,463
93,466
93,673
94,771
95,071
95,211
96,577
98,876
103,774
117,059
119,225
119,929
125,293
153,377
153,589
161,993
175,248
181,995
186,232
193,814
194,320
220,497
229,682
249,974
292,691
311,529
436,000
450,000
450,000
76,357
103,774
190,023
- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
101
19
41
37
5
33
79
26
45
28
1st Quartile
7
35
2
1
55
34
9
20
16
21
10
Median
49
13
12
62
66
71
52
39
8
6
3rd Quartile
14
58
44
48
11
18
4
25
57
67
Contractor-Operated
District-Operated
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Overall
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 130
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 140 Bus Fleet - Al ternatively Fueled Buses
Figure 141 Bus Fleet - Dai ly 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.
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
4%
4%
10%
13%
17%
23%
48%
62%
70%
73%
79%
96%
100%
100%
3%
17%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
28
7
35
71
44
1st Quartile
48
6
62
67
Median
1
56
41
11
16
3rd Quartile
49
5
9
39
26
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
58%
63%
67%
68%
75%
75%
76%
77%
79%
80%
80%
80%
80%
81%
81%
82%
82%
83%
84%
84%
85%
86%
87%
87%
87%
89%
89%
90%
90%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
92%
92%
93%
94%
94%
94%
94%
99%
99%
100%
100%
80%
87%
91%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
16
33
10
19
57
12
2
71
7
62
37
79
1st Quartile
14
49
48
28
23
5
52
39
8
56
26
6
Median
66
21
44
55
9
41
101
34
45
30
1
4
3rd Quartile
3
67
18
20
54
58
25
35
13
50
11
43
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 131 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 142 Bus Usage - Dai ly Runs per Bus
Increasing the number of daily runs per bus is a s trategy to decrease
costs and is achieved by establishing a tiered bell schedule that s tag-gers the s tart and end times of the schools in the dis trict so that each bus can serve multiple schools.
Figure 143 Bus Usage - Dai ly Seat Utilization
0.50
0.59
1.00
1.00
1.84
1.90
2.06
2.62
2.77
2.98
3.00
3.00
3.42
3.45
3.53
3.69
3.70
3.74
3.79
3.93
4.00
4.17
4.26
4.31
4.32
4.40
4.59
4.63
4.79
4.89
4.95
5.13
5.31
5.42
5.43
5.68
5.80
5.92
6.02
6.05
6.32
6.72
8.67
3.00
4.17
5.22
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
8
11
37
58
50
21
25
67
54
43
101
18
1st Quartile
6
5
45
30
13
33
20
23
35
Median
28
9
66
34
57
49
1
4
71
56
79
3rd Quartile
39
2
16
26
14
10
48
3
12
52
7
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.29
0.36
0.55
0.55
0.57
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.81
0.83
0.89
0.91
0.95
1.02
1.05
1.06
1.10
1.10
1.14
1.24
1.27
1.39
1.45
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.70
2.12
2.38
0.71
0.98
1.30
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
25
79
11
21
56
1
5
63
1st Quartile
39
66
33
101
4
57
28
71
Median
16
13
23
6
49
37
30
3
3rd Quartile
9
48
8
52
2
55
14
7
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 132
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 144 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel
Most dis tricts use their purchasing power to negotiate discounts on
fuel .
Figure 145 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline
Most dis tricts use their purchasing power to negotiate discounts on
fuel .
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.1%
94.0%
93.7%
92.9%
92.7%
92.0%
91.9%
91.5%
91.1%
89.5%
88.4%
88.1%
87.5%
87.3%
87.1%
86.7%
85.6%
84.9%
83.9%
82.9%
82.6%
81.3%
80.9%
80.5%
80.2%
80.0%
79.7%
83.7%
88.3%
93.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%100.0%
79
33
26
6
7
19
3
52
3rd Quartile
67
25
13
48
62
44
37
16
Median
57
35
8
4
28
18
66
11
1st Quartile
47
45
49
10
71
21
55
9
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.1%
96.2%
93.3%
93.1%
92.4%
92.2%
91.7%
90.8%
90.3%
90.0%
89.7%
88.9%
88.3%
87.5%
87.1%
85.9%
84.2%
83.2%
82.6%
79.3%
79.2%
78.6%
85.9%
90.0%
93.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%100.0%
6
7
33
19
66
62
3rd Quartile
67
52
48
13
5
16
71
Median
11
47
8
25
35
28
1st Quartile
37
10
9
55
49
21
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 133 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 146 Dai ly Ride Time - General Education
This is the estimated average daily ride time for a single trip (one-
way).
Figure 147 Dai ly Ride Time - Special Education
This is the estimated average daily ride time for a single trip (one-
way).
120 60
72 60
70 60
60
90 90
58 90
60 90
60 75
60 60 60
45
90 55
60 90
90 60
40 90
60 60
90 60 60 60
120
82 71
68 60 60
52 50
48 47
45 45 45 45
43 40 40 39 39
35 33
31 30 30
30 30 30 30
26 25 24 23 22 22
21 21 20 20 20
18 18 16 16 15 13
21
30
45
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
- 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
582116
8673018351933435457
3rd Quartile4811233439106637
620
Median25285662441249451426
1st Quartile4923
411
525
715055
Daily Ride Time Maximum Allowed 3rd Quartile
Median 1st Quartile
90120
72
606060
60
7060
9055
4570
756060
90
6560
9090
6060
120
60
90
6060
456060
4060
90
9078
7471
6560606060606060
535150505049
4746454545
43393938
3635353535
30
2929
262525242322212120
29.25
45
60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
4158191623
8101825435667
3rd Quartile3021144462205466283357
Median4834113937
67
557112
1st Quartile9
4550
326
2154
5249
Daily Ride Time Maximum Allowed 3rd Quartile
Median 1st Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 134
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S Bu s Fleet - Average Ag e of Fleet
Importance
x Fleet replacement plans drive capital expenditures and on -going maintenance costs.
x Younger fleets require greater capital expenditures but reduced maintenance costs
x A younger fleet will resul t in greater reliability and service lev-els.
x An older fleet requires more maintenance expenditure but re-duces capital expenses.
Factors that Influence
x Formal district-wide capital replacement budgets and standards
x Some districts may operate in climates that reduce bus longevi -ty
x Some dis tricts may be required to purchase cleaner burning or expensive alternative-fueled buses
x Availability of state or local bond funding for school bus re-placement
Calculation Average age of bus fleet.
Cost p er Mile O p erated
Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a pupil transportation program. It allows a baseline comparison across dis tricts that will inevi tably 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 dis trict. A less than average cost per mile may indicate a
wel l-run program or favorable conditions in a district. Factors that Influence
x Driver wage and benefit s tructure; labor contracts
x Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facili ties, fuel , insurance and maintenance also play a role in the basic cost
x Effectiveness of the routing plan
x Abili ty to use each bus for more than one route or run each morning and each afternoon
x Bel l schedule
x Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule changes
x Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time a llowed
x Type of programs served will influence costs Calculation Total di rect cost plus total indirect cost plus total con-
tractor cost of bus services divided by tota l miles operated.
Cost p er Rid er
Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a
pupil transportation program. It allows a baseline comparison across dis tricts that will inevi tably lead to further analysis based on a dis-trict’s placement. Factors that Influence
x Driver wage and benefit s tructure; labor contracts
x Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facili ties, fuel , insurance, and maintenance
x Effectiveness of the routing plan
x Abili ty to use each bus for more than one route or run each morning and each afternoon
x Bel l schedule
x Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule changes
x Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time a llowed
x Type of programs served will influence costs Calculation Total di rect cost plus total indirect cost plus total con-
tractor cost of bus services divided by number of riders.
Cost p er Bu s
Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a pupil transportation program.
Factors that Influence
x Driver wage and benefit s tructure; labor contracts
x Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facili ties, fuel , insurance, and maintenance
x Effectiveness of the routing plan
x Abili ty to use each bus for more than one route or run each morning and each afternoon
x Bel l schedule
x Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule changes
x Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time a llowed
x Type of programs served will influence costs Calculation Total di rect transportation costs plus total indirect
transportation costs divided by total number of buses (contractor and district).
O n - Time P erformance
Importance This measure refers to the level of success of the transportation service remaining on the published arrival schedule.
Late arrival of s tudents at schools causes dis ruption in classrooms and may preclude some students from having school -provided breakfast.
Factors that Influence:
x Automobile traffic
x Accident
x Detour
x Weather
x Increased ridership
x Mechanical breakdown
x Unrealistic scheduling Calculation One minus the sum of bus runs that arrived late (con-
tractor and dis trict) divided by the total number of bus runs (con-tractor and district) over two.
Bu s Eq u ipment – GP S Trackin g
Importance GPS tracking greatly expands the capaci ty for routing management and reporting. Calculation Number of buses with GPS tracking divided by total
number of buses.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 135 Transportation
OPER
ATIO
NS
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Accid ents – Miles b etween Acciden ts
Importance
x Whether a district provides internal service or contracts for its service, s tudent safety is a primary concern for every student transportation organization.
x Tracking accidents by type allows for trending and designing specific tra ining programs to reduce/prevent trends noted.
x Accident awareness and prevention can reduce liability expo-sure to a district
Factors that Influence
x Defini tion of accident and injury as defined by the survey vs . dis trict definition
x Preventive accident tra ining programs
x Experience of driving force Calculation Total number of transportation accidents (contractor and district) divided by total number of miles driven (contractor and
dis trict).
Accid ents – Miles b etween P reventable Accidents
Importance
x Whether a district provides internal service or contracts for its service, s tudent safety is a primary concern for every student transportation organization.
x Tracking accidents by type allows for trending and designing specific tra ining programs to reduce/prevent trends noted.
x Accident awareness and prevention can reduce liability expo-sure to a district
Factors that Influence:
x Defini tion of accident and injury as defined by the survey vs . dis trict definition
x Preventive accident tra ining programs
x Experience of driving force Calculation Total number of transportation accidents (con tractor
and district) that were preventable divided by total number of miles driven (contractor and district).
Bu s Fleet – Alternatively-Fueled Buses
Calculation Number of al ternatively-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.
Bu s Fleet – D aily Bu ses as P ercent of Total Bu ses
Importance
x 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.
x Maintaining or contracting unneeded buses is expensive and unnecessary as these funds could be used in the classroom.
Factors that Influence
x Historical trends of the number of students transported
x Enrollment projections and thei r impact on transported pro-grams
x Changes in transportation eligibility policies
x Spare bus factor needed
x Age of fleet Calculation Number of daily buses divided by total number of buses.
Bu s Usag e – D aily Runs p er Bu s
Importance
x There is a positive correlation between the number of daily runs a bus makes and operating costs.
x Efficiencies are gained when one bus is used multiple times in the morning and again in the afternoon.
x Using one bus to do the work of two buses saves dollars. Factors that Influence
x District-managed or contractor transportation
x Tiered school bell times
x Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule changes
x Bus capacities
x District guidelines on maximum ride time
x District geography
x Minimum/shortened/staff development day scheduling
x Effectiveness of the routing plan
x 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 dis trict).
Bu s Usag e – D aily S eat Utilization
Importance
x This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a pupil transportation program.
x Maximizing seat utili zation reduces the number of buses need-ed.
x This data provides a baseline comparison across dis tricts that will inevi tably lead to further analysis based on a district’s placement.
Factors that Influence
x Effectiveness of the routing plan
x Abili ty to use each bus for more than one run each morning and each afternoon
x Bel l schedule
x 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
dis trict-operated and contractor-operated).
Fu el Cost as P ercent of Retail – D iesel
Importance Fuel discounts reflect the degree to which the district
leverages i ts 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.
Fu el Cost as P ercent of Retail – Gasolin e
Importance Fuel discounts reflect the degree to which the district leverages i ts 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
D aily Rid e Time – General Ed ucation
Importance Cost efficiency must be balanced with service consid-
erations . Districts wish to maximize the loading of thei r buses but hopefully not at the expense of an overly long bus ride for the s tu-
dents.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Operations Page 136
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
TRA
NSP
OR
TATI
ON
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Factors that Influence:
x Bus capacities
x State or dis trict or s tate guidelines on maximum ride time and earliest pick up time
x District geography, attendance boundaries and zones
x Programs transported Calculation Average one-way (single trip) daily ride time in minutes - General Education
D aily Rid e Time – S pecial Ed ucation
Importance Cost efficiency must be balanced with service consid-erations . Districts wish to maximize the loading of thei r buses but
hopefully not at the expense of an overly long bus ride for the s tu-dents. Factors that Influence
x Bus capacities
x State or dis trict or s tate guidelines on maximum ride time and earliest pick up time
x District geography, attendance boundaries and zones
x Programs transported Calculation Average one-way (single trip) daily ride time in
minutes - Students with Disabilities
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 137
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
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:
x Identification of positions to be fi l led
x Diverse pool of qualified applicants
x Use of technology for application-approval process
x Site-based hiring vs. central -office hiring process
x Availability of interview team members
x Effectiveness of recruiting efforts
x Salary and benefits offered
x Employee satisfaction and workplace environment
x Availability of skil ls in local labor market
x Personnel policies and practices
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 138
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
L I S T O F KPIS I N HU M A N RE S O U R CE S Below is the complete list of Power Indicators , Essential Few, and other key indicators in Human Resources . Indicators in bold are those included in
this report. (See “KPI Defini tions” 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
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 Teacher Retention - Remaining After 3 Years Teacher Retention - Remaining After 4 Years
Teacher Retention - Remaining After 5 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
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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 - Tra ining and Development HR Staff per HR Senior Manager
Reti rement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee Reti rement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee - Fully Insured Districts Reti rement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee - Self-Insured Districts
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 139
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S 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 hi red. (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 “longi tudinal” data. Ra ther, i t is a snapshot of all current teachers that were hired five or fewer years ago.
69%
59%
51% 51%
48%
77%
66%
61%
58%
56%
86%
76%
71%
68%67%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years
Tea
che
rs R
etai
ned
Years Since Hire Date
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 140
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 fi rst year teacher retention rate to the fi fth-year teacher retention rate. Conversely, other districts have more erratic trends from one class of teachers (i .e., the group of teachers that were hi red 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 hi red . This is not “longi tudinal” data. The sort order of this chart is arbitrarily set to the district’s one-year teacher retention rate.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
32
35
21
44
47
15
10
23
16
54
58
33
30
7
45
8
13
41
55
52
77
5
48
56
11
14
2
4
9
1
71
3
62
39
Teacher Retention Rate
5 Years
4 Years
3 Years
2 Years
1 Year
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 141
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
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 va lue.
Exempt and non-exempt are employee categories.
5.4%5.9%
6.6%
7.8%7.3%
6.3%
8.3% 8.4%
9.7%9.9%
11.1%
12.8%13.0%
18.0%
16.3%
13.2%
16.0%
19.8%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Non-School Non-Exempt
School-Based Exempt Non-School Exempt Teachers Instructional Support School-Based Non-Exempt
Sep
ara
tion
Rat
e
Employee Category
1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 142
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 151 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 1 Year Ago
Figure 152 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 2 Years Ago
33%
47%
50%
56%
58%
60%
66%
67%
67%
70%
71%
72%
73%
73%
73%
76%
77%
77%
78%
78%
80%
83%
83%
85%
85%
85%
86%
88%
88%
89%
94%
94%
95%
96%
100%
69%
77%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
32
35
21
44
47
15
10
23
16
1st Quartile
54
58
33
30
7
45
8
13
Median
41
55
52
77
5
48
56
11
14
3rd Quartile
2
4
9
1
71
3
62
39
6
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
42%
46%
47%
50%
52%
53%
55%
57%
58%
61%
63%
63%
63%
63%
63%
66%
66%
66%
67%
67%
68%
72%
72%
74%
75%
76%
76%
79%
79%
82%
82%
85%
89%
90%
100%
59%
66%
76%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
41
44
58
47
13
21
33
23
71
1st Quartile
7
30
54
52
35
55
8
10
15
Median
77
11
45
16
48
56
32
1
3rd Quartile
4
9
5
39
62
2
3
14
6
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 143
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
Figure 153 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 3 Years Ago
Figure 154 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 4 Years Ago
30%
35%
42%
43%
45%
46%
49%
50%
50%
52%
52%
52%
53%
54%
55%
58%
59%
61%
62%
63%
65%
65%
66%
67%
69%
70%
71%
75%
77%
80%
83%
83%
84%
91%
100%
51%
61%
71%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
33
21
44
55
23
47
35
30
32
1st Quartile
58
54
13
52
10
7
71
77
Median
16
48
8
11
45
56
4
5
9
3rd Quartile
1
15
62
39
41
3
14
2
6
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
34%
34%
40%
41%
44%
44%
47%
48%
51%
52%
52%
53%
54%
54%
55%
55%
56%
56%
59%
59%
60%
63%
64%
64%
67%
67%
67%
68%
71%
75%
77%
78%
87%
90%
91%
100%
51%
58%
68%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
33
55
44
23
41
47
32
21
77
1st Quartile
7
10
54
58
48
11
30
62
16
Median
13
8
52
56
45
12
4
9
35
3rd Quartile
1
5
15
3
14
71
39
2
6
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 144
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.
23%
31%
36%
37%
37%
44%
47%
47%
48%
49%
50%
50%
51%
52%
53%
54%
54%
55%
56%
58%
59%
60%
62%
62%
63%
64%
67%
67%
70%
72%
74%
76%
85%
91%
94%
100%
48%
56%
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
52
33
55
23
44
47
71
58
54
1st Quartile
32
48
10
7
8
77
30
21
16
Median
4
1
11
3
45
9
12
62
5
3rd Quartile
56
13
14
35
15
41
39
2
6
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
20%
55%
60%
63%
70%
71%
73%
75%
76%
76%
77%
79%
80%
83%
85%
85%
86%
88%
89%
91%
93%
93%
94%
95%
98%
99%
99%
100%
74%
84%
93%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
39
19
45
6
11
58
52
1st Quartile
10
35
33
4
48
30
12
Median
2
55
23
14
9
1
47
3rd Quartile
8
77
101
13
56
7
5
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 145
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
Figure 157 Substitute Placements with BA/BS or Higher
Figure 158 Employee Separation Rate
This is the overall employee separation rate for districts.
11%
64%
65%
76%
81%
83%
90%
91%
96%
98%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
85%
99%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
39
8
9
48
14
44
1st Quartile
16
47
7
2
10
Median
41
52
30
11
5
54
77
35
12
58
1
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
25.9%
17.5%
16.4%
15.3%
15.2%
14.7%
14.0%
13.7%
13.7%
13.7%
13.3%
13.3%
13.1%
12.4%
12.3%
11.7%
11.3%
11.3%
10.6%
10.1%
9.5%
8.9%
8.8%
8.4%
6.9%
6.7%
5.7%
5.5%
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
8.6%
11.7%
13.7%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
39
55
30
7
11
6
3
58
3rd Quartile
8
33
10
47
1
48
52
54
Median
41
44
23
35
13
101
62
1st Quartile
4
2
5
56
32
14
21
16
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
How does your substitute pool affect this measure?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 146
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
Figure 159 Employee Separation Rate - Teachers
Figure 160 Employee Separation Rate – Instructional Support Staff
20.8%
19.2%
16.2%
15.9%
13.9%
13.6%
13.4%
13.2%
13.1%
12.3%
11.8%
11.6%
11.4%
11.2%
10.2%
9.9%
9.2%
8.8%
8.7%
8.3%
8.3%
8.2%
7.8%
7.8%
7.1%
6.9%
6.7%
4.4%
4.4%
4.3%
3.8%
7.8%
9.9%
13.2%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
39
30
55
54
6
48
33
7
3rd Quartile
47
101
44
41
11
23
8
52
Median
2
13
58
4
3
14
1
1st Quartile
62
10
35
32
21
5
16
56
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
59.5%
25.2%
24.1%
21.7%
19.4%
18.5%
17.6%
17.4%
14.5%
14.4%
14.2%
12.2%
11.6%
11.4%
11.1%
11.1%
11.0%
9.9%
9.7%
9.3%
9.0%
8.4%
7.3%
7.2%
7.1%
7.0%
5.4%
2.9%
2.0%
1.4%
0.9%
7.3%
11.1%
16.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
16
39
33
52
62
30
35
10
3rd Quartile
47
6
8
44
48
23
55
56
Median
58
7
41
54
3
5
13
1st Quartile
1
2
11
101
14
32
21
4
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 147
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
Figure 161 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Exempt Staff
Figure 162 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Non-Exempt Staff
60.9%
53.6%
24.8%
21.5%
20.2%
19.5%
19.4%
13.7%
12.7%
12.5%
9.0%
8.5%
8.4%
8.4%
8.0%
7.1%
6.6%
6.4%
6.4%
5.7%
5.3%
4.5%
3.7%
3.7%
2.9%
0.9%
5.9%
8.4%
18.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
10
6
54
55
16
39
41
3rd Quartile
56
58
52
30
35
23
Median
3
48
1
11
62
33
1st Quartile
8
13
5
14
2
44
32
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
65.9%
39.2%
26.7%
23.3%
22.4%
21.7%
20.1%
19.9%
19.4%
19.3%
16.0%
15.7%
14.9%
14.2%
13.6%
12.0%
11.7%
10.9%
10.8%
10.7%
9.6%
9.4%
5.3%
4.7%
4.2%
4.0%
3.9%
3.2%
3.0%
2.5%
6.3%
12.8%
19.8%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
47
39
8
55
1
11
3
33
3rd Quartile
52
21
13
30
7
48
58
Median
5
10
4
35
62
23
44
1st Quartile
56
32
101
54
6
41
2
14
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 148
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
38.7%
34.8%
28.4%
27.8%
22.2%
21.1%
20.2%
16.6%
15.3%
14.8%
14.7%
12.9%
12.8%
11.5%
10.6%
8.8%
8.7%
8.1%
8.0%
7.4%
7.0%
6.9%
6.5%
5.8%
5.6%
5.0%
4.8%
3.4%
2.6%
1.4%
6.6%
9.7%
16.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
41
101
6
16
58
35
39
55
3rd Quartile
11
1
44
52
21
33
10
Median
47
23
4
8
30
54
3
1st Quartile
56
5
48
62
32
13
2
14
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
67.6%
56.2%
53.4%
40.0%
25.6%
20.0%
14.8%
13.0%
10.6%
10.2%
9.8%
9.4%
9.4%
8.6%
8.3%
7.6%
7.3%
7.1%
6.0%
6.0%
5.9%
5.4%
5.2%
4.0%
3.3%
2.9%
1.9%
1.4%
0.6%
5.4%
8.3%
13.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
10
1
3
39
58
11
7
55
3rd Quartile
35
62
44
5
8
48
4
Median
54
23
41
30
52
33
56
1st Quartile
47
32
101
2
13
14
21
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 149
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
Figure 165 Ex i t Interview Completion Rate
When employees leave the district, an exi t interview (such as a sur-
vey form) can provide important insights into s taff morale, and high-l ight 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.
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.6%
3.2%
4.0%
4.7%
5.0%
6.5%
6.6%
7.0%
10.6%
12.0%
14.1%
18.4%
41.1%
53.3%
61.4%
3.4%
6.6%
13.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
7
71
55
52
58
1st Quartile
62
14
6
11
Median
4
23
10
2
3rd Quartile
39
13
48
44
41
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
65%
66%
71%
71%
81%
85%
85%
86%
86%
87%
87%
87%
88%
89%
90%
91%
92%
92%
92%
93%
93%
93%
93%
94%
94%
94%
94%
94%
96%
96%
96%
97%
98%
99%
100%
100%
87%
92%
94%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
14
39
41
33
4
12
47
52
23
1st Quartile
10
48
54
3
8
34
11
30
35
Median
77
5
2
58
7
55
45
6
13
3rd Quartile
1
32
9
62
71
56
16
101
44
3rd Quartile Median 1st Quartile District Value
Do you know why employees decide to leave your district?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 150
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
Figure 167 Health Benefits Cost per Enrolled Employee
This is the aggregate yearly premium costs (dis trict-paid) or di rect
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
dis trict employees. Adjusted for cost of living.
$20,334
$15,751
$15,554
$15,062
$14,506
$13,467
$12,565
$12,347
$10,062
$9,832
$9,811
$9,770
$8,959
$8,879
$8,340
$7,896
$7,574
$7,054
$6,738
$6,399
$6,328
$5,496
$3,956
$3,174
$1,455
$1,030
$674
$662
$167
$13
$5,704
$8,919
$14,246
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000
16
62
30
35
7
3rd Quartile
47
56
45
4
2
58
6
101
Median
34
32
48
11
44
9
10
14
1st Quartile
71
39
41
52
5
77
1
23
33
49
12
46
63
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$923
$777
$746
$708
$705
$691
$663
$650
$625
$591
$591
$575
$570
$562
$559
$553
$545
$530
$523
$513
$486
$472
$465
$400
$377
$347
$339
$316
$303
$276
$251
$206
$394
$549
$631
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000
52
54
32
41
1
62
35
101
3rd Quartile
30
6
11
8
47
13
5
3
Median
7
55
12
33
23
16
2
56
1st Quartile
44
21
39
14
4
10
58
48
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 151
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
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).
$1,106
$814
$814
$805
$776
$761
$729
$710
$694
$679
$677
$621
$583
$581
$570
$547
$524
$514
$506
$487
$441
$437
$404
$391
$388
$378
$349
$343
$317
$271
$211
$205
$390
$535
$698
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200
52
8
54
55
71
41
13
101
3rd Quartile
47
1
6
14
3
2
23
5
Median
35
30
12
44
10
7
16
62
1st Quartile
56
39
33
4
48
21
45
58
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
3.69
3.51
2.67
2.47
2.41
2.41
2.33
2.16
2.07
2.07
2.05
2.02
1.99
1.73
1.63
1.44
1.21
1.01
0.94
0.93
0.87
0.80
0.63
0.62
0.57
0.49
0.40
0.90
1.73
2.25
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
14
33
48
11
39
3
54
3rd Quartile
5
1
52
62
7
8
Median
44
23
41
101
32
13
10
1st Quartile
35
2
56
4
55
16
47
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 152
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.
101.3
64.4
53.7
47.9
43.7
42.5
37.6
31.1
28.0
25.7
23.6
22.6
15.4
15.0
11.9
11.7
9.3
7.8
5.3
5.2
3.9
2.5
2.4
1.3
0.9
0.2
5.2
15.2
36.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
48
35
7
55
52
1
2
3rd Quartile
3
44
41
5
4
14
Median
6
54
32
8
10
62
1st Quartile
13
101
39
12
56
11
47
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 153
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RCES
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S S u b stitute P lacement Rate
Importance Failure to place substi tutes to fill teacher absences
can adversely affect s tudents , as well as school staff, and should be reduced to a minimum. Factors that Influence
x Qual ity of substitute pool database
x Substitute back-up policy Calculation Number of s tudent 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.
S u b stitute P lacement with BA/ BS or Hig her
Importance Increasing the number of substi tutes with a college degree improves a student’s experience when a teacher i s absent. Calculation Number of teachers retained after one year divided by number of teachers that were newly hired one year ago.
Exit In terview Completion Rate
Importance Exi t interviews can provide important insight into
problems and patterns. Factors that Influence
x Placement of exit interview on separation/resignation forms
x Internal review processes
x Pro-active focus on customer service Calculation Total number of exi t interviews completed divided by
the total number of employee separations (including reti rement, res ignation and termination) in the district.
Teach er Retention
Importance Based on review of this measure, a district may re -allocate funds to adopt new mentor/induction programs or revise thei r current programs. Dis tricts will also have data available to jus-
tify making changes in thei r 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 , dis tricts can measure early attri tion rates and thereby manage the cost of bringing in new teachers , re-
vised mentoring/induction program and maintain desired s taff con-tinuity.
Factors that Influence
x Culture
x Communication
x School leadership
x Professional development
x Selection and hiring process
x Support Calculation Number of teachers retained after X number of years divided by number of teachers that were newly hi red Y number of
years ago.
Emp loyee S eparation Rate
Importance These measures may serve as indicators of district
policies , administrative procedures and regulations , and manage-ment effectiveness. Measuring these allows the dis trict to further analyze its actions in terms of resources , allocation of funds , policy
and support to i ts employees . They also may be measures of work-force satisfaction and organizational climate.
Factors that Influence
x Number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) charges filed by employees divided by tota l number of employees
x State and local laws defining discrimination will impact
x Board policy and organizational protocol for resolution
x Organizational climate
x Qual ity and level of supervisory tra ining
x Qual ity and level of EEO Awareness training for all employees
x 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 En rollment Rate
Importance Identifies the level of employee enrollment in the dis-
trict health benefits plan. Calculation Total number of employees enrolled in health bene-
fi ts plan divided by total number of employees eligible for heal th benefits.
Health Benefits Cost p er En rolled Employee
Importance It is important to have a competi tive benefi t package
to attract and retain employees. However, heal th care costs repre-sent an increasing percentage of overall employee costs . Rapid in-
creases in health care costs make it even more cri tical for districts to ensure that thei r heal th care dollars are well spent and thei r benefits are competi tive. Health care costs are an important component in
the total compensation package of employees . While i t is important to provide good benefi ts, it is also equally important to do i t at a
competi tive cost compared with other dis tricts that are competing for the same applicants. Factors that Influence
x Costs may be influenced by dis trict wellness programs and promoting healthy l ifestyles
x Plan benefits and coverage (individual , individual & spouse, fami ly, etc.) are major factors in determining costs.
x Costs are influenced by availability and competi tiveness of providers.
x Costs are influenced by geographic location (reasonable and customary charges for each location).
x Costs may vary based on plan s tructure (fully insured, self-insured, minimum premium etc.).
x Increased costs in heal th care will mean less money available for sa lary or other benefits.
Calculation Total health benefi ts cost (self-insured) plus total heal th benefi ts premium costs divided by total number of employees
enrolled in health benefits plan.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Human Resources Page 154
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
HR Cost p er D istrict FTE
Importance This measure can help assess the size of the budget
for the human resources department. Since dis tricts often have dif-ferent s tructures and priori ties, 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 dis trict employees (FTEs).
Emp loyee Relation s - D iscrimination Complaints p er 1 ,000 Emp loyees
Factors that Influence
x State and local laws defining discrimination
x Board Policy and organizational protocol for resolution
x Organizational climate
x Qual ity and level of EEO Awareness training for all employees
x Indicator as to the effectiveness of supervisors and managers
x Qual ity and level of supervisory tra ining Calculation Number of discrimination complaints divided by total
number of district employees (FTEs) in 1,000s . Number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) charges filed by employees divided by tota l number of employees in 1000s .
Emp loyee Relation s - Misconduct Investigations p er 1 , 000 Emp loyees
Importance This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of hi ring 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. Factors that Influence
x Organizational atti tude and tolerance toward employee mis-conduct
x Quality of s upervision
x Quality of tra ining – understanding of expectations
x The hi ring processes of the district Calculation Number of misconduct investigations divided by total
number of district employees (FTEs) in 1,000s .
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 155
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
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 l ikely 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.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 156
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
L I S T O F KPIS I N IN F O R M A TI O N TE CH N O L O G Y Below is the complete lis t of Power Indicators , Essential Few and other key indicators in Information Technology. Indicators in bold are those in-
cluded in this report. (See “KPI Defini tions” 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)
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
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
Onl ine Learning - Blended Courses Completed per Course Offering
Onl ine Learning - Blended Courses Offered
Onl ine Learning - Online Courses Completed per Course Offering
Onl ine 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
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 157
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
FE A TU R E D A N A L Y S I S Figure 172 Devices per Student vs. Bandwidth per Student
This chart compares the number of s tudent-use devices with the total available bandwidth capaci ty for connecting to the Internet. The dis tricts 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 a cademic purposes and
makes them available for s tudents to use. Bandwidth Capaci ty, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a must-have for 21st century classrooms, and as demand from teachers and s tudents for web-based content and applications continues to increase, school dis tricts have an essential imper-
ative to keep pace.
14
7
716
13
23
55
9
35
41
19
37
12
44
67
10
33
53
34
56
11
32
52
25
66
48
21
16
101
58
1
34
-
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85
Ba
nd
wid
th (M
bp
s) p
er 1
,00
0 St
ude
nts
Devices per Student
Is your district’s technology meeting the demands of the 21st cen-tury?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 158
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
D A TA D I S CO VE R Y Figure 173 Devices - Average Age of Computers
This measure may be somewhat deflated due to the averaging method used, which weights computers aged six years or older the same as computers only five years old.
Figure 174 Devices - Computers per Employee
This does not include computers for student use. Includes laptops and desktop computers for employees.
5.27
5.07
4.87
4.83
4.75
4.61
4.61
4.54
4.52
4.45
4.41
4.35
4.30
4.21
4.12
4.10
4.07
4.05
4.00
3.96
3.96
3.91
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.87
3.83
3.83
3.78
3.73
3.69
3.67
3.67
3.48
3.45
3.30
3.29
3.26
3.17
3.13
3.08
3.02
3.68
3.93
4.39
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
37
58
57
32
51
5
30
71
35
56
39
3rd Quartile
10
13
34
9
101
25
53
6
45
11
Median
7
14
21
48
4
49
66
12
8
3
1st Quartile
41
46
74
52
16
33
62
23
67
2
19
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.22
0.47
0.58
0.62
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.71
0.76
0.95
0.97
0.97
1.02
1.05
1.14
1.16
1.16
1.17
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.37
1.38
1.40
1.62
1.73
1.79
0.68
1.05
1.24
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
55
16
6
58
35
11
7
1st Quartile
37
52
21
67
10
32
13
Median
4
14
23
48
41
30
3rd Quartile
101
66
3
44
56
33
34
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 159
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
Figure 175 Devices per Student
This includes s tudent-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/digi tal
overheads, and interactive whiteboards.
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.40
0.41
0.44
0.44
0.45
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.58
0.58
0.62
0.63
0.66
0.66
0.71
0.75
0.75
0.87
0.38
0.46
0.58
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
101
55
10
58
25
6
16
3
48
34
1st Quartile
56
2
44
13
32
23
41
71
53
Median
12
9
30
19
11
7
37
1
4
3rd Quartile
35
5
14
52
66
21
33
67
45
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.06
0.13
0.23
0.37
0.46
0.63
0.76
0.84
0.85
1.00
1.13
1.14
1.20
1.22
1.66
1.69
1.71
1.84
1.89
1.91
1.95
1.97
1.97
2.10
2.15
2.21
2.23
2.27
2.43
2.82
2.98
3.20
0.85
1.70
2.11
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
2
66
26
56
58
3
14
21
1st Quartile
6
30
32
5
34
35
44
10
Median
33
48
13
12
7
67
8
41
3rd Quartile
52
37
55
4
16
101
1
23
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 160
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 Capital Investments Ratio to Operational Spending
0.63%
0.64%
0.70%
0.91%
1.24%
1.24%
1.28%
1.29%
1.41%
1.48%
1.52%
1.55%
1.57%
1.62%
1.67%
1.68%
1.68%
1.89%
1.98%
2.00%
2.02%
2.03%
2.07%
2.15%
2.31%
2.36%
2.39%
2.40%
2.46%
2.47%
2.64%
2.72%
2.95%
3.05%
3.09%
3.39%
3.69%
4.50%
1.49%
1.99%
2.45%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00%
26
10
58
25
55
53
101
35
1
67
1st Quartile
8
44
45
71
12
3
23
16
48
Median
21
5
4
66
13
33
6
56
37
3rd Quartile
52
49
7
34
41
30
2
62
39
14
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
2.2%
2.9%
3.7%
4.4%
5.3%
5.9%
6.3%
11.5%
13.9%
14.8%
15.0%
15.3%
15.3%
16.0%
17.5%
18.8%
25.1%
28.6%
28.7%
36.3%
39.9%
43.3%
55.6%
56.1%
62.3%
70.9%
80.6%
104.2%
104.3%
104.7%
126.8%
138.6%
208.1%
268.3%
6.0%
18.1%
60.8%
0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0% 300.0%
4
62
56
57
5
32
51
101
33
35
1st Quartile
37
19
7
16
9
49
12
48
13
Median
58
3
71
14
21
74
26
39
52
3rd Quartile
66
34
25
44
8
41
23
45
1
11
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 161
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
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 s tudents/staff by the 2014-15 school year.
$57
$81
$83
$96
$104
$109
$115
$123
$129
$135
$150
$151
$153
$155
$159
$168
$169
$171
$185
$188
$207
$220
$222
$248
$248
$256
$260
$267
$275
$308
$317
$337
$341
$360
$400
$412
$414
$420
$421
$498
$508
$150
$207
$317
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
10
26
101
58
55
9
8
44
1
16
1st Quartile
56
48
13
53
67
23
32
11
5
71
25
Median
3
37
6
41
66
35
4
12
39
3rd Quartile
7
34
52
45
14
21
62
30
2
19
33
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
1.1
2.3
2.4
4.8
7.7
8.9
10.6
11.5
11.7
11.7
12.2
15.2
17.5
17.5
17.9
18.8
19.7
19.7
19.8
19.9
20.7
22.5
23.7
24.9
25.2
25.2
26.4
27.1
28.3
32.3
32.4
33.9
34.6
63.6
63.7
66.1
68.6
-
-
1.2
0.6
-
-
42.3
-
8.8
7.8
-
-
32.4
17.5
0.1
188.5
-
29.6
198.2
-
49.9
-
-
-
-
100.9
26.4
27.1
-
46.6
-
33.9
115.2
-
572.9
330.4
-
11.7
19.8
27.7
- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
8
62
37
35
13
44
48
32
7
1st Quartile
1
56
16
10
26
53
101
11
39
66
Median
52
19
23
4
33
55
41
3
25
3rd Quartile
67
71
21
6
14
9
34
12
58
Bandwidth Expansion Capacity 1st Quartile
Median 3rd Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 162
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 dis tricts are often struggling to keep up thei r network infrastructure. Many school dis tricts 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).
260
210
200
180
180
180
170
165
160
154
150
120
113
102
100
90
50
42
30
18
11
7
5
5
5
3
21
108
169
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
5
21
46
67
26
57
52
3rd Quartile
7
13
101
8
23
33
Median
44
53
35
49
37
14
1st Quartile
32
19
66
71
58
1
3
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
99.6449%
99.8191%
99.8481%
99.8630%
99.9000%
99.9401%
99.9699%
99.9717%
99.9768%
99.9772%
99.9804%
99.9823%
99.9885%
99.9899%
99.9899%
99.9902%
99.9926%
99.9957%
99.9964%
99.9977%
99.9987%
99.9988%
99.9988%
99.9989%
99.9989%
99.9989%
99.9991%
99.9992%
99.9992%
99.9993%
99.9994%
99.9994%
99.9995%
99.9996%
99.9997%
99.9998%
99.9999%
99.9999%
100.0000%
100.0000%
100.0000%
100.0000%
99.9809%
99.9987%
99.9994%
99.6000% 99.8000% 100.0000%
13
9
39
25
49
30
7
51
41
19
35
1st Quartile
101
37
67
16
46
26
44
4
2
48
Median
1
14
8
23
52
56
58
57
10
3rd Quartile
55
74
34
66
33
3
71
5
32
45
62
21
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 163
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
Figure 183 Support - Break/Fix Staff ing Cost per Ticket
Figure 184 Support - Fi rst Contact Resolution Rate
This is the proportion of support requests that were resolved on fi rs t
contact with the help desk.
$384.6
$359.5
$259.1
$212.0
$204.3
$203.9
$154.3
$150.7
$145.6
$140.0
$132.0
$131.9
$131.2
$117.2
$111.6
$107.8
$101.9
$99.9
$98.3
$97.6
$91.5
$89.5
$87.4
$82.8
$78.4
$78.4
$74.9
$72.8
$71.6
$65.8
$62.1
$59.1
$55.9
$55.8
$52.6
$45.5
$42.0
$41.2
$34.4
$32.6
$30.6
$20.0
$3.6
$57.5
$89.5
$131.9
$0.0 $100.0 $200.0 $300.0 $400.0 $500.0
66
30
1
33
51
74
8
26
21
56
101
3rd Quartile
7
57
23
4
14
53
34
52
11
12
Median
16
58
10
46
49
19
39
3
25
48
67
1st Quartile
71
13
2
44
37
9
35
45
41
32
62
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
2.6%
8.8%
12.3%
15.6%
16.5%
16.6%
21.8%
23.0%
23.1%
24.5%
25.2%
25.9%
26.7%
29.0%
30.6%
31.8%
36.4%
37.1%
39.2%
41.5%
42.1%
42.3%
42.4%
43.7%
45.2%
47.1%
48.6%
49.0%
49.4%
51.5%
54.0%
54.8%
54.9%
56.2%
56.8%
61.9%
62.6%
63.9%
70.3%
74.0%
75.0%
89.2%
25.4%
42.2%
54.6%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
34
35
49
25
41
19
51
56
33
37
48
1st Quartile
66
11
55
57
45
2
53
67
8
58
Median
44
9
26
7
12
46
23
16
52
21
3rd Quartile
13
71
1
10
39
14
3
101
30
4
74
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 164
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
Figure 185 Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate
Figure 186 Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket
25.9%
25.7%
24.5%
22.8%
22.0%
21.6%
21.1%
20.7%
19.7%
18.1%
17.8%
15.6%
15.0%
14.2%
12.7%
11.8%
11.6%
10.8%
10.4%
9.5%
9.5%
8.0%
7.5%
7.4%
6.3%
6.1%
6.1%
4.6%
3.7%
2.9%
2.4%
1.5%
0.2%
6.3%
11.6%
19.7%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
58
8
11
2
44
21
16
51
25
3rd Quartile
7
33
10
48
26
1
35
37
Median
41
46
23
4
57
39
13
52
1st Quartile
30
71
53
55
14
67
9
101
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$158.2
$127.8
$79.7
$78.6
$71.8
$48.7
$44.9
$32.9
$32.6
$32.5
$30.8
$29.1
$27.8
$26.4
$23.5
$23.3
$22.4
$21.5
$21.1
$20.6
$20.0
$19.7
$19.0
$17.5
$17.1
$15.5
$15.4
$14.7
$13.3
$12.2
$11.9
$11.3
$11.1
$10.6
$10.6
$10.5
$9.9
$9.3
$9.1
$7.3
$2.8
$11.9
$20.0
$30.8
$0.0 $50.0 $100.0 $150.0 $200.0
33
25
74
49
45
52
3
41
56
30
19
3rd Quartile
21
66
53
16
26
7
35
12
8
13
Median
71
46
44
11
14
23
2
67
48
39
1st Quartile
37
4
9
10
58
57
101
1
32
62
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 165
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
Figure 187 Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee
This includes maintenance fees and s taffing 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 s tudent information systems (SIS), learning manage-ment systems (LMS), and content management systems (CMS).
$742
$463
$419
$415
$390
$387
$366
$363
$261
$239
$236
$223
$222
$214
$199
$198
$189
$171
$168
$166
$155
$145
$145
$127
$120
$107
$93
$82
$81
$78
$77
$63
$60
$120
$189
$261
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800
30
4
34
66
13
21
11
33
3rd Quartile
3
5
1
35
41
8
37
39
16
Median
67
12
52
6
7
101
2
14
1st Quartile
44
23
48
58
32
62
56
10
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
$103.4
$72.4
$57.1
$56.0
$51.5
$51.0
$43.6
$43.2
$36.3
$31.5
$27.8
$25.6
$24.2
$23.9
$23.4
$23.2
$22.2
$21.3
$20.4
$19.7
$19.6
$18.8
$17.8
$16.0
$15.9
$14.4
$14.1
$13.3
$12.5
$12.5
$9.7
$9.6
$9.5
$9.3
$9.0
$8.5
$6.5
$5.4
$5.2
$12.5
$19.7
$29.7
$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0
21
45
19
14
52
34
7
33
1
71
3rd Quartile
12
30
3
13
16
32
4
5
41
Median
66
37
44
25
35
2
62
48
9
11
1st Quartile
53
10
67
26
58
39
8
23
56
101
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
District Value
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 166
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
KPI D E F I N I TI O N S D evices - 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 adminis trative 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 s taff and students . Developing
comprehensive refresh cycles impacts not only the purchasing of equipment but also tra ining cycles. Many organizations in the private sector use a s tandard of three
years for age of computers before they are replaced. Many school dis tricts refresh thei r computers over a five -year period to get max-
imum benefits out of their equipment. Factors that Influence
x School board and administrative policies and procedures
x Budget development for capi tal, operational , and categorical funds
x Budget development for schools and department in refresh and computer purchasing
x Budget development in support, supplies, and maintenance.
x Implementation and project management for new software applications in both instructional and operations areas.
x Type of machine (i.e., desktop, laptop, netbook, etc.) Calculation The weighted average age of all dis trict 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.
D evices - Compu ters p er 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).
D evices p er S tudent
Importance This tracks the movement toward a one -to-one ratio
of s tudents to devices. Calculation Total number of desktops , laptops and tablets that are for student-only use or mixed-use divided by total s tudent en-
rol lment.
D evices - Ad vanced P resentation D evices
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/digi tal overheads, and inter-
active whiteboards) divided by the total number of teachers (FTEs).
IT S p en ding p er S tudent / P ercent of D istrict Budg et
Importance The measure provides a tool for districts to compare
thei r IT spending per s tudent with other districts . This measure must be viewed in relationship to othe r KPIs to strike the correct balance between the district’s efficiency and i ts effective use of technology. If other KPIs such as customer satis faction, securi ty practices, and ticket resolution are not performing at high levels, low costs associ-
ated with IT spending may indicate an under-resourced operation. Factors that Influence
x Budget development and staffing
x IT expenditures can be impacted by new enterprise implemen-tations
x The commitment of community for support technology invest-ments in education
x IT Department s tandards and support model
x Age of technology and application portfolio
x IT maturity of district Calculation
Percent of Budget: Total IT s taffing costs plus total IT hardware, sys-tems and services costs divided by total district operating expendi-tures .
Per-Student: Total IT s taffing costs plus total IT hardware, systems and services costs divided by tota l student enrollment.
Network - Ban dwidth p er 1 ,000 S tudents (Mb ps)
Importance This measure compares similarly si tuated districts and provides a quanti fiable 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-paci ty of the dis trict 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 s taff have come to expe ct
certain performance levels based on thei r experience with network connectivi ty at home and other places in the community, and
schools must provide performance on a par with that available elsewhere. Factors that Influence
x The number of enterprise network based applications
x The capacity demands of enterprise network based applications
x Fund availability to support network bandwidth costs
x Capaci ty triggers that provide enough time for proper build out and network upgrades
x 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 - D ays Usage Exceeds 7 5% of Capacity
Importance Staying below the metric threshold is cri tical to appli-cation performance and user satisfaction. This metric may also pro-
vide justification for network expansion and capacity planning.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 167
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECHN
OLO
GY
Factors that Influence
x The number of online applications sensitive to latency, digi tal video, and voice will all impact the amount of bandwidth a dis-
trict needs.
x 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 s tandard available bandwidth for five
(5) minutes or longer.
Network - W AN Availability
Importance A high amount of downtime of the Wide Area Net-
work (WAN) will likely disrupt the s tudents , teachers and s taff in the dis trict. Factors that Influence
x The number of online applications sensitive to latency, digi tal video, and voice will all impact the amount of bandwidth a dis-trict needs.
Calculation Total minutes of all outages on WAN ci rcuits divided by the tota l number of WAN ci rcuits.
S u p port - Break/Fix S taf fing Cost p er Ticket
Importance This measure assesses s taffing cost per incident, which may indicate how responsive and how efficient the help desk is in making i tself 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
typica lly the biggest cost factor in a help-desk budget. Factors that Influence
x Software and systems that can collect and route contact infor-mation
x Knowledge management tools available to help desk s taff and end users
x Budget development for s taffing levels Calculation Total personnel costs of Break/Fix Support costs (in-
cluding managers) divided by the tota l number of tickets/incidents.
S u p port - First Contact Resolution Rate
Importance This measure calculates the percentage of user ini ti-
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 s trategies to lower cost, improve operational ability and workflow, and improve customer satisfaction. It is more cost effective for the
organization to resolve calls on fi rs t contact because the customer is returned to productive work more quickly. Private industry expects
that 85% of trouble calls are resolved on fi rst contact. This measure can also be used as a tool to help guide quali ty improvement pro-cesses.
Factors that Influence
x Software and systems that can collect contact information at the help desk
x 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
x Knowledge and training of help desk s taff in enterprise applica-tions
x Knowledge and training of end user of enterprise applications used
x New implementations will cause increase in service calls
x Permissions that are set for the help desk staff. If permissions are restricted, help desk s taff will be able to resolve fewer types of problem calls.
x Capaci ty of the organization to respond to customer support requests
x Abi l ity of help desk ticket application to track work tickets
x Tactical assignment of responsibilities may be di fferent 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 fi rs t contact
divided by the tota l number of tickets/incidents.
S u p port - Help D esk Call Ab andonment Rate
Importance This measure assesses the percentage of telephone
contacts that are not answered by the service desk s taff before the caller disconnects . CAR is an indicator of the s taffing level of the ser-vice desk relative to the demand for service. The CAR can be used as
a management indicator to determine s taffing levels to support sea-sonal needs or during times of system issues (application or network problems). On an annual basis, i t is a measurement of the effective-
ness of resource management. This measure should be used as a tool to help guide quality improvement processes.
Factors that Influence
x Effective supervision to ensure that service desk team members are online to take calls
x A high percentage could indicate low availability caused by in-adequate s taffing, long call handling times and/or insufficient
processes
x Length of time the caller is on hold
x Capaci ty of the organization to respond to customer support requests
x Proper s taffing when implementing district-wide applications , which significantly increase calls
x Automation tools like password reset can reduce number of ca l ls to the help desk and reduce overall call volume
x 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 tota l number of ca lls to the help desk.
S u p port - Help D esk S taff ing Cost p er Ticket
Importance This measure assesses s taffing cost per incident, which may indicate how responsive and how efficient the help desk
is in making i tself available to customers. The goal is to improve cus-tomer sa tisfaction 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
typica lly the biggest cost factor in a help-desk budget. Factors that Influence
x Software and systems that can collect and route contact infor-mation
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2014
Information Technology Page 168
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
x 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
x Other duties performed by the help desk staff that restrict them from taking calls
x Knowledge management tools available to help desk s taff and end users
x Budget development for s taffing levels Calculation Total personnel costs of the help desk (including managers) divided by the total number of support tickets/incidents.
S ystems Cost - Bu siness S ystems Cost p er 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 s taff 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 tota l number of district FTEs.
S ystems Cost - In structional S yst ems Cost p er S tudent
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 s taff 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 dis trict.