managing for results - transact€¦ · to members of the council of the great city schools – we...
TRANSCRIPT
A R EPORT OF T HE P ER FOR MANCE MEA SUR EMENT A ND BENCHMAR KING PR O JECT
OCT OBER 2013
Managing for Results in Ame ri ca ’s Great Cit y S chools
RESULTS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2011-12
Copyright © 2006-2013
To Members of the Council of the Great City Schools –
We are pleased to present the 2013 edition of Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools to the membership and the public. Both the report and the web-based system, developed by TransAct Communications, Inc., are components of the Performance Management and Benchmarking Project, an initiative created by the Council of the Great City Schools to define, gather, and report data on key perfor-mance indicators (KPIs) in various non-academic operations of school district man-agement. The operational areas include finance (accounts payable, cash manage-ment, compensation, financial management, grants management, procurement, and risk management); business services (food services, maintenance and facilities, safe-ty and security, and transportation); human resources; and information technology.
The goal of this project is to define benchmarks in a way that will allow urban school districts to assess their performance and set strategic goals based on the data. The project adheres to the notion that when a district measures its performance and compares itself to others, it can better identify where it is successful, where it needs to improve, and how to do so strategically.
An increasing number of school systems have come to rely on the results of this pro-ject as an essential strategic tool. They have found that once they bring data and per-formance measurement into the governing and management process it lays the foundation for a more results-oriented school system.
The 2013 report reflects several changes and improvements in the KPIs over previ-ous years. Metric definitions and their survey questions have been updated and re-vised based on district feedback. As a result, the data in this report are more precise and more comparable than in earlier years. This report also introduces several new visualizations of the data, which can be found in the “Featured Analysis” page of each section. These charts are prepared to provide models for how districts might think about analyzing their own data.
There are many other important aspects of this report that cannot be summarized briefly, but we hope you will take the time to explore its pages. The Performance Management and Benchmarking Project will continue to be one of the Council’s most important initiatives and one of the most innovative and promising developments in public education in many years. The Council will continue to develop new perfor-mance measures that spur accountability and improvements in urban public school systems. A special thanks to Jonathon Lachlan-Haché, Special Projects Specialist for the Council, who has managed the project this past year, and to so many others who have lent their time and expertise to further these goals.
Michael Casserly Robert Carlson Executive Director Director, Management Services Council of the Great City Schools Council of the Great City Schools
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS I N T R O D U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Frequently Asked Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
F I N A N C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
List of KPIs in Accounts Payable ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Featured Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
CASH MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
List of KPIs in Cash Management .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
COMPENSATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
List of KPIs in Compensation .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Featured Analyses ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
List of KPIs in Financial Management ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35
GRANTS MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
List of KPIs in Grants Management ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44
PROCUREMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
List of KPIs in Procurement .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 55
RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
List of KPIs in Risk Management ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 66
O P E R A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9
FOOD SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
List of KPIs in Food Services.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 72 KPI Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84
MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
List of KPIs in Maintenance & Operations .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Featured Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Data Discovery ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 90
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Page ii
KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105
SAFETY & SECURITY ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................109
List of KPIs in Safety & Security ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 110 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119
TRANSPORTATION ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................121
List of KPIs in Transportation .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 134
H U M A N R E S O U R C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7
List of KPIs in Human Resources ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 142 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153
I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 5
List of KPIs in Information Technology ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 156 Featured Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Data Discovery .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 158 KPI Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 166
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
F I N A N C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1 Payments Voided vs. Invoices Past Due ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 AP Cost per $100K Revenue ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 AP Cost per Invoice ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Invoices – Days to Process ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 5 Invoices Processed per FTE per Month ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 6 Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 7 Payments Voided ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
CASH MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 8 Cash/Investment Equity vs. Investment Earnings ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9 Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 10 Cash Flow - Months Above Liquidity Baseline .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 11 Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 12 Investment Earnings as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity .................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 13 Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 14 Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue ................................................................................................................................................................... 16
COMPENSATION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 15 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend vs. Payroll Cost per Pay Check ................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 16 Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 18 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 19 Payroll Cost per Pay Check ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 20 Pay Check Errors per 10K Payments ............................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 21 Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per FTE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 22 Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE .............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 23 W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 24 Pay Checks - Direct Deposits .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 25 Debt Principal vs. Debt Servicing Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 26 Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 27 Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 28 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue - All Types ................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 29 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue – Unrestricted ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 30 Expenditure Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual ......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 31 Revenue Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual ................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 32 Expenditure Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual ................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 33 Revenue Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 34 Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish ................................................................................................................................................................... 34
GRANTS MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 35 Grant Funds vs. Grant-Funded Staff ................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 36 Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 37 Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 38 Returned Grant Funds per $100K Grant Revenue ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 39 Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 40 Days to Access New Grant Funds ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 41 Grants Receivables Aging.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
PROCUREMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 42 Cost per Purchase Order vs. Cost per Spend .................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 43 Procurement Cost per Purchase Order ........................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 44 Procurement Cost per $100K Revenue ........................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 45 Procurement Savings Ratio ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Page iv
Figure 46 Strategic Sourcing Ratio ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 47 Competitive Procurements Ratio ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 48 Cooperative Purchasing Ratio........................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 49 P-Card Purchasing Ratio..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 50 PALT for Requests for Proposals ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 51 PALT for Invitations for Bids ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 52 PALT for Informal Solicitations ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 52 Figure 53 Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate ......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 54 Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio ............................................................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 55 Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 56 Cost of Risk per Student ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 57 Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend ............................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 58 Workers’ Compensation Cost per 1,000 Employees .................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 59 Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees ............................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 60 Liability Claims - Percent Litigated ................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 61 Liability Claims per 1,000 Students ................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 62 Liability Cost per Student ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 63 Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees ............................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 64 Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees ................................................................................................................................................................... 65
O P E R A T I O N S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9
FOOD SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 65 Food Cost vs. Labor Cost ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 66 Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 67 Breakfast Participation Rate (by Grade Span) ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 68 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 69 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate (By Grade Span) .................................................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 70 Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites)............................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Figure 71 Lunch Participation Rate (by Grade Span) .................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 72 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 73 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate (by Grade Span) ......................................................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 74 Cost per Meal ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 75 Food Cost per Meal................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 76 Fund Balance per Revenue .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 77 Total Cost as Percent of Revenue ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 78 Food Cost per Revenue .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 79 Labor Cost per Revenue ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 78 Figure 80 Meals per Labor Hour ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 81 USDA Commodities as Percent of Revenue ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 82 Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts ...................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 83 Provision II Enrollment Rate – Lunches .......................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 84 ServeSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site ............................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 85 Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other .......................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 86 Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System ............................................................................................................................................ 82 Figure 87 Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts .................................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 88 Meal Reimbursements - Lunches ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 83
MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 89 Custodial Workload vs. Cost per Square Foot................................................................................................................................................................ 89 Figure 90 Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot............................................................................................................................................................................ 90 Figure 91 Custodial Work - Cost per Student .................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 92 Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 93 Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot ............................................................................................................................................................................ 91 Figure 94 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot ............................................................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 95 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order................................................................................................................................................................ 92 Figure 96 Routine Maintenance – Proportion Contractor-Operated, by Work Orders ........................................................................................................ 93 Figure 97 Major Maintenance – Cost per Student ........................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 98 Major Maintenance – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs ................................................................................................... 93 Figure 99 Major Maintenance – Design to Construction Cost Ratio .......................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 100 Renovations – Cost per Student ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 101 Renovations – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs .............................................................................................................. 95
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page v
Figure 102 Renovations – Design to Construction Cost Ratio ...................................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 103 New Construction – Cost per Student ............................................................................................................................................................................ 96 Figure 104 New Construction – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs .................................................................................................... 97 Figure 105 New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio ........................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 106 M&O Cost per Student ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 98 Figure 107 M&O Cost Ratio to District Budget ................................................................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 108 Work Order Completion Time (Days) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 99 Figure 109 Recycling – Percent of Material Stream ....................................................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 110 Utility Costs per Square Foot .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 111 Utility Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh) ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 112 Utility Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU) .............................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 113 Utility Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.) ............................................................................................................. 102 Figure 114 Building Square Footage by Type ................................................................................................................................................................................. 102 Figure 115 Building Square Footage by Usage............................................................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 116 Green Buildings – Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent .................................................................................................................................. 104
SAFETY & SECURITY ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................109
Figure 117 Incident Rate vs. Staffing Level ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Figure 118 Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students..................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 119 Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students ....................................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 120 S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students .......................................................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 121 S&S Expenditures as Percent of District Budget ...................................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 122 S&S Staff per 1,000 Students .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 123 Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel ........................................................................................................................................................ 114 Figure 124 Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team .................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 125 Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site.................................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 126 Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually ............................................................................................................................................ 116 Figure 127 Health/Safety Violations per Site ................................................................................................................................................................................. 116 Figure 128 Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students............................................................................................................................................. 117 Figure 129 Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site ................................................................................................................................................... 117 Figure 130 Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent Of Sites ............................................................................................................................................ 118
TRANSPORTATION ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................121
Figure 131 Cost per Mile Operated vs. Cost per Rider .................................................................................................................................................................. 123 Figure 132 Cost per Bus vs. Cost per Rider ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Figure 133 Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet .................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Figure 134 Cost per Mile Operated ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Figure 135 Cost per Rider ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 136 Cost per Bus ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 137 On-Time Performance ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Figure 138 Bus Equipment - GPS Tracking ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Figure 139 Accidents - Miles between Accidents ............................................................................................................................................................................ 128 Figure 140 Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents ................................................................................................................................................... 129 Figure 141 Bus Fleet - Alternatively Fueled Buses......................................................................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 142 Bus Fleet - Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses .................................................................................................................................................... 130 Figure 143 Bus Usage - Daily Runs per Bus ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Figure 144 Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization ................................................................................................................................................................................ 131 Figure 145 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel ......................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 146 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline .................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 147 Daily Ride Time - General Education ........................................................................................................................................................................... 133 Figure 148 Daily Ride Time - Special Education ............................................................................................................................................................................ 133
H U M A N R E S O U R C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 7
Figure 149 Teacher Retention – Quartile Analysis of Employment Length ........................................................................................................................... 139 Figure 150 Teacher Retention – Variability across Employment Length Categories ......................................................................................................... 140 Figure 151 Employee Separation Rate – Quartiles by Employee Category ........................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 152 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 1 Year Ago ...................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 153 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 2 Years Ago .................................................................................................................................................... 142 Figure 154 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 3 Years Ago .................................................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 155 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 4 Years Ago ................................................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 156 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 5 Years Ago ................................................................................................................................................... 144 Figure 157 Substitute Placement Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 144 Figure 158 Substitute Placements with BA/BS or Higher ........................................................................................................................................................... 145
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Page vi
Figure 159 Employee Separation Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 145 Figure 160 Employee Separation Rate - Teachers......................................................................................................................................................................... 146 Figure 161 Employee Separation Rate – Instructional Support Staff ..................................................................................................................................... 146 Figure 162 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Exempt Staff...................................................................................................................................... 147 Figure 163 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Non-Exempt Staff ............................................................................................................................ 147 Figure 164 Employee Separation Rate – Non-School Exempt Staff ......................................................................................................................................... 148 Figure 165 Employee Separation Rate – Non-School Non-Exempt Staff................................................................................................................................ 148 Figure 166 Exit Interview Completion Rate..................................................................................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 167 Health Benefits Enrollment Rate .................................................................................................................................................................................. 149 Figure 168 Health Benefits Cost per Enrolled Employee ............................................................................................................................................................. 150 Figure 169 HR Cost per District FTE .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 150 Figure 170 HR Cost per $100K Revenue ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 151 Figure 171 Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000 Employees .......................................................................................................... 151 Figure 172 Employee Relations - Misconduct Investigations per 1,000 Employees ........................................................................................................... 152
I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 5
Figure 173 Devices per Student vs. Bandwidth per Student ....................................................................................................................................................... 157 Figure 174 Devices - Average Age of Computers ............................................................................................................................................................................ 158 Figure 175 Devices - Computers per Employee ............................................................................................................................................................................. 158 Figure 176 Devices per Student ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 177 Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices per Teacher .......................................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 178 IT Spending Percent of District Budget....................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 179 IT Spending Percent of District Budget (Including Capital Investments) ........................................................................................................ 160 Figure 180 IT Spending per Student .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 161 Figure 181 Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps) ................................................................................................................................................... 161 Figure 182 Network - Days Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity ..................................................................................................................................................... 162 Figure 183 Network - WAN Availability ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 162 Figure 184 Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket ............................................................................................................................................................ 163 Figure 185 Support - First Contact Resolution Rate ..................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Figure 186 Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate............................................................................................................................................................ 164 Figure 187 Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket ............................................................................................................................................................ 164 Figure 188 Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee ............................................................................................................................................... 165 Figure 189 Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student .......................................................................................................................................... 165
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 1
INTRODUCTION OVER VIEW
The Performance Management and Benchmarking Project
In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set
out to develop performance measures that could be used to im-
prove business operations in urban public school districts. The Coun-
cil launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Pro-
ject to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were
to:
Establish a common set of key performance indicators (KPIs) in
a range of school operations, including business services, fi-
nances, human resources, and technology;
Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of
the nation’s largest urban public school systems;
Use the results to improve operational performance in urban
public schools.
Since its inception, the project has been led by two Council task
forces operating under the aegis of the organization’s Board of Di-
rectors: the Task Force on Leadership, Governance, and Manage-
ment, and the Task Force on Finance. The project’s work has been
conducted by a team of member-district managers, technical advi-
sors with extensive expertise in the following functional areas: busi-
ness services (transportation, food services, maintenance and oper-
ations, safety and security), budget and finance (accounts payable,
financial management, grants management, risk management, com-
pensation, procurement and cash management), information tech-
nology, and human resources.
Methodology of KPI Development
The project’s teams have used a sophisticated approach to define,
collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each
KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and
extensive documentation of the metric definitions ensures that the
expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. (The definitional
documentation for any KPI that is mentioned in this report is includ-
ed in the “KPI Definitions” section of each functional area.)
At the core of the methodology is the principle of continuous im-
provement. The technical teams are instructed to focus on opera-
tional indicators that can be benchmarked and are actionable, and
thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets.
From the KPI definitions the surveys are developed and tested to en-
sure the comparability, integrity and validity of data across school
districts.
Power Indicators and Essential Few
The KPIs are categorized into three levels of priority—Power Indica-
tors, Essential Few, and Key Indicators—with each level having its
own general purpose.
Power Indicators: Strategic and policy level; can be used by su-
perintendents and school boards to assess the overall perfor-
mance of their district’s non-instructional operations.
Essential Few: Management level; can be used by chief execu-
tives to assess the performance of individual departments and
divisions.
Key Indicators: Technical level; can be used by department
heads to drive the performance of the higher-level measures.
This division is more or less hierarchical, and while it is just one way
of many to organizing the KPIs, it is helpful for highlighting those
KPIs that are important enough to warrant more attention being
paid to them.
A Note on Cost of Living Adjustments
We adjust for cost of living in most cost-related measures. Regions
where it is more expensive to live, such as San Francisco, Boston,
New York City and Washington, D.C., are adjusted downward in or-
der to be comparable with other cities. Conversely, regions where
the costs of goods are lower, such as Columbus, OH, and Nashville,
TN, are adjusted upwards.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Introduction Page 2
FREQU EN TLY ASKED QU ES TION S
Why do the charts in this report have axes labeled with
numbers instead of district names?
Each bar chart in this report has axis labels that show the district ID
number. This is done in order to keep the district data confidential.
How do I find my district’s ID number?
You can contact CGCS at 800-394-2427 and ask for your KPI ID. Your
ID is also shown when you log in to ActPoint® KPI
(https://kpi.actpoint.com).
How do I get the ID numbers for all the other districts?
The ID numbers of other districts are confidential, and we do not
share them without the permission of each district. If you would like
to identify specific districts that are in your peer group in order to
collaborate with them, please contact CGCS at 800-394-2427.
Why isn’t my data showing? My district completed the sur-
veys.
It is likely that your data was flagged for review or is invalid. To re-
solve this, log in and check the Surveys section of the website. You
should see a message telling you that there are data that needs to
be reviewed.
It is also possible that you submitted your data after the publication
deadline for this report.
In either case, it may be possible to update your data in the surveys.
Once you do, your results will be reviewed and approved by CGCS or
TransAct within 24 hours of your submission. You will then be able
to view the results online.
Can I still submit a survey? Can I update my data?
You may still be able to submit or edit a survey depending on the
survey cycle. You will see a message saying “This survey is now
closed” if the survey is closed to edits. If you do not see this mes-
sage, then updates are still allowed for the fiscal year.
If the surveys are still open, any data that is updated will need to be
reviewed and approved by CGCS or TransAct before the results can
be viewed online. You can expect your data to be reviewed within
24 hours of your submission.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 3 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS PA
YA
BLE
FINANCE
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Performance metrics in Accounts Payable (AP) focus on the cost efficiency, productivity, and service quality of in-
voice processing. Cost efficiency is measured most broadly with AP Costs per $100K Revenue, which evaluates the
entire cost of the AP department against the total revenue of the district. This metric is supported by a similar met-
ric, AP Cost per Invoice, which compares against the number of invoices processed rather than district revenue.
Productivity is measured by Invoices Processed per FTE per Month, and service quality is captured, in part, by
Days to Process Invoices, Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment and Payments Voided.
With the above KPIs combined with staffing and electronic invoicing KPIs, district leaders have a baseline of infor-
mation to consider whether their AP function:
Needs better automation to process invoices
Is overstaffed or has staff that is under-trained or under-qualified
Should revise internal controls to improve accuracy
Needs better oversight and reporting procedures
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 4
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS P
AY
AB
LE
FIN
AN
CE
L IST OF KPIS IN ACCO U NTS PAYAB LE Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Accounts Payable. Indicators in bold are those included in
this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to CGCS
members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.
POWER INDICATORS
AP Cost per $100K Revenue
AP Cost per Invoice
Invoices - Days to Process
Invoices Processed Per FTE per Month
ESSENTIAL FEW
Invoices - Past Due at Time of Payment
Payments Voided
Payments Voided Due To Duplication
Payments Voided Due To Error
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
AP Staff - Accountants with AP Certificate
AP Staff - Accountants with CPA
AP Staff - Cost Per FTE
AP Staff - District FTEs per AP FTE
AP Staffing Ratio - Clerical and Support
AP Staffing Ratio - Managers
AP Staffing Ratio - Professionals
AP Staffing Ratio - Supervisors
Invoices - Percent Paid Electronically
Invoices - Percent Received Electronically
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 5 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS PA
YA
BLE
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 1 Payments Voided vs. Invoices Past Due
This scatter plot shows the percent of payments voided compared with the percent of invoices that were past due at the time of payment. These
two KPIs should both be minimized, so the best-performing districts are those that are at the bottom-left of the chart. Districts that are far to the
right or far to the top—or both—should track the corresponding KPI closely, and review their practices to move toward the bottom-left.
28
71
46
45
55
20
9
57
35
41
37
44 67
39
53
56
11
47
25
66
8
43
5
74
62
16
101
18
3
79
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Pay
me
nts
Vo
ide
d
Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 6
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS P
AY
AB
LE
FIN
AN
CE
DATA D ISC O VER Y The following charts show the data from the Power Indicators and the Essential Few in Accounts Payable. There are also guiding questions to en-
courage critical thinking about your district’s data. See the “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these
measures.
Figure 2 AP Cost per $100K Revenue
This is the total AP department cost relative to the district’s total
operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 3 AP Cost per Invoice
This is the total AP department cost relative to the number of in-
voices that were processed. Adjusted for cost of living.
193.1
155.8
93.1
93.0
92.9
81.9
80.5
79.0
78.0
77.9
67.9
67.6
66.0
65.3
64.5
63.7
63.0
59.1
57.0
54.7
54.2
53.6
50.7
48.1
47.4
47.3
46.9
45.7
45.5
41.2
38.9
38.8
37.5
35.5
31.5
29.0
22.8
57.0
0 50 100 150 200
6
12
101
16
66
20
14
44
28
67
1
5
3
35
45
57
47
52
21
Median
37
18
48
25
55
11
23
43
71
41
32
9
30
13
39
4
10
26
23.77
23.31
23.02
15.61
15.04
13.23
11.86
11.14
10.99
10.86
9.47
8.61
8.22
7.98
7.91
7.84
7.70
7.44
6.79
6.71
6.29
6.23
6.18
5.97
5.91
5.62
5.43
5.33
5.02
4.92
4.47
4.15
3.64
3.55
3.43
3.31
3.13
2.74
2.66
2.49
2.09
1.94
1.92
1.81
6.21
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
45
79
56
25
74
12
16
101
52
43
44
28
57
67
5
9
66
62
6
11
20
21
47
1
35
30
37
18
7
55
14
26
3
41
53
71
46
32
4
13
8
23
39
10
Do you think this indicator accurately reflects the cost efficiency of your A/P department? If not, why?
What are some factors that influence this measure? (See KPI Def-initions at the back of this section.)
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 7 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS PA
YA
BLE
Figure 4 Invoices – Days to Process
Average processing time can reflect the efficiency of the AP depart-
ment.
Figure 5 Invoices Processed per FTE per Month
49.5
40.7
40.6
30.9
30.0
22.0
18.4
18.0
15.9
15.9
10.0
10.0
9.4
7.6
6.1
5.5
4.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.6
10.0
- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
45
56
74
67
44
11
18
12
71
79
30
46
62
16
5
20
53
55
37
32
47
56
230
234
255
268
316
319
425
426
476
514
542
563
589
620
668
700
723
728
746
767
844
852
871
889
916
920
949
1,134
1,135
1,143
1,168
1,175
1,226
1,295
1,296
1,378
1,544
1,607
1,631
1,683
1,804
2,140
2,195
2,693
852
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
102
45
74
56
79
12
25
16
44
101
43
28
52
57
5
66
67
11
9
62
1
14
21
Median
37
47
20
55
7
26
18
6
53
35
41
71
30
3
32
46
13
4
8
39
10
23
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 8
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS P
AY
AB
LE
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 6 Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment
Payments are often held until the due date (often net 30 days). One
reason for doing this is to sustain positive cash flow. However, pay-
ments that are made after their due date can result in fees and/or
harm the district’s reputation.
Figure 7 Payments Voided
This can be used to identify your void rate.
69.7%
64.0%
58.4%
43.1%
40.2%
40.1%
34.3%
30.0%
22.4%
20.6%
19.3%
18.9%
18.4%
18.4%
18.3%
17.9%
16.3%
14.4%
9.8%
9.2%
8.3%
6.5%
6.1%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.3%
1.8%
1.4%
1.2%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
16.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
25
45
74
57
43
47
79
41
11
5
35
20
56
67
16
39
18
Median
46
9
71
10
66
4
55
3
62
53
44
8
28
23
37
101
5.33%
4.40%
2.84%
2.48%
2.40%
1.98%
1.82%
1.65%
1.47%
1.47%
1.31%
1.30%
1.21%
1.17%
1.17%
1.14%
1.14%
1.14%
1.10%
1.09%
1.07%
0.99%
0.98%
0.92%
0.88%
0.83%
0.69%
0.64%
0.57%
0.52%
0.50%
0.46%
0.45%
0.44%
0.41%
0.40%
0.38%
0.37%
0.32%
0.31%
0.26%
0.24%
0.18%
0.99%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
74
48
18
25
101
55
46
32
28
41
43
44
16
71
66
3
49
67
35
11
20
39
Median
5
7
6
57
62
13
9
34
45
8
1
12
53
21
14
52
30
37
79
47
56
What does your Accounts Payable department need to work on?
Which KPIs will track progress towards your improvement goals? Who is responsible for reporting on this?
Whose buy-in and support is needed to support these goals (e.g., CFO, Assistant Superintendent, CIO/CTO)?
How many percentage points would you need to improve in or-der to move to the next highest quartile? To move into the Top 5?
How many more invoices would need to be paid on-time in order to gain that many percentage points?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 9 Accounts Payable
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS PA
YA
BLE
KPI DEF IN ITION S AP Cost per $100K Revenue
Importance This measures the operational efficiency of an Ac-
counts Payable Department.
Factors that Influence
Administrative policies and procedures
Administrative organizational structure
Administrative leadership style, decision-making process
and distribution of organizational authority
Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
Performance management systems
Monitoring and reporting systems
Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
The total dollar amount of invoices paid annually
Level of automation
Regional salary differentials and different processing ap-
proaches
Calculation
Total AP department personnel costs plus AP department non-
personnel costs divided by total district operating revenue over
$100,000.
AP Cost per Invoice
Importance This measure determines the average cost to process
an invoice. According to the Institute of Management, the cost to
handle an invoice is the second most used metric in benchmarking
AP operations.
Factors that Influence
Administrative policies and procedures
Administrative organizational structure
Administrative leadership style, decision-making process
and distribution of organizational authority
Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
Performance management systems
Monitoring and reporting systems
Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
The total dollar amount of invoices paid annually
Level of Automation
Regional salary differentials and different processing ap-
proaches
Calculation Total AP department personnel costs plus AP depart-
ment non-personnel costs divided by total number of invoices han-
dled by the AP department.
Invoices – Days to Process
Importance This measures the efficiency of the payment process.
Factors that Influence
Automation
Size of district
Administrative policies
Calculation Aggregate number of days to process all AP invoices,
from date of invoice receipt by the AP department to the date of
payment post/check release divided by the total number of invoices
handled by the AP department.
Invoices Processed per FTE per Month
Importance This measure is a major driver of accounts payable
department costs. Lower processing rates may result from handling
vendor invoices for small quantities of non-repetitive purchases;
higher processing rates may result from increased technology using
online purchasing and invoice systems to purchase and pay for large
quantities of items from vendors.
Factors that Influence
Administrative organizational structure
Administrative leadership style, decision-making process and
distribution of organizational authority
Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
Performance management systems
Monitoring and reporting systems
Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
The number of invoices paid annually
Level of automation
Calculation Total number of invoices handled by the AP depart-
ment divided by total number of AP staff (FTEs), divided by 12
months.
Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment
Importance Minimizing the number of payments that are past due
should be a mission of the accounts payable department.
Factors that Influence
Process controls
Department workload management
Overtime policy
Calculation Number of invoices past due at time of payment di-
vided by total number of invoices handled by the AP department.
Payments Voided
Importance This measure reflects processing efficiencies and the
degree of accuracy. A high percentage of duplicate payments may
indicate a lack of controls, or indicate that the master vendor files
need cleaning.
Factors that Influence
Administrative policies and procedures
Administrative organizational structure
Administrative leadership style, decision-making process
and distribution of organizational authority
Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
Performance management systems
Monitoring and reporting systems
Number of FTEs in the Accounts Payable Department
The total number of checks written annually
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 2013
Finance Page 10
FIN
AN
CE
AC
CO
UN
TS P
AY
AB
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:
Revenue inflows and expenditure outflows, and the accuracy of cash flow projections
School board and administrative policies requiring internal controls and transparency
Accounting standards
Borrowing eligibility and liquidity
State laws and regulations
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 12
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
L IST OF KPIS IN CASH MAN AGEMEN T Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Cash Management. Indicators in bold are those included in
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
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
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 8 Cash/Investment Equity vs. Investment Earnings
A district with more available equity might hope to create additional value through investments. This chart shows the level of equity compared
with the level of investment earnings.
The ratio between these two measures is represented by the KPI “Investment Earnings as Percent of Cash/Investment Equity”, and the line in this
chart shows the median ratio from that KPI (at 0.52%). Districts that are below the line have an equity-to-income ratio that is lower than the medi-
an ratio—making it a sensible improvement benchmark.
The axes in this chart are on a base 10 logarithmic scale, so values increase exponentially by ten across every major gridline. This means that dis-
tricts further to the bottom are actually much further to the bottom. The reason for presenting the data in this way is to visualize the incremental
differences between districts at the lower end of the X- and Y-axis, while at the same time pointing out the substantial differences between the top
and bottom of the spectrum.
14
28
71
6
13
23
55
54
20
9 57
35
41
37
12
44
67 10
39
32
30
52
25
66
48
43
5
21
16
101 1
18
3
4
$1
$10
$100
$1,000
$10,000
$1,000 $10,000 $100,000
Inve
stm
en
t Ea
rnin
gs p
er
$1
00
K R
eve
nu
e
Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue
District Linear (Median ratio for Equity-to-Return = 0.52%)
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 14
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 9 Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue
High levels of short-term borrowing (loans with a repayment term of
less than one year) are a sign that the district has cash flow prob-
lems. (Note that some districts are legally not allowed to take out
short-term loans.) Not adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 10 Cash Flow - Months Above Liquidity Baseline
This reflects the district’s level of cash liquidity against the district-
established (internal) liquidity baseline. Twelve (12) months means
that the district did not fall below its liquidity baseline floor within
the fiscal year.
56,347
41,667
15,882
15,481
12,761
10,397
9,442
8,431
7,829
7,099
6,007
5,847
174
9,442
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000
45
3
16
23
30
101
37
Median
6
32
11
71
13
44
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
67
47
101
35
21
25
13
8
14
7
28
71
46
6
102
23
55
54
20
9
57
41
37
12
44
49
10
39
53
34
56
11
32
30
66
48
43
5
16
77
1
18
3
79
Are your investments generating value relative to total cash and investment equity? See the featured analysis on Page 13.
If your district takes out short-term loans, have you quantified the marginal costs of those loans?
If your level of short-term borrowing is high, what steps can you take to bring it down to the median? To bring it down to zero?
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
14
18
20
20
24
24
27
27
42
49
73
78
86
90
99
133
139
140
173
199
229
232
249
251
255
256
293
330
353
540
793
1,084
1,491
3,271
139
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
45
12
71
30
28
25
4
21
23
3
14
55
20
5
66
52
13
32
Median
43
35
39
57
37
1
9
10
101
41
67
54
16
6
44
48
18
0.04%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.07%
0.09%
0.10%
0.10%
0.16%
0.22%
0.23%
0.26%
0.29%
0.31%
0.39%
0.39%
0.40%
0.43%
0.43%
0.48%
0.50%
0.50%
0.53%
0.54%
0.56%
0.60%
0.62%
0.64%
0.65%
0.65%
0.79%
0.87%
0.96%
1.34%
1.35%
1.41%
1.44%
1.53%
1.58%
1.65%
1.74%
1.81%
2.56%
15.86%
0.52%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%
4
28
71
12
21
3
14
20
46
30
39
66
35
23
79
25
41
5
13
52
43
8
Median
34
37
55
9
10
53
49
101
1
32
54
62
56
57
16
67
77
48
7
6
44
18
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 16
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 13 Cash/Investment Equity per $100K Revenue
This is the level of cash and investment equity available to the dis-
trict at year-end. Not adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 14 Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue
This is the total Treasury department cost relative to the district’s
total operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.
4
1,309
6,061
6,186
8,531
9,166
13,019
15,910
16,213
20,199
20,629
20,712
21,521
26,589
28,070
30,708
31,664
34,377
35,531
36,438
36,816
37,389
39,131
41,295
41,669
42,139
42,422
42,782
43,833
47,856
50,871
54,707
59,386
73,796
77,623
84,893
90,539
35,531
$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
45
11
25
47
23
30
55
32
57
5
18
52
67
12
43
13
1
66
21
Median
71
54
16
101
10
28
9
44
37
6
3
14
4
35
41
20
39
48
110.1
50.7
41.3
36.3
35.8
32.2
32.0
30.0
25.7
25.6
24.4
23.2
23.1
22.6
21.9
20.1
18.3
17.9
17.5
16.6
15.8
15.6
15.4
12.9
10.4
10.3
9.8
8.5
5.7
5.0
3.5
3.0
2.3
18.3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
12
5
32
66
44
28
25
1
37
41
39
13
57
101
52
35
23
Median
54
67
43
71
4
10
9
48
3
18
21
55
11
45
14
30
Are there any signs that you have a problem with cash flow?
Is your cash and investment equity being utilized effectively to bring value to the district?
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 DEF IN ITION S Cash Flow - Short-Term Loans per $100K Revenue
Importance This measure identifies the degree to which districts
need to borrow money to meet cash flow needs. Short-term bor-
rowing is defined here as any loan with a repayment term of less
than one year.
Factors that Influence
The timing of revenue inflows and expenditure outflows and
the arbitrage ability to cover the borrowing
Ability to meet required spending for tax-exempt borrowing el-
igibility
State law may restrict or prohibit certain types of short-term
borrowing
Calculation Total amount borrowed in short-term loans (with a
repayment period of one year or less) divided by total district oper-
ating revenue, divided by $100,000
Investment Earnings per $100K Revenue
Importance This measure analyzes the risk of the investments
versus its projected returns.
Factors that Influence
Revenue types
Types of receipt percentages
Investments internal or external
Investment policy
Calculation Total investment earnings divided by total district op-
erating revenue, divided by $100,000.
Cash Flow - Months above Liquidity Baseline
Importance This measure highlights cash-flow performance rela-
tive to an established minimum liquidity level.
Factors that Influence
Cash management policies and strategies
Business tracking systems
Calculation Twelve months minus the number of months that the
district was below the target liquidity baseline.
Cash/Investment Equity per $100 K Revenue
Importance This measure indicates the total amount of cash and
investment equity relative to annual district revenue.
Calculation Total cash and investment equity divided by total dis-
trict operating revenue, divided by $100,000.
Investment Earnin gs as Percent of Cash/Equity Investment
Importance This indicates the rate of return on cash and invest-
ment assets. It reflects the degree to which the district uses its avail-
able assets to build value.
Calculation Total investment earnings divided by total cash and
investment equity.
Treasury Staffing Cost per $100K Revenue
Importance This measure helps evaluate staffing costs.
Calculation Total Treasury personnel costs divided by total district
operating revenue, divided by $100,000.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 18
FIN
AN
CE
CA
SH M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 19 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TION
COMPENSATION Performance metrics in compensation evaluate the cost efficiency and productivity of the payroll department. Cost
efficiency is broadly represented by the two measures Payroll Cost per Pay Check and Payroll Cost per $100K
Spend, which both evaluate the total costs of the Payroll department relative to workload. Productivity is broadly
represented by Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month, which is also a cost driver of payroll.
Because compensation involves high volumes of regular and predictable transactions, most cost efficiencies can be
realized by expanding the use of existing tools such as employee direct deposit and employee self-service modules.
This is captured in part by the measures Direct Deposit Rate and Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District
FTE.
Conversely, districts that underutilize modern automation systems could see an increase in Pay Check Errors per
10K Payments and increased W-2 Correction Rates (W-2c’s) due to the manual effort required, as well as an ex-
cessive level of Overtime Hours per Payroll Employee. Percent of Off-Cycle Payroll Checks may also indicate lower
productivity, as this may increase the workload of the Payroll department staff.
These service level, productivity, and efficiency measures should be considered in combination, and provide dis-
trict leaders with a baseline of information to determine whether their payroll function:
Needs better automation to improve accuracy and reduce workload
Should consider switching to software that is more accurate and efficient
Has problems with time management or workload management, or should have clearer policies around
timelines
Has staff that is under-skilled or under-trained
Should adopt a policy to increase direct deposits
Additionally, the following factors should be considered when evaluating performance levels:
Number of contracts requiring compliance
Frequency of payrolls
Complexity of state/local reporting requirements
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 20
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
L IST OF KPIS IN COM PE NS ATION Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Compensation. Indicators in bold are those included in this
report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to CGCS
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
Payroll Cost per $100K Revenue
Payroll Outsourcing as Percent of Costs
Payroll Staff - Cost Per FTE
Payroll Staff - District FTEs per Payroll FTE
Payroll Staffing Ratio - Clerical and Support
Payroll Staffing Ratio - Managers
Payroll Staffing Ratio - Professionals
Payroll Staffing Ratio - Supervisors
Personnel Records Self-Service Usage: Address Changes
Personnel Records Self-Service Usage: Direct Deposit Changes
Personnel Records Self-Service Usage: W-4 Changes
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 21 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TION
FEATUR ED AN ALYS ES
Figure 15 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend vs. Payroll Cost per Pay Check
These two measures each approximate the cost efficiency of the Payroll department. The size of the bubbles in this chart represents the district’s
student enrollments. Several of the largest districts appear to dominate the bottom-left quadrant (the most cost-efficient), whereas more medium-
sized districts are in the middle (average cost efficiency) and top-right (the least cost-efficient).
14
7
28
71
46
6
26 13
45
55 54
9
57
35
37
12
44
67
49 39
53
34
56
11
47 32
52
25
66
48
8
43
5
74 21
16
101 1
18
3
79
4
$-
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400
Pay
roll
Co
st p
er
Pay
Ch
eck
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 2013
Finance Page 22
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 16 Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month
This is a productivity measure that compares your staffing level with
workload.
Figure 17 Payroll Cost per $100K Spend
This cost efficiency measure compares the Payroll department ex-
penditures with the total annual payroll payout. Not adjusted for
cost of living.
592
602
639
708
715
728
820
908
938
1,007
1,037
1,138
1,221
1,223
1,230
1,240
1,272
1,284
1,318
1,327
1,352
1,365
1,377
1,410
1,465
1,826
1,848
2,050
2,062
2,164
2,319
2,411
2,507
2,685
2,746
2,800
2,908
2,985
3,070
3,329
3,786
4,110
4,124
4,385
5,104
1,377
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
77
101
6
1
79
11
5
56
67
20
34
74
45
4
44
66
37
71
12
35
21
16
7
Median
57
25
28
3
48
53
43
49
14
10
8
55
9
18
46
54
13
26
32
52
39
47
379
349
339
327
288
253
245
221
218
217
215
215
205
203
197
197
188
172
167
158
154
152
145
139
131
127
126
124
122
120
118
116
112
111
110
108
102
89
82
64
62
55
52
39
149
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400
34
79
74
35
6
4
45
5
66
1
12
11
56
16
23
57
44
21
48
67
37
62
Median
3
101
53
7
25
49
39
14
71
28
43
8
46
18
54
9
13
52
55
26
32
47
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 23 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TION
Figure 18 Payroll Cost per Pay Check
This cost efficiency measure compares the Payroll department ex-
penditures with the annual number of paychecks. Adjusted for cost
of living.
Figure 19 Pay Check Errors per 10K Payments
10.89
9.57
9.07
8.97
7.46
7.02
6.85
6.79
6.14
6.02
5.76
5.75
5.48
5.42
5.17
5.07
5.03
4.99
4.52
4.44
4.34
4.14
3.99
3.83
3.58
3.56
3.37
3.23
2.91
2.88
2.59
2.53
2.41
2.33
2.32
2.09
1.86
1.76
1.72
1.68
1.48
1.34
1.27
1.11
0.85
3.99
$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00
6
77
101
1
5
35
79
11
34
67
16
20
56
66
4
37
21
74
12
45
7
43
57
Median
3
44
48
71
28
25
53
18
49
9
46
39
8
54
55
10
14
52
13
26
32
47
193.21
120.04
107.69
85.90
85.01
69.17
61.57
52.59
49.04
44.65
41.41
33.76
29.80
28.90
28.03
23.70
21.67
20.29
19.40
18.98
18.21
12.06
9.00
8.74
8.00
7.06
6.45
6.41
5.37
4.02
2.72
2.12
2.10
1.31
0.96
0.20
19.40
0 50 100 150 200
35
37
55
45
13
16
101
28
71
3
67
1
18
52
54
56
14
6
4
Median
79
66
12
46
11
26
48
43
5
57
39
53
8
32
47
9
44
62
How many more paychecks per month would your staff need to process in order to reach the median? To move into the Top 10?
Would more automation and/or direct deposits improve your processing rate?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 24
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
Figure 20 Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per FTE
This is the average number of annual overtime hours per Payroll
employee.
Figure 21 Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE
158.3
102.9
93.7
79.5
72.3
70.3
63.6
56.4
49.0
48.1
41.8
36.3
31.4
28.6
21.6
17.6
16.9
16.3
16.0
13.6
13.3
13.1
9.3
8.7
8.3
8.3
8.2
7.6
6.4
5.8
4.1
3.6
3.3
2.1
0.7
0.4
0.2
16.0
- 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
11
66
71
52
25
53
57
32
3
28
37
23
5
10
49
18
55
54
4
Median
67
26
43
39
79
16
1
45
8
34
35
14
101
6
46
48
7
44
7.1%
17.2%
18.0%
25.4%
26.9%
34.0%
38.4%
38.8%
59.8%
62.5%
95.7%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
101
66
4
32
26
11
37
54
39
13
55
Direct Deposit
W-4 (WithholdingAllowances)
Address or PersonalInformation
How many fewer errors would your district need to produce in order to reach the next quartile? To move into the Top 10?
Is overtime more cost efficient for your district than hiring more personnel?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 25 Compensation
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TION
Figure 22 W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s)
Figure 23 Pay Checks - Direct Deposits
This is the percent of pay checks issued that were direct deposits.
4.098% (Not Displayed)
0.581%
0.574%
0.231%
0.206%
0.189%
0.164%
0.113%
0.095%
0.071%
0.070%
0.065%
0.044%
0.039%
0.039%
0.023%
0.023%
0.022%
0.017%
0.016%
0.011%
0.008%
0.006%
0.006%
0.054%
0.000% 0.200% 0.400% 0.600% 0.800%
66
45
21
37
16
39
5
18
54
43
101
10
Median
11
55
44
13
6
47
20
12
3
48
14
71
0.0%
7.1%
46.3%
63.8%
65.6%
66.0%
72.6%
72.6%
72.7%
73.1%
74.0%
79.4%
81.4%
82.3%
82.6%
82.9%
83.1%
85.5%
87.0%
88.7%
89.4%
89.9%
89.9%
90.2%
90.3%
90.7%
90.8%
92.0%
94.7%
95.2%
95.7%
95.8%
96.3%
96.4%
97.5%
98.6%
98.8%
98.9%
98.9%
99.1%
99.5%
99.5%
99.6%
99.8%
99.9%
100.0%
90.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
62
49
9
18
6
57
77
74
7
45
25
11
4
67
16
46
5
56
1
21
101
20
47
Median
54
43
26
79
52
10
8
35
39
12
34
44
66
13
71
32
14
48
28
3
55
53
37
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 26
FIN
AN
CE
CO
MP
ENSA
TIO
N
FIN
AN
CE
KPI DEF IN ITION S Pay Checks Processed per FTE per Month
Importance This measure is a driver of a payroll department's
costs. Lower processing rates may result from a low level of automa-
tion, high paycheck error rates, or high rates of off-cycle paychecks
that must be manually processed. Higher processing rates may be
the result of increased automation and highly competent staff.
Calculation Total number of paychecks processed by Payroll de-
partment divided by total number of Payroll staff (FTEs), divided by
12 months.
Payroll Cost per $100K Spend
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
Number of employees processing the payroll
Skill level of the employees processing payroll
Types of software/hardware used to process the payroll
Processes and procedures in place to collect payroll data
Number of employees being paid
Number of contracts requiring compliance
Frequency of payrolls
Complexity of state/local reporting requirements
Calculation Total Payroll personnel costs plus total payroll non-
personnel costs divided by total district payroll spend, divided by
$100,000.
Payroll Cost per Pay Check
Importance This measures the efficiency of the payroll operation.
A higher cost could indicate an opportunity to realize efficiencies in
payroll operation while a lower cost indicates a leaner, more effi-
cient operation.
Factors that Influence
Number of employees processing the payroll
Skill level of the employees processing payroll
Types of software/hardware used to process the payroll
Processes and procedures in place to collect payroll data
Number of employees being paid
Number of contracts requiring compliance
Frequency of payrolls
Complexity of state/local reporting requirements
Calculation Total Payroll personnel costs plus total payroll non-
personnel costs divided by total number of payroll checks.
Pay Checks - Errors per $10K Pay Checks
Importance High error rates can indicate a lack of adequate con-
trols.
Factors that Influence
Process controls
Staff turnover
Staff experience
Payment system
Level of automation
Calculation Total number of paycheck errors divided by total
number of paychecks handled by Payroll department, divided by
$10,000.
Payroll Staff - Overtime Hours per Payroll FTE
Importance This measures the efficiency and effectiveness of the
payroll department. Excessive overtime can be an indication that
staffing levels are inadequate or that processes and procedures
need to be revised and streamlined to make the work more effi-
cient. An absence of any overtime may indicate staffing levels that
are too high for the volume of work the department is processing.
Calculation Total number of Payroll overtime hours divided by to-
tal number of Payroll staff (FTEs).
Personnel Record Self-Service Usage per District FTE
Importance This measures the level of automation of the payroll
department, which can reduce error rates and processing costs.
Factors that Influence
Software used may not provide employee self-service
Employee self-service modules of the software may not be in
use
Implementation of these modules may be too costly
Support/help-desk services for the employee self-serve mod-
ules may not be available
Calculation Total number of employee records self-service
changes divided by total number of district employees (FTEs).
W-2 Correction Rate (W-2c’s)
Importance W-2(c) forms are the result of errors in the initial W-2
filing. Corrections can be costly in terms of staff time.
Factors that Influence
Process controls
Quality controls
Calculation Total number of W-2(c) forms issued divided by total
number of W-2 forms issued.
Pay Checks - Direct Deposits
Importance Use of direct deposit can increase the levels of auto-
mation and decrease costs.
Factors that Influence
Payment systems
Pay check policy
Calculation Total number of pay checks paid through direct de-
posit divided by the total number of pay checks issued.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 27 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L MA
NA
GEM
ENT
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Performance metrics in financial management assess the overall financial health of a district, as measured by its
Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue and Debt Service Burden per $1,000 Revenue. They also measure a dis-
trict’s practices in effective budgeting. These practices are broadly represented by a district’s Expenditure Efficien-
cy and Revenue Efficiency, which compare the adopted and final budgets to actual levels of income and spending.
A value close to 0% shows highly accurate budget forecasting. Finally, Days to Publish Annual Financial Report is a
measure of the timeliness of district’s financial disclosures.
Generally, leadership and governance factors are the starting point of good financial health:
School board and administrative policies and procedures
Budget development and management processes
Unrestricted fund balance use policies and procedures
Operating funds definition
Additionally, other conditions and factors should be considered as you evaluate your district’s financial health and
forecast for the future:
Revenue experience, variability, and forecasts
Expenditure trends, volatility, and projections
Per capita income levels
Real property values
Local retail sales and business receipts
Commercial acreage and business property market value
Changes in local employment base
Changes in residential development trends
Restrictions on legal reserves
Age of district infrastructure
Monitoring and reporting systems
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 28
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
L IST OF KPIS IN F IN AN C IAL MAN AGEME NT Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Financial Management. Indicators in bold are those includ-
ed in this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to
CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.
POWER INDICATORS
Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue
Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue
Fund Balance Ratio (A) Unassigned
Fund Balance Ratio (B) Uncommitted
Fund Balance Ratio (C) Unrestricted
Expenditure Efficiency - Final Budget as Percent of Actual
Revenue Efficiency - Final Budget as Percent of Actual
ESSENTIAL FEW
Annual Financial Report - Days to Publish
Expenditure Efficiency - Adopted Budget as Percent of Actual
Revenue Efficiency - Adopted Budget as Percent of Actual
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
CIA
L MA
NA
GEM
ENT
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 24 Debt Principal vs. Debt Servicing Costs
This scatter plot shows a district’s total outstanding debt (regardless of the period of repayment) as a ratio to one year of revenue, compared with
the debt servicing costs over one year (also as a ratio to one year of revenue). The clear trend to notice is not surprising: more total debt means
more money that is spent annually on debt repayments.
What is not represented in this chart is what the district was able to do with those borrowed funds. Often borrowing is done in order to make
worthwhile investments, such as school buildings.
28
71
6
26
13
45
23
55
20
9
57 35
41
37
12
44
67
10
39
47
32
30
52
66
48
43
5
21
101
1
18
4
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
De
bt
Serv
icin
g C
ost
s R
atio
to
Dis
tric
t R
eve
nu
e
Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue
Have your borrowed funds been worthwhile enough to justify the cost of debt?
Where do you expect your district to be on this chart in three years?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 30
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 25 Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue
This shows the total amount of debt outstanding (regardless of re-
payment term) relative to one year of revenue.
Figure 26 Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue
This is the amount paid in debt payments over one year relative to
one year of revenue.
230.7%
217.5%
190.3%
146.2%
142.2%
139.9%
129.8%
118.0%
108.4%
100.6%
96.8%
95.0%
89.4%
83.7%
82.3%
74.7%
73.8%
70.5%
65.5%
59.6%
44.4%
38.3%
38.3%
31.6%
31.1%
27.8%
20.9%
20.1%
13.4%
8.6%
7.2%
0.3%
0.2%
73.8%
0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0% 250.0%
37
23
41
45
20
32
39
54
26
13
101
48
4
5
52
71
10
Median
43
35
67
21
66
44
1
30
12
57
28
9
6
47
55
18
32.3%
21.7%
16.0%
14.8%
14.6%
14.2%
14.1%
14.0%
12.0%
12.0%
11.2%
11.2%
9.8%
9.4%
9.1%
8.0%
7.9%
7.1%
6.4%
5.1%
4.7%
4.6%
3.8%
3.1%
2.9%
2.3%
1.9%
1.2%
1.0%
1.0%
0.7%
0.1%
0.1%
7.9%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
52
9
37
23
41
5
1
26
39
67
20
32
43
71
13
48
4
Median
35
10
45
47
57
21
66
44
30
28
12
11
6
101
18
55
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 31 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Figure 27 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue - All Types
This is the year-end fund balance relative to total annual revenue,
including both unrestricted and restricted fund balance types. An
adequate fund balance means that there is enough money to main-
tain cash flow for regular district operations.
Figure 28 Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue – Unrestricted
This is the year-end fund balance relative to total annual revenue for
all unrestricted fund balance types (which includes unassigned, as-
signed and committed). Unrestricted funds are generally easier to
repurpose if the need arises, especially if they are unassigned.
14.6%
3.8%
5.4%
5.7%
6.3%
7.4%
8.5%
9.4%
10.0%
10.6%
11.0%
11.5%
12.3%
12.6%
12.8%
12.9%
13.5%
14.5%
14.6%
17.1%
18.3%
18.5%
19.2%
19.6%
19.9%
22.9%
23.3%
25.6%
27.6%
29.5%
34.1%
41.5%
42.4%
47.0%
65.0%
90.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
9
14
13
32
47
16
55
1
5
30
66
101
11
21
67
23
44
Median
18
4
10
20
43
28
57
54
37
52
48
71
39
12
45
35
41
26
Unrestricted
Restricted
10.8%
2.9%
3.0%
3.1%
3.2%
3.7%
5.2%
6.1%
6.6%
7.2%
8.4%
8.7%
8.7%
9.2%
9.3%
10.2%
10.3%
10.6%
10.8%
11.6%
11.7%
12.1%
12.1%
12.6%
14.8%
15.1%
16.5%
19.1%
19.4%
24.7%
25.1%
25.4%
25.7%
27.1%
30.5%
78.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
57
55
9
13
14
32
16
4
47
30
66
5
11
1
101
18
12
37
Median
67
21
28
23
44
41
20
10
43
54
35
71
52
48
45
39
26
Unassigned
Assigned
Committed
Have your fund balance levels been enough to avoid cash flow and/or programming problems?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 32
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 29 Expenditure Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual
A ratio above zero means that the district spent less than expected.
Figure 30 Revenue Efficiency – Adopted Budget Difference from Actual
A ratio below zero means that the district received more revenue
than expected.
-29.6%
-19.7%
-19.0%
-14.7%
-14.5%
-11.8%
-8.3%
-5.6%
-4.7%
-4.4%
-4.2%
-3.0%
-2.9%
-2.7%
-2.7%
-2.7%
-2.5%
-2.1%
-2.0%
-1.1%
-1.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.7%
1.0%
1.0%
3.4%
10.6%
10.6%
11.1%
11.8%
22.2%
23.5%
-40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0%
35
45
32
28
37
5
1
55
39
54
66
52
4
13
18
48
16
6
23
11
10
21
71
14
30
101
67
43
41
9
47
12
57
26.9%
23.4%
17.1%
16.2%
14.2%
14.1%
13.8%
9.9%
7.3%
5.8%
4.9%
4.9%
4.7%
4.5%
4.2%
3.7%
3.0%
2.6%
2.2%
1.7%
1.7%
1.3%
0.4%
-1.1%
-1.2%
-1.4%
-2.2%
-2.9%
-4.7%
-6.0%
-12.0%
-12.1%
-18.9%
-30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
12
57
35
48
43
47
41
67
54
4
14
9
23
37
71
101
30
18
10
1
39
21
6
5
13
11
52
55
66
45
16
28
32
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 33 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L MA
NA
GEM
ENT
Figure 31 Expenditure Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual
A ratio above zero means that the district spent less than expected.
Figure 32 Revenue Efficiency – Final Budget Difference from Actual
A ratio below zero means that the district received more revenue
than expected.
-36.5%
-27.0%
-20.1%
-19.6%
-19.4%
-18.0%
-17.4%
-15.5%
-12.7%
-9.2%
-8.3%
-7.1%
-7.0%
-5.2%
-4.8%
-4.8%
-4.6%
-4.6%
-4.4%
-4.4%
-4.2%
-3.8%
-3.4%
-2.8%
-2.0%
-1.6%
-1.1%
4.3%
10.3%
10.6%
11.8%
19.2%
23.0%
-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
28
35
37
32
48
39
10
45
5
23
1
16
55
9
14
6
52
18
54
30
66
21
4
11
13
101
67
71
41
43
47
57
12
25.6%
23.1%
17.2%
14.2%
14.1%
12.9%
7.3%
4.9%
4.3%
1.8%
1.1%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
-0.1%
-0.5%
-0.6%
-0.8%
-1.3%
-1.5%
-1.9%
-2.3%
-2.3%
-3.5%
-3.7%
-3.8%
-4.7%
-5.3%
-7.2%
-10.4%
-16.3%
-20.0%
-30.7%
-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
12
57
35
43
47
41
54
4
71
37
18
30
14
11
48
101
45
67
13
1
5
21
6
23
55
52
66
10
39
9
16
32
28
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 34
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 33 Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish
235
210
207
200
198
181
180
180
180
173
173
172
171
168
167
166
166
166
165
165
165
165
164
164
163
162
160
158
157
156
143
138
138
134
131
123
121
121
118
114
107
102
90
77
66
47
10
164
0 50 100 150 200 250
52
79
54
14
44
57
30
74
18
26
48
4
13
35
12
49
11
21
28
20
67
43
10
16
Median
47
23
9
32
101
5
41
37
53
71
39
55
7
34
8
45
77
1
46
56
66
6
102
Are you satisfied with the length of time it took to publish your annual financial report?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 35 Financial Management
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L MA
NA
GEM
ENT
KPI DEF IN ITION S Debt Principal Ratio to District Revenue
Importance This evaluates the total level of debt that the district
currently owes relative to its annual revenue.
Factors that Influence
Tax base and growth projections
Capital projects
Levels of state and grant funding
Interest rates (cost of borrowing)
Fund balance ratio
Calculation Total debt principal divided by total debt servicing
costs.
Debt Servicing Costs Ratio to District Revenue
Importance This evaluates the annual amount paid in debt servic-
ing relative to annual district revenue.
Factors that Influence
Interest rates (cost of borrowing)
Level of debt
Tax base and growth projections
Revenue sources to pay down debt
Fund balance ratio
Calculation Total debt servicing costs divided by total district op-
erating revenue.
Fund Balance Ratio to District Revenue
Importance This measure assesses the fiscal health of the district
supported by the general fund, including financial capacity to meet
unexpected or planned future needs. A high percentage indicates
greater fiscal health and financial capacity to meet unexpected or
future needs. A low percentage indicates risk for the district in its
ability to meet unexpected changes in revenues or expenses.
Factors that Influence
School board and administrative policies and procedures
Administrative leadership and decision making processes
Budget development and management processes
Revenue experience, variability, and forecasts
Expenditure trends, volatility, and projections
Planned uses of fund balance
Restrictions on legal reserves
Unreserved fund balance use policies and procedures
Local fiscal authority policies and procedures
Operating funds definition
Calculation Total fund balance that was unassigned divided by to-
tal district operating expenditures.
Expenditure Efficiency
Importance This measure assesses efficiency in spending against
the final approved general fund expenditure budget. A high per-
centage nearing 100% indicates efficient utilization of appropriated
resources. A low percentage, or a percentage significantly exceeding
100%, indicates major variance from the final approved budget and
signifies that the budget was inaccurate, misaligned with the actual
needs of the school system, significantly impacted by unforeseen
factors, and/or potentially mismanaged. Districts experiencing a low
percentage or a significantly high percentage should thoroughly in-
vestigate the causes for the variances and reevaluate their budget
development and management processes to improve accuracy and
alignment. Districts having significant variances in expenditures to
budget when measured against the original budget, but near 100%
when measured against the final amended budget, are monitoring
and adjusting their budgets during the year to meet the changing
conditions of the district. Such districts should also consider reeval-
uating their budget development and management processes to im-
prove accuracy and alignment.
Factors that Influence
School board and administrative policies and procedures
Budget development and management processes
Administrative organizational structure, leadership styles, deci-
sion making processes, and distribution of authority
Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
Performance management, monitoring, and reporting systems
General Fund definition
Calculation Total budgeted expenditures in the final budget di-
vided by total district operating expenditures.
Revenue Efficiency
Importance This measure assesses efficiency in spending against
the final approved general fund revenue budget. A high percentage
nearing 100% indicates efficient utilization of appropriated re-
sources. A low percentage, or a percentage significantly exceeding
100%, indicates major variance from the final approved budget and
signifies that the budget was inaccurate, misaligned with the actual
needs of the school system, significantly impacted by unforeseen
factors, and/or potentially mismanaged. Districts experiencing a low
percentage or a significantly high percentage should thoroughly in-
vestigate the causes for the variances and reevaluate their budget
development and management processes to improve accuracy and
alignment. Districts having significant variances in revenues to budg-
et when measured against the original budget, but near 100% when
measured against the final amended budget, are monitoring and ad-
justing their budgets during the year to meet the changing condi-
tions of the district. Such districts should also consider reevaluating
their budget development and management processes to improve
accuracy and alignment.
Factors that Influence
School board and administrative policies and procedures
Budget development and management processes
Administrative organizational structure, leadership styles, deci-
sion making processes and distribution of authority
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 36
FIN
AN
CE
FIN
AN
CIA
L M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Departmental and individual employee responsibilities and
competencies
Performance management, monitoring, and reporting systems
General Fund definition
Calculation Total budgeted revenue in the final budget divided by
total district operating revenue.
Annual Financial Report – Days to Publish
Importance Timely publication of annual financial reports is an
important part of responsible financial management and govern-
ance.
Factors that Influence
Reporting processes
Time management and goal-setting
Staff experience and credentials
Calculation Number of calendar days to publish the annual finan-
cial report, from end-of-year date to publishing date.
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
availability of grant funds are the primary concerns: Do you spend all your grant funds in the grant period? How
quickly do you process reimbursements? These are addressed in part using the metrics Returned Grant Funds per
$100K Grant Revenue and Aging of Grants Receivables.
Grant-funded programming should also be considered an exposure to risk. Looking at levels of Grant-Funded FTE
Dependence can guide a district to either:
a) Allocate enough fund reserves to insure themselves against possible shifts in funding sources; or
b) Have an evaluation system in place that helps determine whether positions should be continued beyond
the term of a grant.
These metrics should give a basic sense of where a district might improve its performance in grants management.
Areas of improvement may include:
Monitoring and reporting systems
Escalation procedures to address timeliness
Administrative leadership style, decision-making process, and distribution of organizational authority
School Board, administrative policies, and management process
Procurement regulations and policies
Reserve funds to supplant the risks of high grant dependency
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 38
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
L IST OF KPIS IN GR ANTS MAN AGEME NT Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Grants Management. Indicators in bold are those included
in this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to
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
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 34 Grant Funds vs. Grant-Funded Staff
14 71
26
13
55
54 20
9
57
41
37
12
67
10
39
47
32
30
52
66
48
43
5
21
101
1
18
3
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
Gra
nt-
Fun
de
d S
taff
as
Pe
rce
nt
of
Dis
tric
t FT
Es
Grant Funds as Percent of District Budget
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 40
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 35 Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget
This answers the basic question, “How much of district funding
comes from grants?” Grants here are defined as funds that are re-
stricted due to constraints set by the grantor.
Figure 36 Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs
This shows the level of dependency on grant funds for district staff.
15.8%
70.5%
43.8%
39.8%
39.8%
28.2%
28.2%
22.0%
21.0%
19.7%
17.9%
17.7%
17.5%
17.2%
17.0%
16.7%
16.3%
15.8%
15.8%
15.8%
15.7%
14.6%
14.3%
14.1%
13.7%
12.9%
12.9%
12.8%
12.7%
12.5%
12.5%
11.7%
11.6%
10.9%
10.7%
10.2%
8.9%
7.4%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0%
6
101
67
16
25
11
30
23
32
26
18
37
3
44
10
39
20
21
57
Median
28
35
48
5
9
12
41
66
54
1
43
47
52
14
55
13
71
45
Federal
State
Local/Private
36%
36%
31%
21%
19%
17%
17%
16%
14%
14%
14%
13%
12%
12%
12%
11%
11%
11%
11%
10%
10%
10%
9%
9%
9%
9%
8%
8%
7%
7%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
67
101
12
10
47
57
5
43
30
18
3
21
1
52
41
Median
26
66
55
39
37
20
32
48
13
74
54
49
14
71
9
Does your level of grant fund dependency expose your district to risk?
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.
24,773.8 (not shown)
5,298.8
3,011.8
1,821.9
1,545.3
1,492.2
1,441.1
1,068.6
809.8
591.9
549.1
508.3
365.4
344.2
342.0
324.3
317.9
289.6
176.3
175.4
131.8
113.1
101.4
56.2
34.3
10.5
5.9
4.7
1.2
0.0
333.1
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
20
45
71
25
14
21
28
57
39
13
54
1
12
35
37
Median
43
8
48
32
52
101
56
46
9
53
66
79
18
30
41
Federal
State
Local/Private
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 42
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 38 Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total
This answers the question, “How much of a district’s grant funding
comes from competitive grants?” Note that the order in this chart
does not suggest ranking.
Figure 39 Days to Access New Grant Funds
This is the average number of days it takes before spending begins
on a grant project after it has been approved by the grantor. It is an
efficiency measure for the office that processes grant approvals.
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
5%
7%
8%
8%
8%
10%
11%
11%
12%
13%
13%
13%
13%
14%
17%
18%
20%
21%
21%
23%
23%
24%
30%
30%
30%
36%
37%
58%
60%
61%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
67
14
34
66
9
101
55
48
53
25
32
10
18
56
102
8
79
49
3
5
Median
23
20
43
13
12
41
39
1
57
7
35
46
45
71
77
54
52
37
26
21
75.7
61.6
45.0
44.8
42.0
41.3
39.1
36.5
36.2
35.0
30.0
20.9
20.0
17.5
12.2
5.6
2.6
2.1
2.1
1.0
32.5
- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
101
1
32
71
49
26
39
12
79
46
Median
5
25
66
14
53
41
55
67
30
102
Should it be easier for district personnel to use their grant funds?
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 it takes to invoice and receive
grant reimbursements.
90.0
64.1
61.0
57.5
43.7
41.0
40.0
35.0
28.1
25.0
24.0
11.0
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.4
7.2
6.4
26.6
- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
46
56
14
101
52
39
12
13
43
Median
53
25
5
26
71
28
66
77
79
Days to Process
Days to ReceivePayment
What are the issues, if any, that your district faces when it comes to Grants Management? Are there any risks that the district is exposed to on account of these issues?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 44
FIN
AN
CE
GR
AN
TS M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
KPI DEF IN ITION S
Grant Funds as Percent of Total Budget
Importance Shows the magnitude of a district's reliance on addi-
tional and alternative funding sources.
Factors that Influence
District demographics that drive eligibility for categorical grants
Philosophy, policies, procedures embraced by a district in iden-
tifying and pursuing grants
Local economic conditions
Calculation Total grant fund expenditures divided by total district
operating revenue.
Grant-Funded Staff as Percent of District FTEs
Importance This measure shows the level of dependency on grant
funds for district personnel funding.
Calculation Number of grant-funded staff (FTEs) divided by total
number of district employees (FTEs).
Returned Grant Funds per $100K Grant Revenue
Importance Identify and improve cycle time of grant-fund availa-
bility. Ensure that no delays exist from budget approval to program
implementation that the grant timelines can't be met. This measure
assesses efficiency in spending grant funds that are provided by fed-
eral, state, and local governments, as well as other sources such as
foundations.
Factors that Influence
Who monitors awards and the grant program coordinator to
assure timeliness
Timeliness of award notification from federal and state entities
School board and administrative policies; as well as budget de-
velopment and management process and procurement regula-
tions and policies
The timeliness of expenditures is a good indicator for the gran-
tor to ensure that programming is occurring in time to meet
grant deliverables and expected outcomes by the expiration
date
A low number of days between the date the budget is approved
until the date of the first expenditure would indicate an effec-
tive use of grant funds
A high number of days would indicate an ineffective use of sup-
plemental resources that could limit or reduce the district’s
ability to obtain additional revenues in the future
Calculation Total grant funds returned (not spent) divided by total
grant funds expenditures over 100,000.
Competitive Grant Funds as Percent of Total
Importance This can be used to evaluate the level of competitive
grant funding in a district. Competitive grant funds can provide use-
ful resources, but can be difficult for long-term planning and can
raise concerns about sustainability.
Factors that Influence
Experience and network of grant writers
Level of focus on obtaining competitive grants
Vision of district mission
Calculation Grant funds expenditures that are from competitive
grants divided by total grant funds expenditures.
Days to Access New Grant Funds
Importance Identify and improve cycle time of grant fund availa-
bility. Ensure that no delays exist from budget approval to program
implementation that the grant timelines can't be met. This measure
assesses efficiency in spending grant funds that are provided by fed-
eral, state, and local governments, as well as other sources such as
foundations.
Factors that Influence
Who monitors awards and the grant program coordinator to
assure timeliness
Timeliness of award notification from federal and state entities
School board and administrative policies, as well as budget de-
velopment and management process and procurement regula-
tions and policies
Therefore, the timeliness of expenditures is a good indicator for
the grantor to ensure that programming is occurring in time to
meet grant deliverables and expected outcomes by the expira-
tion date
A low number of days between the date the budget is approved
until the date of the first expenditure would indicate an effec-
tive use of grant funds
A high number of days would indicate an ineffective use of sup-
plemental resources that could limit or reduce the district’s
ability to obtain additional revenues in the future
Calculation Total aggregate number of days that passed after
new grant award notification dates to the first expenditure date di-
vided by the total number of new grant awards in the fiscal year.
Grants Receivables Aging
Importance Aging greater than 30 days may indicate that expend-
itures have not been submitted in a timely way to the funding agen-
cy or the funding agency is slow in sending reimbursement, thereby
requiring follow-up.
Factors that Influence
Funding agency reimbursement process
Level of automation
Complexity of grant
Frequency of billing
Payroll suspense
Calculation Aggregate number of calendar days to internally pro-
cess grant receivable invoices, from date grant reimbursements are
filed to date invoice is submitted to the grantor plus the aggregate
number of calendar days to receive payment of submitted invoices,
divided by the total number of grant receivable invoices.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 45 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
PROCUREMENT Procurement improvement strategies generally fall into two categories:
1. Increasing the level of cost savings, represented broadly by Procurement Savings Ratio.
2. Improving efficiency and decreasing costs of the Purchasing department, represented broadly by Cost per
Purchase Order and Purchasing Department Costs per Procurement Dollars Spent.
The first goal is assessed by the cost savings measures Competitive Procurements Ratio, Strategic Sourcing Ratio,
and Cooperative Purchasing Agreements Ratio.
Purchasing department cost efficiency is generally improved through the effective automation of procurement
spending. This is largely represented through P-Card Transactions Ratio and Electronic Procurement Transactions
Ratio. Figures 43 and 44 show the relationship between districts who use P-cards and electronic transactions and
their total Purchasing Department Costs per Procurement Dollars Spent.
Finally, metrics of the procurement department’s service level, such as Procurement Administrative Lead Time,
should also be considered.
These metrics of district procurement practices should provide district leaders with a good baseline of information
on how their district can improve its Procurement function. The general influencing factors that can guide im-
provement strategies include:
Procurement policies, particularly those delegating purchase authority and P-Card usage
Utilization of technology to manage a high volume of low dollar transactions
e-Procurement and e-Catalog processes utilized by district
P-Card reconciliation software and P-Card database interface with a district’s ERP system
Budget, purchasing, and audit controls, including P-card credit-limit controls on single transaction and
monthly limits
Utilization of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs)
Degree of requirement consolidation and standardization
Use of P-Cards on construction projects and paying large dollar vendors, e.g., utilities, textbook publish-
ers, food, technology projects
Number of highly complex procurements, especially construction
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 46
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
L IST OF KPIS IN PR OCU REMEN T Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Procurement. Indicators in bold are those included in this
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 Utilization
P-Card Average Transaction Amount
P-Card Single Transaction Limit
PALT for Invitations for Bids - (A) Days to Prepare
PALT for Invitations for Bids - (B) Days of Advertising and Open Bid-
ding
PALT for Invitations for Bids - (C) Days to Issue after Close
PALT for Requests for Proposals - (A) Days to Prepare
PALT for Requests for Proposals - (B) Days Proposals Accepted
PALT for Requests for Proposals - (C) Days to Issue after Close
Procurement Costs per $100K Revenue
Procurement Costs Ratio - Outsourced Services
Procurement Costs Ratio - Personnel
Procurement Savings - Percent through Informal Solicitations
Procurement Savings - Percent through Invitations for Bids
Procurement Savings - Percent through Requests for Proposals
Procurement Staff - Cost Per FTE
Procurement Staff - District FTEs per Procurement FTE
Procurement Staffing Ratio - Professional Staff
Procurement Staffing Ratio - Supervisors and Managers
Procurement Staffing Ratio - Support and Clerical
Threshold for Formal Proposal
Threshold for Formal Sealed Bid
Threshold for School Board Approval
Warehouse Number of Unique Items
Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Facility Maintenance
Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Food Services
Warehouse Number Of Unique Items - School/office Supplies
Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Textbooks
Warehouse Number of Unique Items - Transportation Maintenance
Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Facility Maintenance
Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Food Services
Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - School/Office Supplies
Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Textbooks
Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio - Transportation Maintenance
Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Facility Maintenance
Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Food Services
Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - School/Office Supplies
Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Textbooks
Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio - Transportation Maintenance
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 47 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 41 Cost per Purchase Order vs. Cost per Spend
54 4 11
101 55
8 1
44 10
39 21 32
53
37 13 3
18
16 9
71
48
20 23
67 14 7
43
5
102
47
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
Co
st p
er
$1
00
K S
pe
nd
Cost per Purchase Order
Is your procurement department cost-effective?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 48
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 42 Procurement Cost per Purchase Order
This is the cost of the procurement department relative to the total
number of purchase orders issued in the fiscal year. Adjusted for
cost of living.
Figure 43 Procurement Cost per $100K Revenue
This is the cost of the procurement department relative to the total
operating revenue of the district. Not adjusted for cost of living.
206
199
148
138
123
117
107
95
87
82
81
80
80
79
73
68
64
52
52
47
46
46
46
45
41
37
35
34
34
33
33
31
29
28
28
27
26
25
22
17
16
14
46
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
5
56
3
67
25
23
71
102
32
21
9
7
101
66
16
4
45
48
35
37
44
Median
20
11
8
47
2
52
18
43
10
26
13
46
14
41
57
55
1
53
12
54
39
309
213
200
184
182
174
159
152
143
134
121
117
107
106
104
103
101
97
94
92
88
85
84
83
81
79
79
78
75
75
64
54
49
49
48
45
45
32
93
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350
67
23
5
28
16
25
66
9
101
48
14
3
20
18
47
10
71
37
4
Median
39
35
44
21
6
13
52
32
45
1
41
57
55
43
26
30
12
54
11
Personnel
Outsourced Services
Other
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 49 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
Figure 44 Procurement Savings Ratio
This is the annual amount of savings (defined as the difference be-
tween the average bid, proposal or quote amounts, and the actual
amount paid) as compared to the total amount of purchasing.
Figure 45 Strategic Sourcing Ratio
The total amount spent through strategic sourcing relative to the to-
tal amount of purchasing.
2.9%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.8%
2.0%
2.2%
2.3%
2.4%
2.6%
2.9%
3.0%
3.2%
4.5%
6.0%
6.8%
9.4%
11.3%
13.6%
14.1%
18.0%
25.6%
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
32
39
13
23
11
71
10
55
8
1
46
41
Median
67
7
16
48
43
18
47
9
3
37
66
Savings fromInvitations for Bids
Savings from Requestsfor Proposals
Savings from InformalSolicitations
0.1%
0.6%
2.4%
4.9%
6.2%
9.2%
11.2%
11.8%
14.9%
15.7%
17.3%
17.6%
19.2%
25.0%
26.3%
29.7%
35.8%
35.9%
57.8%
67.5%
71.8%
73.2%
76.3%
89.1%
93.3%
93.4%
22.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
2
5
101
3
66
35
12
55
67
43
37
1
71
Median
18
4
20
46
41
10
16
13
8
32
48
39
9
What are some of the factors that might influence this result? (Hint: See "KPI Definitions".)
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 50
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 46 Competitive Procurements Ratio
This is the amount spent through competitive purchasing relative to
the total amount of purchasing.
Figure 47 Cooperative Purchasing Ratio
This is the amount spent through cooperative purchasing relative to
the total amount of purchasing.
0.0%
0.7%
12.1%
15.9%
33.9%
34.8%
45.6%
46.5%
46.6%
46.8%
51.7%
61.8%
63.2%
65.2%
69.6%
76.4%
77.3%
79.2%
82.3%
84.0%
85.1%
85.4%
89.6%
93.0%
96.0%
96.4%
100.0%
65.2%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
3
41
12
32
1
101
16
46
47
55
43
37
13
18
Median
10
28
71
8
9
48
44
54
7
39
4
23
74
0.7%
0.8%
1.0%
1.7%
2.0%
2.5%
2.8%
3.4%
4.2%
4.5%
4.8%
5.7%
8.1%
9.9%
10.4%
10.5%
11.2%
13.3%
15.2%
20.2%
27.8%
48.2%
5.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
53
18
101
39
5
55
43
10
9
8
37
Median
46
41
16
67
3
12
23
32
21
71
47
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 51 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
Figure 48 P-Card Purchasing Ratio
Figure 49 PALT for Requests for Proposals
The Procurement Administrative Lead Time captures the processing
time from receipt of requisition to when the contract was issued.
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.7%
0.8%
1.8%
2.0%
2.2%
2.3%
2.6%
2.7%
2.9%
3.1%
3.1%
3.2%
3.4%
3.4%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
7.0%
8.0%
8.1%
8.5%
8.8%
8.8%
10.4%
15.7%
35.7%
3.1%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
54
46
67
45
101
47
16
55
14
52
44
21
32
12
1
Median
13
8
3
5
4
11
48
10
39
23
66
9
71
43
37
192
164.4
143
140
135
134
120
111
105
104
103
102
102
94
87
86
85
84
80
76
66
65
65
65
58
57
53
50
50
50
50
50
45
44
41
40
38
36
35
30
22
66
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 50 100 150 200 250
5
11
9
32
13
52
39
7
16
4
8
57
35
71
41
62
21
47
10
14
44
Median
25
77
101
46
37
23
102
12
49
2
1
74
18
53
28
66
45
34
20
55
Days to Prepare
Days ProposalsAccepted
Days to Issue AfterClose
Which phase could be shortened to move your district up into the next highest quartile?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 52
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 50 PALT for Invitations for Bids
The Procurement Administrative Lead Time captures the processing
time from receipt of requisition to when the contract was issued.
Figure 51 PALT for Informal Solicitations
165
165
114
112
106
95
87
81
77
76
69
66
65
65
65
60
58
56
56
50
47
45
45
44
41
41
40
40
38
37
34
33
31
30
30
29
28
27
26
24
22.5
48.5
0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200
13
32
16
5
9
57
41
7
71
44
21
35
67
77
101
25
46
14
43
3
Median
49
74
1
10
6
53
20
8
66
47
37
18
28
52
2
23
4
55
45
34
12
Days to Prepare
Days of Advertisingand Open Bidding
Days to Issue AfterClose
140
33
30
30
25
21
20
15
15
15
14
10
10
10
10
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
5
0 50 100 150
35
7
102
2
49
71
20
10
8
1
16
23
32
25
3
55
45
9
37
77
Median
12
66
46
13
41
39
53
18
34
47
21
14
44
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 53 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
Figure 52 Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate
Figure 53 Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio
This is the total cost of operating warehouses relative to the total
value of inventory that was issued from the warehouse (i.e., the
amount of inventory that left the warehouse).
This is an overall average measure of all warehouses that were sur-
veyed, and thus includes warehouses for the following kinds of sup-
plies and purposes: school/office supplies; textbooks; food services;
facility maintenance; and transportation maintenance.
6%
7%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
11%
13%
13%
15%
18%
20%
20%
22%
24%
25%
25%
25%
28%
29%
36%
38%
38%
50%
50%
50%
57%
63%
64%
83%
100%
25%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
1
7
66
41
18
45
39
48
102
71
14
44
8
30
32
13
Median
23
12
5
10
3
28
26
46
35
37
4
49
55
16
2
9
511%
182%
141%
112%
51%
42%
30%
29%
25%
21%
12%
11%
11%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
5%
21%
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%
52
12
25
23
66
21
2
16
9
37
Median
71
48
35
44
41
4
8
55
13
Does the volume of inventory that is managed through your warehouses justify the cost of operating those warehouses?
Which of your warehouses most influence your result in this measure?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 54
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 54 Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio
The stock turn ratio represents how much inventory volume passes
through the warehouse over the course of the year. It is calculated
by dividing the total annual volume (by dollar value) by the average
month-end inventory value.
This is an overall average measure of all warehouses that were sur-
veyed, and thus includes warehouses for the following kinds of sup-
plies and purposes: school/office supplies; textbooks; food services;
facility maintenance; and transportation maintenance.
0.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.9
3.3
3.7
4.4
4.9
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.4
6.4
7.2
8.1
2.9
- 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
47
35
66
45
77
5
23
25
44
16
71
52
Median
8
21
55
2
37
9
13
4
14
48
1
12
In which area(s) of improvement does your Purchasing Depart-ment need to focus? Who can take ownership for this?
Whose buy-in and support is needed to support these goals (e.g., CFO, Assistant Superintendent, COO)?
Is stock turn ratio a good approximation of operational efficien-cy?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 55 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
KPI DEF IN ITION S
Competitive Procurement Ratio
Importance This measure is important because competition
maximizes procurement savings to the district, provides opportuni-
ties for vendors, assures integrity, and builds school board and tax-
payers' confidence in the procurement process.
Factors that Influence
Procurement policies governing procurements that are ex-
empted from competition, emergency or urgent requirement
procurements, direct payments (purchases without contracts or
POs), minimum quote levels and requirements, and sole sourc-
ing
Degree of shared services that may be included in purchase dol-
lars with other public agencies
Vendor registration/solicitation procedures that may determine
magnitude of competition
Professional services competition that may be exempted from
competition
In some instances, districts may have selection criteria for cer-
tain programs, such as local preference, environmental pro-
curement, M/WBE, etc., that result in less competition
Utilization of technology and e-procurement tools
Market availability for competition; e.g., utilities
Calculation Total amount of purchasing through competitive pro-
curements divided by the sum of total procurement outlays, total P-
card purchasing and total construction spending.
Procurement Cost per $100K Spend
Importance This measure identifies the indirect cost of the pro-
curement function as compared to the total procurement dollars
purchased by the district. Assuming all other things being equal, this
is a relative measure of the administrative efficiency of a district’s
procurement operations.
Factors that Influence
Degree of P-Card Utilization
e-Procurement automation
Delegation of purchasing authority
Purchasing office professional staff grade structure, contract
services, and other expenditures
Number of highly complex procurements especially construc-
tion
Skill level of staff
Calculation Total purchasing department costs divided by total
procurement outlays over $100,000.
Procurement Cost per Purchase Order
Importance This measure, along with other indicators, provides
an opportunity for districts to assess the cost/benefits that might re-
sult from other means of procurement (e.g., P-Card program, order-
ing agreements, and leveraging the consolidating requirement).
Factors that Influence
Utilization of BPAs
Strategic sourcing (minimizing total vendors)
Purchasing Department expenditures and FTE degree of e-
procurement automation and P-Card utilization
Degree of requirement consolidation and standardization
Calculation Total purchasing department costs divided by the to-
tal number of purchase orders that were processed by the purchas-
ing department, excluding P-card transactions and construction.
Procurement Savings Ratio
Calculation Total savings from Invitations for Bids, Requests for
Proposals, and informal solicitations divided by total procurement
outlays (excluding P-cards and construction).
Factors that Influence
Procurement policies, e.g., delegated purchase authority level,
procurements exempted from competition, minimum quote
requirements, sole-source policies, vendor registra-
tion/solicitation procedures (may determine magnitude of
competition)
Utilization of technology and e-procurement tools
Use of national or regional vendor databases (versus district on-
ly) to maximize competition, use of on-line comparative price
analysis tools (comparing e-catalog prices), etc.
Identification of alternative products/methodology of providing
services.
Degree of leveraging required volume through standardization
and utilization of cooperative contracting
Importance This measure compares a district's savings or "cost
avoidance" that result from centralized purchasing to the total pro-
curement spend (less P-Card spending). This measure only captures
savings/cost avoidance in a limited form since districts may realize
other procurement savings that are not captured by this measure
(e.g., make-buy, certain life cycle savings, service, quality, reliability,
and other best value "savings" to the district).
Strategic Sourcing Ratio
Importance This measure is a strong indicator of potential cost
savings that can result from leveraging consolidated requirements
with competitive procurements, and minimizing spot buying and
maverick spending. The National Purchasing Institute (NPI)
Achievement of Excellence in Procurement Award cites an agency’s
use of term (annual or requirements) contracts for at least 25% of
total dollar commodity and services purchases as a reasonable
benchmark. Strategic sourcing is a systemic process to identify, qual-
ify, specify, negotiate, and select suppliers for categories of similar
spend that includes identifying competitive suppliers for longer-term
agreements to buy materials and services. Simply put, strategic
sourcing is organized agency buying that directly affects the availa-
ble contracts for goods and services, i.e., items under contract are
readily accessible, while others are not.
Factors that Influence
Technical training of procurement professional staff
Effectiveness of spend analysis regarding frequently purchased
items
Policies on centralization of procurement
Balance between choice and cost savings
Dollar approval limits without competitive bids
Calculation Total spending utilizing strategic sourcing divided by
total procurement outlays (excluding P-cards and construction).
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 56
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Cooperative Purchasing Ratio
Importance This measure assesses the use of cooperative pur-
chasing agreements that districts can use to leverage their collective
buying power to maximize savings through economies of scale. Ad-
ditionally, cooperative agreements provide purchasing efficiencies
by having one buyer from one district buy for many districts, and de-
creasing the cycle time for new requirements.
Factors that Influence
Procurement laws and policies
Commodity (some goods and services lend themselves to lev-
eraging volume more than others)
Degree of item standardization with other entities
Number of available and eligible cooperative agreements
Market environment (cooperative contracts may not remain
competitive with market)
Calculation Total district dollars spent during the fiscal year under
cooperative agreements (including P-Cards transactions but exclud-
ing construction) divided by total procurement outlays (including P-
Cards but excluding construction)
P-Card Purchasing Ratio
Importance P-Card utilization significantly improves cycle times
for schools, decreases procurement transaction costs as compared
to a Purchase Order (2010 RPMG Research Corp cited average PO
transaction cost = $93 from requisition to check, versus P-Card
transaction cost = $22), and provides for more localized flexibility. It
also allows procurement professionals to concentrate efforts on the
more complex purchases, significantly reduces Accounts Payable
workload, and gives schools a shorter cycle time for these items. In-
creased P-Card spending can provide higher rebate revenues, which
in turn can pay for the management of the program. There are
trade-offs however. The decentralized nature of these purchases
could have an impact on lost opportunity for savings, and requires
diligent oversight to prevent inappropriate use and spend analysis to
identify contract savings opportunities.
Factors that Influence
Procurement policies, particularly those delegating purchase
authority and P-Card usage
Utilization of technology to manage a high volume of low dollar
transactions
e-Procurement and e-Catalog processes utilized by district
P-Card reconciliation software and P-Card database interface
with a district’s ERP system
Budget, purchasing, and audit controls, including P-Card credit
limit controls on single transaction and monthly limits
Accounts Payable policies for P-Card as an alternative payment
method
Use of P-Cards on construction projects and paying large dollar
vendors, e.g.., utilities, textbook publishers, food, technology
projects.
Calculation Total dollar amount purchased using P-cards divided
by total procurement outlays (including P-card purchases).
PALT for Requests for Proposals
Importance This measure establishes a "cycle time" benchmark
for commencing and completing the acquisition process for informal
bidding or quoting. Informal bids/quotes are usually for small pur-
chases less than the formal bid or formal proposal threshold where
quotes can be obtained in writing, including electronically using e-
commerce tools via telephone, etc., and can be processed without
school board approval typically using more efficient small purchase
procedures.
Factors that Influence
Federal, state, and local school board procurement policies and
laws, including formal solicitation requirements, minimum ad-
vertising times and procurement dollar limits
Frequency of school board meetings
Budget/FTE allocation for professional procurement staff
Training on scope of work and specification development for
contract sponsors
The award process including RFP proposal evaluation, vendor
presentations, # of proposals, negotiations, pre-proposal con-
ferences, site visits, and vendor reference checks
Use of standard boilerplate bid and contract documents
Use of current ERP and e-procurement technology to stream-
line internal procurement processes and external solicitation
process with vendors
Frequency of vendor protests
Complexity and size of procurement
Degree of commodity standardization within the district
Calculation Average number of days to administer Requests for
Proposals from receipt of requisition to the date that the contract
was issued.
PALT for Invitations for Bids
Importance This measure establishes a “cycle time” benchmark
for commencing and completing the acquisition process for formal
competitive bidding (IFBs). It is an important measure that examines
the balance between competition/objectivity, procedural compli-
ance, and the need to get products/services in place in a timely
manner to meet customer requirements.
Factors that Influence
Federal, state, and local school board procurement policies and
laws, including formal solicitation requirements, minimum ad-
vertising times, and procurement dollar limits
Frequency of school board meetings
Budget/FTE allocation for professional procurement staff
Training on scope of work and specification development for
contract sponsors
The award process, including IFB evaluation, pre-bid confer-
ences, site visit requirements, and vendor reference checks
Use of standard boilerplate bid and contract documents
Use of current ERP and e-procurement technology to stream-
line internal-procurement processes and external solicitation
and response process with vendors
Frequency of vendor protests
Complexity and size of procurement
Degree of commodity standardization within the district
Calculation Average number of days to administer Invitations for
bids from receipt of requisition to the date that the contract was is-
sued.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 57 Procurement
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T
PALT for Informal Solicitations
Importance This measure establishes a "cycle time" benchmark
for commencing and completing the acquisition process for informal
bidding or quoting. Informal bids/quotes are usually for small pur-
chases less than the formal bid or formal proposal threshold where
quotes can be obtained in writing, including electronically using e-
commerce tools via telephone, etc., and can be processed without
school board approval typically using more efficient small purchase
procedures.
Factors that Influence
Degree of P-Card utilization
Extent of delegated purchase authority for small dollar pro-
curements
State/local laws and regulations
Small purchase policies/procedures
Utilization of e-procurement automation tools including online
solicitation broadcasts and responses
Calculation Average number of days, from receipt of requisition
by the purchasing department to date that purchase order issued, to
process all informal solicitations.
Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate
Importance This measure assesses the technical knowledge of the
district’s procurement staff, which directly affects processing time,
negotiations, procedural controls, and strategies applied to maxim-
ize cost savings. The procurement function should show procure-
ment professional staff focusing on--
Strategic issues versus transactional processing
Advanced business skills that look at agency supply chain, logis-
tics optimization, total cost of ownership evaluations, make
versus buy analysis, leveraging cooperative procurements,
complex negotiations focusing on cost and other value-added
factors, and agency spend analyses, and
Balance of service with internal controls and compliance.
Factors that Influence
Budget/FTE allocations to central procurement functions and
employee professional development
Procurement policies such as delegated purchasing authority,
formal procurement dollar threshold, small purchase proce-
dures, P-card utilization, etc.
Utilization of technology and knowledge required for e-
procurement and e-commerce
Value that an organization places on its procurement functions
and procedures
Policies favoring internal promotion over technical recruitment
Incentive pay
Calculation Number of purchasing department staff with a pro-
fessional certificate divided by total number of purchasing staff
(FTEs).
Warehouse Operating Expense Ratio
Importance The operational cost of maintaining an intermediate
storage/distribution point (warehouse) should be constantly evalu-
ated against other alternatives as the market and other supply chain
factors change in the district’s region.
Factors that Influence
Warehouse building utility cost and space efficiency
Total SKUs for indirect and direct cost allocations
Number of warehouse personnel and material handling equip-
ment/vehicles
Type of warehouse (environmentally controlled or not)
Cycle time requirements
Calculation Total operating expenses of all measured warehouses
(including school/office supplies, textbooks, food service items, facil-
ity maintenance items, and transportation maintenance items) di-
vided by total value of all issues/sales from the warehouse(s).
Warehouse Stock Turn Ratio
Importance Warehouse inventory turnover ratios can be used to
examine opportunities for improved warehouse operations and re-
duced costs. Generally, total costs decline and savings rise when in-
ventory stock turn increases. After a certain point - typically 8-10
turns - the reverse occurs, according to the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing (NIGP). Generally, an inventory turn rate
of 4-6 times per year in the manufacturing, servicing, and public sec-
tor is considered acceptable. However, the overall stock turn ratio
should be broken down into types of commodities, as some com-
modities are optimally less than 4-6 (NIGP). Viewed another way, in-
ventory turnover ratios indicate how much use districts are getting
from the dollars invested in inventory. Stock turn measures invento-
ry health and may provide an indication of—
Inventory usage and amount of inventory that is not turned
over (“dead stock”),
Optimum inventory investment and warehousing size, and
Warehouse activity/movement.
Factors that Influence
Inventory financing costs
Inflation
Purchasing policies
Calculation Total dollar value of annual issues/sales at purchase
price at all measured warehouses (including school/office supplies,
textbooks, food service items, facility maintenance items, and trans-
portation maintenance items) divided by the twelve-month average.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 58
FIN
AN
CE
PR
OC
UR
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
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:
Searching for better medical management programs
Improving access to quality medical care
Providing benefits in a timely fashion
Conducting risk factor analysis and prevention
Adopting policies that avoid litigation
Improving the reporting and tracking process for correcting hazardous conditions
Revising safety protocols/guidelines/Employer Policies
Improving injury investigations used to determine cause of injury
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 60
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
L IST OF KPIS IN R ISK MAN AGEMEN T Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Risk Management. Indicators in bold are those included in
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 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 as of Year-End
Liability Cost per Claim
Workers' Compensation Claims - Percent Indemnity
Workers' Compensation Claims - Percent Litigated
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
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 55 Cost of Risk per Student
The “cost of risk” measure currently includes costs associated with
Workers’ Compensation and liability, i.e., insurance, claims costs,
and administration costs. Other cost drivers for risk management
are currently not included in this measure.
Figure 56 Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend
293
154
147
119
116
111
107
105
97
94
92
87
80
79
76
71
59
58
57
54
48
43
35
30
29
26
17
15
9
3
73
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350
57
11
12
77
47
16
13
32
21
101
4
14
23
1
37
Median
66
44
49
54
48
39
71
3
10
28
43
9
5
55
18
2,954
2,116
2,113
2,024
1,804
1,566
1,308
1,304
1,257
1,257
1,228
1,222
1,166
1,111
1,091
990
925
805
760
756
727
694
679
658
616
595
521
437
430
419
371
202
137
110
97
49
47
11
8
756
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
57
34
11
45
56
16
32
7
79
47
12
44
23
67
4
35
37
14
1
54
Median
8
101
66
39
13
53
49
71
48
21
52
43
5
25
9
3
28
55
18
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 62
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 57 Workers’ Compensation Cost per 1,000 Employees
Figure 58 Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees
100
92
86
81
74
74
71
56
56
52
48
47
46
44
43
43
43
42
38
37
34
34
33
32
32
31
26
25
13
11
10
4
3
43
$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120
13
66
3
12
47
30
44
16
32
23
67
11
55
14
37
21
57
Median
10
5
39
71
101
4
45
1
20
35
54
18
25
43
48
49
3,249
1,717
1,273
1,266
955
864
590
522
444
437
379
355
295
292
270
234
210
207
175
144
124
99
75
70
24
295
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
5
11
35
4
45
57
21
16
1
23
39
3
49
Median
20
67
37
101
32
47
18
13
66
25
14
10
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 Liability Claims - Percent Litigated
Figure 60 Liability Claims per 1,000 Students
57.9%
55.9%
39.5%
36.2%
35.7%
27.3%
25.0%
22.6%
18.2%
17.5%
16.1%
15.9%
15.6%
14.7%
14.3%
14.0%
13.5%
11.8%
10.3%
9.5%
9.0%
8.9%
7.1%
6.8%
6.5%
5.9%
5.7%
3.1%
2.5%
2.3%
2.1%
1.8%
1.7%
1.5%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0%
10.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
34
47
25
54
5
12
23
37
52
39
1
44
30
3
79
57
53
77
56
Median
101
11
35
7
16
8
4
55
9
14
18
67
48
71
21
49
32
13
8.39
5.44
5.33
5.16
2.79
2.78
2.08
2.08
2.02
2.00
1.81
1.80
1.78
1.76
1.63
1.51
1.31
1.25
1.22
1.16
0.87
0.74
0.66
0.62
0.55
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.34
0.31
0.30
0.07
1.31
- 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
13
67
48
47
14
32
57
21
71
37
28
35
9
77
11
10
16
Median
55
18
49
3
12
44
1
54
23
30
66
101
4
39
5
43
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 64
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Figure 61 Liability Cost per Student
Figure 62 Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees
73
41
40
38
33
29
29
26
26
25
24
24
22
21
19
18
18
14
13
11
10
10
9
8
7
7
6
6
6
4
3
18
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80
13
14
101
21
77
3
12
48
1
16
57
28
4
47
35
23
32
37
71
66
9
30
49
55
5
54
11
39
10
44
18
100
92
86
81
74
74
71
56
56
52
48
47
46
44
43
43
43
42
38
37
34
34
33
32
32
31
26
25
13
11
10
4
3
43
- 20 40 60 80 100 120
13
66
3
12
47
30
44
16
32
23
67
11
55
14
37
21
57
Median
10
5
39
71
101
4
45
1
20
35
54
18
25
43
48
49
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
107
100
95
92
86
83
81
81
80
79
77
75
74
73
71
67
61
59
52
51
47
44
44
43
42
41
35
34
32
71
- 20 40 60 80 100 120
43
13
16
66
3
18
12
32
23
67
4
25
47
30
44
Median
37
71
20
5
1
10
48
14
57
21
49
39
101
45
Does your district have an enterprise-wide risk management task force?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 66
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
KPI DEF IN ITION S Cost of Risk per Student
Importance This metric is important for long-term budget plan-
ning. School funding is based on student enrollment.
Factors that Influence
Frequency and severity of claims filed
Safety program’s efforts to correct hazardous conditions
Calculation Total liability premiums, claims, and administration
costs plus total workers' compensation premiums, claims, and ad-
ministration costs divided by total district enrollment.
Workers’ Compensation Cost per $100K Payroll Spend
Importance This is a metric that can be used to measure success
of programs or initiatives aimed at reducing workers' compensation
costs.
Factors that Influence
Medical management programs
Quality of medical care
Litigation
Timely provision of benefits
Calculation Total workers' compensation premium costs plus
workers' compensation claims costs incurred plus total workers'
compensation claims administration costs for the fiscal year divided
by total payroll outlays over $100,000.
Workers’ Compensation Cost per 1,000 Employees
Importance This metric would most likely be used for the same
purpose as the average cost per workers’ compensation claim – to
measure success of programs and initiatives. It can also be a way to
measure trends over time or to bench mark against other employ-
ers.
Factors that Influence
Medical management programs
Quality of medical care
Litigation
Timely provision of benefits
Calculation Total workers' compensation premium costs plus
workers' compensation claims costs incurred plus total workers'
compensation claims administration costs for the fiscal year divided
by total number of district of district employees (number of W-2's is-
sued).
Workers’ Compensation Lost Work Days per 1,000 Employees
Calculation Total number of lost work days for all workers' com-
pensation claims filed during the fiscal year divided by total number
of employees (W-2's) over 1,000.
Factors that Influence
Quality of medical care (Medical Provider Networks)
Type of injury
Use of nurse case managers
Litigation
Availability of modified or alternative work on both a tempo-
rary and permanent basis
Importance This metric could be used to track the effectiveness of
medical treatment and a Return to Work program, but since this
metric is using all employees in the equation instead of just the
number of injured employees, a drastic change in the number of
employees (reduction in force, etc.) would impact this metric with-
out any actual change in the items being tracked.
Liability Claims - Percent Litigated
Importance This is an important metric as litigation is expensive
and increases the cost of the claim.
Factors that Influence
Severity of injuries
Settlement rate
Motivation of plaintiff
Calculation Number of liability claims litigated divided by total
number of liability claims filed during the fiscal year.
Liability Claims per 1,000 Students
Importance This metric can be used to measure your performance
against other entities of similar size and with similar claims.
Factors that Influence
Frequency of claims
Type of claims
Severity of injuries
Calculation Total number of liability claims filed during the fiscal
year divided by total district enrollment over 1,000.
Liability Cost per Student
Importance Used to determine estimated costs for claims re-
ferred to outside attorneys. This measure can also be used to com-
pare performance with other entities of similar size and with similar
claims.
Factors that Influence
Litigation
Frequency of claims
Injury type
Calculation Total liability premiums, claims, and administration
costs divided by total district enrollment.
Workers’ Compensation Claims per 1,000 Employees
Importance This is a metric that can be used to measure success
of programs or initiatives aimed at reducing workers' compensation
costs.
Factors that Influence
Risk factor prevention
Medical management programs
Quality of medical care
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 issued) 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
Workplace Incidents per 1,000 Employees
Importance This metric would be used to measure the success of
programs and initiatives aimed at reducing workplace inju-
ries/incidents.
Factors that Influence
Disciplinary actions
RIF notices
Management support
Effectiveness of safety programs
Safety training
Injury investigations used to determine cause of injury
Maintenance of facilities
Established safety protocols/guidelines/Employer policies
Calculation Total number of employee workplace incidents re-
ported during the fiscal year divided by the total number of employ-
ees over 1,000.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Finance Page 68
FIN
AN
CE
RIS
K M
AN
AG
EMEN
T FI
NA
NCE
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 69 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
OPERATIONS
FOOD SERVICES Performance metrics in food services measure the productivity, cost efficiency, and service levels of a district’s nu-
tritional services. Productivity is broadly assessed by Meals per Labor Hour, a standard measure of the industry.
Cost efficiency can be determined by looking at Food Cost per Revenue and Labor Cost per Revenue. Finally, a
basic measure of service levels includes meal participation rate (measured by Breakfast Participation Rate and
Lunch Participation Rate, and is further measured by looking at rates by grade spans.).
These measures should serve as diagnostic tools to gauge performance, as well as a guide for improvement. The
importance and usefulness of each KPI is described under the “Importance of Measure” and “Factors that Influ-
ence” sections of each indicator in the pages that follow.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 70
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
L IST OF KPIS IN FO OD SER VIC ES Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Food Services. Indicators in bold are those included in this
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 - Utilities, Custodial and Trash Removal
Operating Cost Ratio - Vehicle Fleet
Outside Meal Services - Catering as Percent of Revenue
Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other
Outside Meal Services - Meal Sites That Are Charter/Other
Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts
Provision II Enrollment Rate - Lunches
Revenue Percentage - A La Carte and Vending Sales
Revenue Percentage - Federal Meal Reimbursements
ServSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site
ServSafe-Certified Staff per Site
Supper Access Rate
Supper Access Rate, Elementary/K-8
Supper Access Rate, High School
Supper Access Rate, Middle School
Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide), Elementary/K-8
Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide), High School
Supper Participation Rate (Districtwide), Middle School
Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Elementary/K-8
Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites), High School
Supper Participation Rate (Meal Sites), Middle School
USDA Commodities - Percent as Donations (Bonuses)
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 71 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 64 Food Cost vs. Labor Cost
Food and labor costs are the two largest cost factors of school nutritional services. This chart shows the ratio between these two factors so that dis-
tricts can identify how their cost trend compares to other school districts. The general trend is somewhat linear from the top-left to the bottom-
right, which means that those districts that save in labor costs tend to spend a majority of their remaining revenue on food, and vice-versa.
14
7
71
46 6
26
13
45
23
55
20
9
57
35
41
19
37
12
67 49
10
39
33
53
56
11
47
30
52
27
66
48
8 5
2
62
16
77
58
18
3
79
4
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
Lab
or
Co
st p
er
Re
ven
ue
Food Cost per Revenue
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 72
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 65 Breakfast Participation Rate (Meal Sites)
This is the participation rate for school sites that offer breakfasts.
Figure 66 Breakfast Participation Rate (by Grade Span)
The “overall” element in this chart shows the same information as
the chart at left, and also shows drill-down data of breakfast partici-
pation by grade spans. (Data that are missing may be under review.)
3.0%
13.6%
14.4%
16.8%
19.2%
20.6%
21.1%
22.1%
22.3%
22.4%
24.1%
24.6%
25.1%
25.1%
26.9%
27.2%
27.4%
28.7%
29.9%
30.1%
33.0%
34.3%
34.4%
35.3%
36.5%
40.7%
42.5%
43.7%
43.9%
44.1%
44.3%
48.2%
48.5%
53.7%
58.1%
61.4%
29.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
67
77
1
7
14
13
12
4
55
6
71
48
5
47
37
101
44
49
Median
11
16
41
23
18
28
10
57
58
30
66
26
21
33
35
39
45
3
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
67
77
1
7
14
13
12
4
55
6
71
48
5
47
37
101
44
49
Median
11
16
41
23
18
28
10
57
58
30
66
26
21
33
35
39
45
3
High School
Middle School
Elementary/K-8
Overall
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall break-fast participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 73 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Figure 67 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate
This is the participation rate of students that are eligible for free or
reduced-price (F/RP) breakfasts.
Figure 68 Breakfast F/RP Participation Rate (By Grade Span)
The “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.)
0.2%
14.4%
23.3%
30.4%
32.0%
32.7%
32.9%
33.8%
34.1%
36.7%
37.4%
38.8%
39.3%
39.5%
39.7%
39.9%
41.3%
41.4%
42.9%
43.8%
43.8%
47.9%
48.4%
50.7%
51.4%
52.4%
52.8%
54.6%
59.9%
60.0%
61.6%
61.6%
81.8%
41.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
4
77
7
101
6
37
12
13
1
11
5
48
67
71
66
41
14
Median
55
47
44
49
30
18
16
10
35
33
58
21
57
23
26
3 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
4
77
7
101
6
37
12
13
1
11
5
48
67
71
66
41
14
Median
55
47
44
49
30
18
16
10
35
33
58
21
57
23
26
3
High School
Middle School
Elementary/K-8
Overall
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price breakfast participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 74
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 69 Lunch Participation Rate (Meal Sites)
This is the participation rate for school sites that offer lunches.
Figure 70 Lunch Participation Rate (by Grade Span)
The “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.)
6.7%
35.8%
37.4%
37.7%
46.2%
49.3%
50.3%
52.0%
52.6%
52.8%
54.3%
57.5%
57.5%
57.8%
58.0%
58.4%
59.0%
60.5%
61.7%
62.7%
62.9%
65.0%
67.2%
67.4%
67.7%
69.5%
71.4%
74.2%
74.2%
78.2%
78.6%
81.8%
58.7%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
67
14
7
1
5
23
6
18
44
16
49
48
11
13
55
10
Median
37
12
71
26
39
30
45
4
58
28
35
41
3
101
66
33
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
67
14
7
1
5
23
6
18
44
16
49
48
11
13
55
10
Median
37
12
71
26
39
30
45
4
58
28
35
41
3
101
66
33
High School Middle School Elementary/K-8 Overall
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price lunch participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 75 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Figure 71 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate
This is the participation rate of students that are eligible for free or
reduced-price (F/RP) meals.
Figure 72 Lunch F/RP Participation Rate (by Grade Span)
If any subset data are missing (i.e., the bar is blank), then the data
may be under review.
0.5%
53.8%
60.2%
68.3%
69.3%
71.0%
74.3%
75.1%
75.3%
76.0%
77.0%
77.6%
78.9%
79.5%
79.6%
80.0%
80.2%
81.8%
82.1%
83.9%
85.5%
87.4%
87.8%
87.8%
88.1%
88.8%
88.8%
89.4%
89.6%
90.0%
91.1%
100.0%
100.0%
80.2%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
4
77
7
5
14
11
44
6
1
18
37
49
35
23
16
13
48
M…
12
47
30
21
67
41
33
26
71
10
55
101
58
66
3
57 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
4
77
7
5
14
11
44
6
1
18
37
49
35
23
16
13
48
Median
12
47
30
21
67
41
33
26
71
10
55
101
58
66
3
57
High School Middle School Elementary/K-8 Overall
Which grade span is contributing the most to your overall free- and reduced-price lunch participation rate (either negatively or positively)?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 76
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 73 Cost per Meal
This is the total operating cost of the food services department rela-
tive to the total number of meals served in the year. Adjusted for
cost of living.
Figure 74 Food Cost per Meal
This is the total food costs divided by total meals served. (Meal
counts are adjusted by common meal equivalency factors. See KPI
definitions.) Adjusted for cost of living.
5.76
4.39
3.97
3.75
3.64
3.62
3.54
3.52
3.52
3.49
3.44
3.37
3.37
3.37
3.36
3.35
3.34
3.33
3.30
3.27
3.27
3.19
3.17
3.15
3.02
3.00
2.96
2.95
2.94
2.93
2.91
2.90
2.90
2.88
2.87
2.82
2.82
2.81
2.67
2.62
2.59
2.35
2.34
2.29
2.25
2.13
1.89
3.15
$- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00
6
44
2
18
47
7
79
10
20
35
41
12
23
71
57
55
4
53
48
37
19
49
39
21
Median
66
27
45
28
3
8
11
33
46
67
30
14
5
9
52
13
77
56
16
58
62
26
101
2.34
1.99
1.78
1.75
1.71
1.71
1.68
1.65
1.65
1.58
1.56
1.56
1.55
1.54
1.53
1.51
1.50
1.49
1.47
1.45
1.42
1.42
1.39
1.38
1.37
1.36
1.34
1.31
1.28
1.28
1.26
1.25
1.22
1.20
1.19
1.18
1.17
1.14
1.14
1.13
0.96
0.96
0.88
0.71
1.41
$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50
6
4
2
9
49
66
23
45
41
10
39
19
57
55
27
33
48
18
20
77
12
37
Median
47
46
52
67
58
5
14
8
44
7
11
79
35
53
3
13
71
30
26
62
16
56
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 77 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Figure 75 Fund Balance per Revenue
This is the fund balance as of year-end relative to the total annual
revenue. A fund balance is important for the financial health of the
food services operation, although it is sometimes capped by the dis-
trict or state.
Figure 76 Total Cost as Percent of Revenue
A ratio below 100% indicates that the food services operation
brought in more revenue that it spent, meaning that it is self-
sustaining.
0.2%
0.4%
0.8%
1.7%
2.4%
3.7%
4.7%
5.4%
6.6%
7.0%
7.6%
7.7%
10.6%
10.7%
11.9%
12.3%
13.7%
14.7%
16.1%
16.1%
18.6%
19.7%
24.3%
25.5%
26.0%
26.6%
27.8%
28.5%
28.6%
31.2%
31.7%
31.8%
32.6%
34.4%
36.0%
38.1%
46.5%
61.5%
64.7%
76.4%
17.4%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
79
77
1
16
21
5
56
6
19
49
11
39
33
28
14
7
3
2
12
37
Median
41
44
48
71
10
62
52
18
13
47
23
8
4
27
55
20
9
101
53
45
131.5%
130.1%
112.8%
111.4%
108.0%
107.5%
106.4%
105.5%
105.3%
104.7%
102.7%
102.6%
102.2%
101.4%
99.7%
99.7%
99.0%
98.9%
98.8%
98.8%
98.6%
97.4%
97.3%
96.3%
96.3%
95.8%
95.7%
95.4%
95.0%
94.7%
94.3%
94.0%
94.0%
93.9%
93.4%
92.9%
92.2%
91.8%
90.6%
90.2%
89.3%
88.1%
87.5%
84.8%
97.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%
11
44
49
77
37
79
57
2
41
35
16
7
46
45
67
71
55
8
3
27
33
10
58
Median
5
26
48
30
39
47
19
52
62
53
6
12
9
66
23
56
20
13
14
4
101
Labor Food Operating Costs Indirect Costs
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 78
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 77 Food Cost per Revenue
This is the percent of food services money that was spent directly on
food costs.
Figure 78 Labor Cost per Revenue
This is the percent of food services money that was spent on district
staff.
59.5%
53.2%
52.5%
52.3%
52.0%
51.1%
50.7%
50.5%
49.2%
48.9%
47.6%
47.0%
47.0%
46.2%
46.1%
45.3%
45.3%
45.1%
43.9%
43.9%
42.6%
42.5%
42.1%
41.3%
41.2%
41.2%
39.1%
38.4%
38.3%
38.2%
37.9%
37.1%
36.9%
36.7%
36.6%
36.3%
36.3%
35.7%
35.5%
35.2%
33.3%
33.2%
31.5%
27.4%
42.3%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
77
9
58
45
49
11
66
4
27
41
46
2
52
57
37
33
67
19
39
5
26
55
Median
23
48
8
10
14
18
12
62
13
20
3
30
16
44
79
6
35
47
71
7
53
56
65.9%
63.6%
57.7%
55.5%
54.9%
54.6%
50.8%
50.2%
50.2%
48.7%
48.6%
48.4%
47.3%
47.1%
47.0%
46.5%
45.6%
45.5%
44.1%
43.9%
43.4%
43.2%
42.8%
42.2%
41.9%
41.7%
40.9%
40.7%
40.6%
40.0%
39.8%
39.8%
39.5%
39.1%
38.3%
37.6%
36.9%
35.0%
34.9%
34.8%
33.4%
31.9%
30.0%
29.3%
29.1%
7.5%
42.5%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
79
11
56
7
71
35
30
37
6
46
57
2
12
16
47
19
3
62
26
53
67
21
49
Median
55
14
18
27
41
101
5
8
10
77
20
23
48
13
52
39
58
33
45
66
9
4
44
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 79 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Figure 79 Meals per Labor Hour
This is the total number of meals produced relative to the annual
number of labor hours. (Meal counts are adjusted by common meal
equivalency factors. See KPI Definitions.)
Figure 80 USDA Commodities as Percent of Revenue
USDA Foods is an important federal program that grants food to ed-
ucation agencies. Sometimes USDA Foods also offers “bonuses” that
are only available for a limited time, and are influenced by excess
food stocks.
10.1
11.2
11.3
12.0
12.0
12.4
13.2
13.8
13.9
14.6
14.9
15.1
15.2
15.9
16.7
16.8
16.8
17.0
17.4
17.7
18.0
18.0
18.1
18.2
18.5
20.6
21.0
21.4
21.5
21.7
21.8
21.8
23.3
23.5
24.0
25.6
28.5
28.9
40.4
17.7
- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
2
7
10
79
16
12
71
53
47
23
48
30
27
49
46
41
8
14
5
18
Median
56
20
13
3
4
11
19
9
66
45
57
77
26
67
35
33
58
62
52
1.4%
1.8%
2.0%
2.5%
3.3%
3.8%
4.1%
4.1%
4.2%
4.2%
4.6%
4.6%
4.7%
4.7%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.1%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.2%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
5.7%
5.8%
5.9%
5.9%
5.9%
6.1%
6.2%
6.6%
5.1%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%
77
79
71
9
7
2
6
47
58
1
10
23
20
62
18
8
26
55
3
46
67
Median
48
11
21
53
14
12
44
45
27
16
37
66
13
5
33
52
41
30
49
28
Entitlements
Bonuses
Do you take advantage of USDA Commodities to the fullest extent possible in order to reduce food costs?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 80
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 81 Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts
Provision II can increase overall participation by reducing the pa-
perwork burden.
Figure 82 Provision II Enrollment Rate – Lunches
Provision II can increase overall participation by reducing the pa-
perwork burden.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
4%
17%
18%
26%
31%
37%
38%
39%
48%
63%
70%
73%
78%
79%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
4
6
7
10
13
18
23
25
27
28
30
35
37
39
41
44
47
49
52
53
55
56
58
63
71
Median
77
79
20
9
12
14
101
62
8
48
16
5
11
19
33
26
67
3
46
57
66
45
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
2%
4%
16%
18%
22%
26%
31%
36%
38%
63%
70%
73%
77%
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
1
3
4
6
7
8
10
13
18
23
27
28
30
35
37
39
41
44
46
47
49
52
53
Median
55
56
58
66
71
77
79
2
20
5
9
12
14
48
101
62
26
16
11
19
33
67
57
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 81 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Figure 83 ServeSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site
Figure 84 Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.18
0.40
0.64
0.71
0.75
0.79
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.04
1.06
1.06
1.08
1.09
1.14
1.14
1.16
1.19
1.21
1.31
1.36
1.37
1.39
1.43
1.48
1.57
1.59
1.59
1.77
1.89
1.91
2.00
2.21
2.60
3.07
3.11
3.33
3.45
4.88
5.16
6.20
1.26
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
57
5
47
44
58
7
10
45
46
16
79
19
66
28
18
6
35
3
33
71
8
14
Median
27
9
56
52
49
26
11
41
21
67
77
55
53
48
12
62
39
30
20
23
4
13
ServSafe
ServSafe Equivalent
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.8%
1.2%
1.2%
1.4%
1.8%
2.3%
4.5%
8.9%
9.2%
9.6%
11.9%
12.4%
0.0%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%
23
27
28
33
52
66
79
41
44
8
2
49
53
62
30
4
5
6
55
58
71
Median
56
35
1
10
39
26
9
13
48
67
14
11
7
77
101
47
18
16
19
3
37
46
Are you responding to shifts in the educational landscape?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 82
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Figure 85 Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System
A point-of-sale (POS) system is essential for automated meal counts.
Figure 86 Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts
14.6%
19.1%
58.0%
74.0%
74.4%
75.7%
77.4%
84.0%
85.8%
88.5%
89.4%
90.3%
91.3%
92.1%
92.1%
95.1%
97.4%
97.5%
98.3%
98.4%
98.8%
99.3%
99.3%
99.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
79
66
62
45
11
46
16
1
30
21
18
101
67
12
56
48
10
26
77
52
5
39
Median
37
41
14
7
28
71
6
23
55
20
9
57
35
19
44
53
47
27
8
58
3
4
88.9%
3.7%
3.8%
40.9%
59.3%
69.5%
75.2%
78.3%
78.4%
79.6%
80.0%
81.2%
81.7%
83.0%
83.1%
83.6%
84.4%
84.5%
84.8%
84.8%
84.8%
85.5%
87.5%
87.6%
88.5%
89.4%
89.5%
90.0%
90.3%
90.4%
90.5%
90.5%
91.2%
91.3%
91.5%
92.1%
92.3%
92.8%
93.0%
93.6%
94.4%
94.4%
94.8%
95.0%
95.1%
95.6%
98.6%
98.8%
100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
6
45
77
66
7
10
5
30
46
3
19
49
57
58
37
44
52
27
35
14
8
11
33
39
Median
18
1
26
48
9
23
2
13
67
55
53
28
62
4
12
71
21
41
16
47
101
79
56
20
Free Reduced-Price
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 83 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Figure 87 Meal Reimbursements - Lunches
83.5%
5.9%
5.9%
39.6%
62.2%
72.8%
74.7%
75.2%
75.7%
76.0%
76.7%
76.9%
77.5%
78.7%
79.8%
80.6%
80.7%
81.0%
81.2%
81.4%
81.5%
81.8%
81.9%
82.1%
83.2%
83.8%
84.2%
84.8%
85.4%
85.7%
86.0%
86.4%
86.5%
86.7%
86.8%
88.1%
88.4%
89.7%
89.9%
90.0%
90.3%
90.3%
90.8%
91.7%
92.0%
92.6%
93.1%
93.7%
94.9%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
6
45
77
7
5
14
44
1
49
66
55
13
12
8
9
27
48
16
53
10
19
57
23
71
Median
4
52
46
3
37
58
62
33
11
35
67
47
28
56
2
26
20
18
30
39
79
101
41
21
Free Reduced-Price
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 84
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
KPI DEF IN ITION S Breakfast Participation
Importance Studies show a positive correlation between break-
fast and school attendance, alertness, health, behavior, and aca-
demic success.
A strong breakfast program indicates a commitment by the food
service program and district leadership to preparing students to be
“ready to learn” in the classroom.
Factors that Influence
Menu selections
Provision II and III and Universal Free
Free/Reduced percentage
Food preparation methods
Attractiveness of dining areas
Adequate time to eat
Calculation Total breakfast meals served divided by total district
student enrollment times the number of school days in the year.
Lunch Participation Rate
Importance High participation rates indicate customer satisfaction
because food selections are appealing, quick to eat, and economical.
Factors that Influence
Menu selections
Dining areas that are clean, attractive, and "kid-friendly"
Adequate number of Point of Sale (POS) stations to help move
lines quickly and efficiently
A variety of menu selections
Adequate time to eat
Food preparation methods
Calculation Total lunch meals served divided by total district stu-
dent enrollment times the number of school days in the year.
Cost per Meal
Importance Total costs relative to meal volume demonstrates ef-
ficacy of the food service operation.
Factors that Influence
The "chargebacks" to food service programs such as energy
costs, custodial, non-food service administrative staff, trash
removal, and dining room supervisory staff
Direct costs such as food, labor, supplies, equipment, etc.
Meal quality
Participation rates
Purchasing practices
Marketing
Leadership expertise
Meal prices
Staffing formulas
Calculation Total direct costs of the food services program divid-
ed by the total meal count of all meal types. Breakfast meals are
weighted at one-half; lunch meals at one-to-one; snacks at one-
fourth; and suppers at one-to-one.
Food Cost per Meal
Importance Food cost is the second largest expenditure that
foodservice programs incur.
Careful menu planning practices, competitive bids for purchasing
supplies, including commodity processing contracts, and implemen-
tation of consistent production practices can control food costs.
Food cost as a percent of revenue can be reduced if participation
revenue is high.
Factors that Influence
USDA menu & nutrient requirements
A la carte items
Convenience vs. scratch food items
Purchasing and production practices
Meal prices
Participation rates
Use of commodities
Use of a warehouse or drop-ship deliveries
Theft
Calculation Total food costs divided by the total meal count of all
meal types. Breakfast meals are weighted at one-half; lunch meals at
one-to-one; snacks at one-fourth; and suppers at one-to-one.
Fund Balance per Revenue
Importance A positive fund balance can provide a contingency
fund for equipment purchases, technology upgrades, and emergen-
cy expenses.
A “break-even” status indicates that there is just enough revenue to
cover program expenses, but none left for program improvements.
Factors that Influence
USDA allows a food service program to have no more than a
three month operating expenses fund balance.
Districts may have taken part or all of the food services fund
balance for non-food service activities.
Food services may have funded large kitchen remodeling pro-
jects, implemented new POS systems, and thereby reduced a
fund balance with a large capital outlay project
Calculation Fund balance divided by total revenue.
Total Cost per Revenue
Importance This measure gives an indication of the financial sta-
tus of the food service program, including management company
fees. Districts that keep expenses lower than revenues are able to
build a surplus for reinvestment back into the program for capital
replacement, technology, and other improvements. Districts that
report expenses higher than revenues may either be drawing from
their fund balance, or may be subsidized by the district’s general
fund.
Factors that Influence
The "chargebacks" to food service programs such as energy
costs, custodial, non-food service administrative staff, trash
removal, dining room supervisory staff
Direct costs such as food, labor, supplies, equipment, etc.
Meal quality
Participation rates
Purchasing practices
Marketing
Leadership expertise
Meal prices
Staffing formulas
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 85 Food Services
OP
ERA
TION
S
FO
OD
SER
VIC
ES
Calculation Total direct costs plus indirect and overhead costs di-
vided by total revenue.
Food Cost per Revenue
Importance Food cost is the second largest expenditure that food
service programs incur.
Careful menu planning practices, competitive bids for purchasing
supplies, including commodity processing contracts, and implemen-
tation of consistent production practices can control food costs.
Food cost as a percent of revenue can be reduced if participation
revenue is high.
Factors that Influence
USDA menu & nutrient requirements
A la carte items
Convenience vs. scratch food items
Purchasing and production practices
Meal prices
Participation rates
Use of commodities
Use of a warehouse or drop-ship deliveries
Theft
Calculation Total food costs divided by total revenue.
Labor Cost per Revenue
Importance Labor contributes the largest expense that food ser-
vice revenue must cover.
School boards can control labor costs by establishing salary sched-
ules and benefit plans, and directors can control labor cost by im-
plementing productivity standards and staffing formulas.
Factors that Influence
Salary schedules and health and retirement benefits
Number of annual work days and annual paid holidays
Staffing formulas and productivity standards
Union contracts
Type of menu items
Calculation Total labor costs divided by total revenue.
Meals per Labor Hour
Importance Labor contributes the largest expense that food ser-
vice revenue must cover.
School boards can control labor costs by establishing salary sched-
ules and benefit plans, and directors can control labor cost by im-
plementing productivity standards and staffing formulas.
Factors that Influence
Salary schedules and health and retirement benefits
Number of annual work days and annual paid holidays
Staffing formulas and productivity standards
Union contracts
Type of menu items
Calculation Total labor costs divided by total revenue.
USDA Commodities - Percent of Total Revenue
Importance Maximizing the use of USDA commodities can reduce
costs.
Calculation Total value of commodities received divided by total
revenue.
USDA Commodities - Percent as Donations (Bonuses)
Importance Districts can bring down overall food costs when they
maximize the number of "bonuses" that are periodically offered by
USDA Foods.
Factors that Influence
Frequency of bonuses offered by USDA Foods
Regions where UDSA Foods bonuses are offered
Agility of food services staff to change menus quickly
Calculation Value of commodity donations (bonuses) received,
divided by total value of commodities received (including entitle-
ments and donations).
Provision II Enrollment Rate - Breakfasts
Importance This provision reduces application burdens and sim-
plifies meal counting and claiming procedures. It allows schools to
establish claiming percentages and to serve all meals at no charge
for a four-year period.
Factors that Influence
History of schools serving meals to all participating children at
no charge for 4 years
Stability of income of school's population
Increased participation to offset increased costs and loss of full
pay and reduced-price meal charges.
Calculation Number of students enrolled in Provision II breakfast
program divided by total number of students with access to break-
fast meals.
Provision II Enrollment Rate - Lunches
Importance This provision reduces application burdens and sim-
plifies meal counting and claiming procedures. It allows schools to
establish claiming percentages and to serve all meals at no charge
for a four-year period.
Factors that Influence
History of schools serving meals to all participating children at
no charge for 4 years
Stability of income of school's population
Increased participation to offset increased costs and loss of full
pay and reduced-price meal charges.
Calculation Number of students enrolled in Provision II lunch pro-
gram divided by total number of students with access to lunch
meals.
ServSafe or Equivalent Staff per Site
Importance The measure is indicative of a district’s intention to
provide a safe and sanitary dining environment for students and
staff.
Factors that Influence
State requirements for food service workers
District policy for staff
Calculation Number of staff that are ServSafe-Certified or equiva-
lent divided by the total number of sites that serve meals.
Outside Meal Services - Meals to Charter/Other
Importance Charter schools, private schools, and community cen-
ters may benefit from district-provided services. This measure iden-
tifies the degree to which this occurs and provides a basis for detect-
ing trends.
Calculation Number of meals served in schools that were charter,
private, or other school divided by total number of meals served.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 86
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
FOO
D S
ERV
ICES
O
PER
ATI
ON
S
Meal Accountability - Percent of Sites with POS System
Importance A point-of-sale system is necessary for accountability
of meals served.
Calculation Number of sites with a point-of-sale system divided
by the total number of sites that serve meals.
Meal Reimbursements - Breakfasts
Importance This can be useful for tracking the levels of federal
meal reimbursements, as well as trends over time.
Calculation Total free or reduced-price breakfast reimbursements
divided by the total number of breakfast meals served.
Meal Reimbursements - Lunches
Importance This can be useful for tracking the levels of federal
meal reimbursements, as well as trends over time.
Calculation Total free or reduced-price lunch reimbursements di-
vided by the total number of lunch meals served.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 87 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
MAINTENANCE &
OPERATIONS Performance metrics in maintenance and operations (M&O) assess the cost efficiency and service levels of a dis-
trict’s facilities management and labor. Areas of focus include custodial work, maintenance work, renovations, con-
struction, utility usage, and environmental stewardship.
The cost efficiency of custodial work is represented broadly by Custodial Workload and Custodial Cost per Square
Foot, where low workload combined with high cost per square feet would indicate that cost savings can be real-
ized by reducing the number of custodians. Additionally, the relative cost of supplies can be considered by looking
at Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot.
The relative cost of utilities is represented by Utility Usage per Square Foot and Water Usage per Square Foot.
These KPIs should give district leaders a general sense of where they are doing well and where they can improve.
The importance and usefulness of each KPI is described in the “Importance of Measure” and “Factors that Influ-
ence” headings, which can be used to guide improvement strategies.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 88
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
L IST OF KPIS IN MAIN TEN ANCE & OPER ATIO NS Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Maintenance & Operations. Indicators in bold are those
included in this report (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are avail-
able to CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.
POWER INDICATORS
Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot
Custodial Workload
Routine Maintenance - Cost per Square Foot
Major Maintenance - Cost per Student
Renovations - Cost per Student
Work Order Completion Time (Days)
ESSENTIAL FEW
M&O Cost per Student
M&O Costs Ratio to District Operating Budget
Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot
Routine Maintenance - Cost per Work Order
Major Maintenance - Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Renovations - Design to Construction Cost Ratio
New Construction - Cost per Student
New Construction - Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Recycling - Percent of Total Material Stream
Utility Costs - Cost per Square Foot
Deferred Maintenance - Percent of Projects Completed
OTHER KEY INDICATORS
M&O Staff - Field Staff as Percent of All Staff
M&O Staff - Non-Exempt Workers as Percent of Field Staff
Building Square Footage by Ownership - Percent Leased
Building Square Footage by Type - Percent Modular
Building Square Footage by Type - Percent Portable
Building Square Footage by Type - Percent Site-Built
Building Square Footage by Usage - Percent Academic
Building Square Footage by Usage - Percent Non-Academic
Building Square Footage by Usage - Percent Vacant
Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot, Contractor-Operated
Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot, District-Operated
Custodial Work - Cost per Student
Custodial Work - Proportion Contractor-Operated
Custodial Work - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff
Custodial Work - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff
Grounds Work - Cost per Acre
Grounds Work - Cost per Acre, Contractor-Operated
Grounds Work - Cost per Acre, District-Operated
Grounds Work - Cost per Student
Grounds Work - Proportion Contractor-Operated
Grounds Work - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff
Grounds Work - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff
Routine Maintenance - Cost Per Student
Routine Maintenance - Cost Per Work Order, Contractor-Operated
Routine Maintenance - Cost Per Work Order, District-Operated
Routine Maintenance - Proportion Contractor-Operated, by Work
Orders
Routine Maintenance - Ratio of Field Workers to Office Staff
Major Maintenance - Supervisors/Support Staff Costs as Percent of
Total Costs
Major Maintenance - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of
Total Costs
Major Maintenance - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff
Major Maintenance - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field
Staff
Renovations - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs
Renovations - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff
Renovations - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff
Renovations - Supervisors/Support Staff Costs as Percent of Total
Costs
New Construction - Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total
Costs
New Construction - Staff Ratio - Field Workers per Office Staff
New Construction - Staff Ratio - Non-Exempt per Exempt Field Staff
New Construction - Supervisors/Support Staff Costs as Percent of
Total Costs
Deferred Maintenance - Average Cost per Project
Deferred Maintenance Resulting in Break-Downs
Green Buildings - Buildings Green Certified
Green Buildings - Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent
Green Buildings - Buildings with Energy Star Certificate
Recycling - Percent Regulatory
Utility Costs - Electricity Cost per Square Foot
Utility Costs - Heating Fuel Cost per Square Foot
Utility Costs - Sewer Cost per Square Foot
Utility Costs - Water Cost per Square Foot
Utility Usage - Electricity Usage per Square Foot (KWh)
Utility Usage - Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (KBTU)
Utility Usage - Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)
Utility Usage - Water Usage for Irrigation
Work Order Cancel/Void Rate
Work Order Completion Rate
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 89 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 88 Custodial Workload vs. Cost per Square Foot
This chart compares custodial staffing levels with total custodial cost. Districts to the top-left have high staffing levels and high costs, suggesting
that the number of staff is driving up costs. Conversely, districts to the bottom-right have lower staffing levels and lower costs, suggesting that
those districts have achieved cost savings through reduced staff levels.
However, rarely does this trend hold—many districts are in the bottom-left quadrant, meaning that they have reduced costs and also higher staff-
ing levels. This may be due to other efficiencies and cost-savings that these districts have implemented.
This analysis also does not take into account the quality of the work done. Districts that are unsatisfied with the level of cleanliness in their facilities
have good reason to want to invest more in custodial staff and supplies in order to provide clean, safe facilities.
14
7
71
26
13
20
9
57
35
41
19
37
44
67
49
10
39
53
34
56
11
30
52
25
66
48
8
43
5
21
62
16
101
1
18
3 4
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
Cu
sto
dia
l W
ork
- C
ost
pe
r Sq
uar
e F
oo
t
Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.)
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 90
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 89 Custodial Work - Cost per Square Foot
This is the total cost of custodial services relative to the total build-
ing square footage in the district.
Figure 90 Custodial Work - Cost per Student
3.71
3.67
3.49
3.39
2.80
2.60
2.57
2.52
2.45
2.45
2.29
2.27
2.24
2.07
2.00
1.98
1.98
1.95
1.90
1.87
1.83
1.78
1.76
1.76
1.74
1.73
1.73
1.70
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.64
1.55
1.55
1.50
1.43
1.39
1.31
1.25
1.24
1.21
1.19
1.19
0.95
0.82
1.76
$- $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00
26
58
35
43
25
45
19
12
9
53
63
18
56
66
20
3
101
1
6
21
62
34
67
7
Median
23
4
44
2
37
5
47
52
16
71
13
10
30
11
55
48
8
49
39
28
14
57
41
754
730
726
601
493
429
416
380
379
342
332
318
314
302
295
294
283
281
274
272
262
255
236
227
218
214
214
211
198
197
194
190
187
180
179
281
$- $200 $400 $600 $800
26
45
43
35
12
66
18
20
21
1
3
30
4
23
5
47
37
7
Median
28
9
41
71
44
13
49
10
48
55
14
101
57
39
11
16
67
Does this accurately reflect the cost-efficiency of your custodial operation? What kinds of factors are affecting this result? (See KPI Definitions at the end of this section.)
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 91 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 91 Custodial Workload (Sq. Ft.)
This is a staffing-level measure. It represents the average square
footage that each custodian would be responsible for if all district
facilities were divided up evenly.
Figure 92 Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot
526
12,350
16,892
17,000
17,153
17,949
18,248
18,611
19,308
21,612
21,798
22,131
23,217
23,256
23,676
23,916
23,961
24,684
24,717
25,777
25,982
26,580
26,605
26,737
26,816
27,074
27,145
27,696
27,992
28,070
29,481
31,537
32,123
32,842
33,099
34,079
37,264
38,132
45,009
25,777
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
28
71
44
56
25
67
18
10
39
35
53
16
49
9
8
14
101
48
7
19
Median
13
4
41
79
66
34
37
21
11
20
5
52
26
43
3
1
57
30
62
0.362
0.235
0.226
0.176
0.168
0.155
0.141
0.127
0.126
0.126
0.121
0.121
0.117
0.116
0.114
0.113
0.112
0.107
0.106
0.104
0.102
0.099
0.092
0.091
0.091
0.090
0.083
0.082
0.082
0.082
0.081
0.078
0.076
0.072
0.069
0.063
0.044
0.044
0.012
0.104
$- $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40
1
20
25
4
5
3
52
67
9
62
12
19
55
35
37
66
39
26
57
101
Median
10
41
43
71
34
16
13
7
11
45
8
56
21
48
18
53
14
30
49
How might this relate to building cleanliness and cost efficiency? Which one of these is affected more by your result above?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 92
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 93 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot
This is the total cost of routine maintenance relative to the total
square footage.
Figure 94 Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order
2.52
1.73
1.58
1.53
1.52
1.45
1.44
1.44
1.43
1.41
1.36
1.35
1.32
1.30
1.29
1.25
1.23
1.21
1.20
1.18
1.17
1.15
1.15
1.14
1.07
1.01
1.00
0.94
0.91
0.91
0.83
0.81
0.81
0.79
0.74
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.58
0.46
0.39
0.37
1.14
$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00
67
34
35
47
19
7
3
14
56
39
43
20
52
9
25
30
10
28
44
6
23
12
53
Median
2
55
71
16
62
66
8
21
5
58
101
45
49
57
13
48
1
4
26
18
11
41
63
1,545
1,502
1,273
1,122
1,064
917
721
620
569
536
527
504
498
494
493
470
470
449
446
441
422
396
394
378
374
361
349
344
338
327
326
321
321
308
294
290
289
280
260
231
201
186
175
163
105
42
32
378
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
57
25
6
3
30
26
45
47
35
52
58
12
43
19
20
5
9
13
34
7
18
66
39
28
Median
67
56
10
62
63
2
53
23
41
48
14
8
49
16
55
4
101
71
44
1
11
37
21
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 93 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 95 Routine Maintenance – Proportion Contractor-Operated, by Work Orders
Figure 96 Major Maintenance – Cost per Student
This represents the per-student spending on major maintenance.
While cost-efficiency is important, CGCS has found that many dis-
tricts vastly underinvest in the maintenance of their facilities, in-
creasing the total lifecycle cost of the facility.
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
1.0%
1.1%
1.3%
1.4%
1.5%
1.6%
2.4%
3.6%
3.8%
4.3%
4.4%
5.3%
5.3%
6.7%
8.8%
9.1%
9.5%
9.7%
13.5%
13.8%
15.0%
18.6%
28.0%
32.1%
100.0%
1.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
58
8
4
5
6
67
9
101
56
35
63
11
7
18
66
37
48
19
71
41
28
13
Median
16
47
34
23
12
44
45
1
3
2
20
52
57
43
21
25
30
10
14
39
49
26
1,387.4
654.9
400.2
343.4
322.2
310.8
308.3
288.6
252.8
251.6
182.7
153.6
109.1
102.3
94.4
87.3
82.9
66.0
56.2
53.5
40.2
32.3
29.3
28.0
24.3
23.5
18.4
6.0
4.8
94.4
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500
41
4
43
3
7
21
30
39
45
12
5
28
1
10
23
Median
16
13
37
57
66
101
55
14
49
11
44
48
20
67
Are you protecting your facilities assets through preventive maintenance?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 94
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 97 Major Maintenance – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs
Other cost categories include (1) design, pre-construction, and com-
pliance costs, and (2) non-technical office staff (supervisors, support
staff, and clerical staff).
Figure 98 Major Maintenance – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs,
such as architects, drafters and engineering consultants, including
in-house drafters and designers. Delivered construction costs in-
clude personnel, material, and supply costs, including in-house and
contracted work.
38.5%
62.2%
63.6%
67.4%
68.3%
71.4%
72.8%
74.0%
75.5%
76.3%
77.1%
78.1%
82.2%
85.1%
86.4%
87.0%
87.3%
87.8%
90.6%
90.7%
90.9%
92.0%
93.3%
94.3%
94.6%
95.5%
96.6%
99.1%
99.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
87.1%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
14
48
57
11
7
52
45
16
43
5
49
53
44
8
3
101
Median
1
21
10
66
25
4
41
23
39
30
34
12
13
55
20
56
0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
1.2%
2.6%
3.7%
4.1%
4.3%
4.4%
6.7%
7.1%
8.4%
8.7%
8.9%
10.7%
11.5%
12.6%
15.0%
15.2%
23.3%
27.8%
33.4%
33.8%
40.0%
8.4%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
25
11
34
12
39
66
101
30
23
4
41
21
10
Median
44
1
16
3
5
53
49
45
43
52
7
57
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 95 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 99 Renovations – Cost per Student
Figure 100 Renovations – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs
Other cost categories include (1) design, pre-construction, and com-
pliance costs, and (2) non-technical office staff (supervisors, support
staff, and clerical staff).
3,705
1,426
1,328
1,291
954
814
784
750
723
544
378
326
324
282
218
199
175
158
114
92
69
65
33
33
30
20
9
5
3
218
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000
45
4
101
12
49
28
26
48
39
3
57
58
20
10
18
Median
1
16
71
14
7
55
43
66
5
11
23
44
67
21
50.1%
57.0%
58.2%
60.0%
64.3%
64.4%
71.4%
74.4%
78.7%
81.2%
84.9%
86.0%
86.8%
88.4%
89.3%
90.2%
92.4%
92.6%
92.7%
93.3%
94.3%
94.5%
94.8%
95.0%
95.5%
95.6%
96.0%
96.2%
99.7%
99.8%
100.0%
100.0%
91.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
43
1
66
5
7
11
52
34
16
58
53
23
3
8
71
44
Median
101
12
10
49
18
57
14
26
63
39
48
4
45
20
55
56
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 96
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 101 Renovations – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs,
such as architects, drafters and engineering consultants, including
in-house drafters and designers. Delivered construction costs in-
clude personnel, material and supplies costs, including in-house and
contracted work.
Figure 102 New Construction – Cost per Student
This is the total per-student spending on new construction. This is
heavily influenced by population patterns and construction funding
such as bond measures.
0.2%
1.4%
2.9%
3.7%
3.7%
3.9%
4.0%
4.2%
4.9%
5.0%
5.7%
5.9%
6.4%
6.6%
7.5%
8.4%
9.4%
10.8%
11.6%
12.0%
15.0%
15.7%
21.5%
32.4%
33.4%
42.4%
42.9%
58.1%
7.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
20
18
48
14
39
4
63
66
11
57
10
101
12
49
Median
8
44
3
58
43
71
53
23
16
34
52
5
7
1
5,296
937
925
869
671
545
540
486
407
283
163
129
97
96
62
56
21
21
19
9
3
163
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
20
18
49
41
14
66
47
39
48
44
71
Median
16
10
58
4
37
12
5
101
55
21
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 97 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 103 New Construction – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs
Figure 104 New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
Design costs include design, pre-construction, and compliance costs,
such as architects, drafters and engineering consultants, including
in-house drafters and designers. Delivered construction costs in-
clude personnel, material and supplies costs, including in-house and
contracted work.
10%
21%
36%
68%
75%
80%
82%
84%
84%
85%
85%
90%
93%
93%
94%
94%
95%
95%
96%
96%
97%
98%
98%
100%
100%
93%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
101
56
25
8
5
16
52
58
20
71
53
44
14
Median
10
48
47
4
39
49
41
18
66
12
55
37
2.0%
2.2%
2.3%
2.4%
2.4%
2.5%
3.7%
3.9%
4.0%
4.1%
4.6%
4.6%
5.5%
7.7%
10.0%
15.0%
17.5%
17.7%
19.1%
19.5%
130.2%
150.0%
155.1%
4.6%
0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 150.0% 200.0%
5
39
12
66
71
18
10
41
49
4
48
47
Median
14
58
44
53
8
20
52
16
101
56
25
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 98
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 105 M&O Cost per Student
This “catch-all” cost measure includes all the M&O categories that
have been reported in the previous pages (custodial work, grounds
work, routine maintenance, major maintenance, renovations and
new construction) relative to total student enrollment.
Figure 106 M&O Cost Ratio to District Budget
This “catch-all” cost measure includes all the M&O categories that
have been reported in the previous pages (custodial work, grounds
work, routine maintenance, major maintenance, renovations and
new construction) relative to the total district operating budget.
6,275
4,939
2,618
2,521
2,309
2,272
1,930
1,740
1,722
1,675
1,576
1,546
1,540
1,538
1,307
1,279
1,147
1,139
926
919
892
813
794
759
739
723
698
694
595
525
494
460
447
367
1,143
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
20
45
4
6
12
49
39
101
18
26
28
3
43
48
66
14
7
Median
47
30
10
35
57
1
71
44
16
5
23
67
37
55
13
9
11
35.3%
25.7%
24.0%
23.0%
21.8%
17.9%
15.2%
15.1%
14.7%
13.5%
13.2%
11.4%
10.6%
10.5%
10.0%
10.0%
8.2%
7.5%
7.2%
7.1%
7.0%
6.6%
6.6%
6.2%
6.2%
5.7%
5.5%
5.5%
4.2%
4.0%
3.8%
10.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
20
101
4
6
39
48
18
52
14
12
26
16
66
47
28
10
Median
1
7
5
23
43
30
67
13
71
25
37
9
35
57
11
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 99 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 107 Work Order Completion Time (Days)
This is the average amount of time it takes to complete a work or-
der.
Figure 108 Recycling – Percent of Material Stream
51.5
42.2
42.0
39.4
37.8
36.3
28.1
28.0
19.9
19.6
12.1
8.9
7.4
7.0
6.6
6.5
5.1
4.6
4.5
19.6
- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
16
5
39
45
1
13
41
7
48
35
Median
37
11
34
52
56
44
14
9
71
2%
4%
4%
5%
6%
9%
12%
13%
13%
14%
15%
16%
17%
17%
20%
23%
29%
36%
44%
58%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
18
43
30
21
5
19
53
37
52
12
Median
9
55
41
48
66
23
67
3
14
11
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 100
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 109 Utility Costs per Square Foot
Adjusted for cost of living.
2.07
1.85
1.84
1.84
1.80
1.74
1.70
1.68
1.68
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.56
1.51
1.50
1.48
1.45
1.44
1.41
1.41
1.39
1.37
1.33
1.29
1.28
1.27
1.20
1.20
1.12
1.08
1.07
1.07
1.05
1.03
1.02
1.00
0.96
0.93
0.92
0.92
0.89
0.88
0.85
0.82
0.81
0.69
1.31
$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00
$- $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00
6
28
39
35
47
34
10
20
67
48
19
9
53
49
18
44
7
43
13
71
21
63
8
Median
26
30
23
2
25
55
58
52
101
14
66
5
11
4
41
37
12
45
3
16
1
62
56
Electricity
Heating Fuel
Water
Sewer
How much is this affected by regional factors? Which district(s) should you compare yourself to in the same region? Are there other businesses or agencies in your region that set an example for energy efficiency?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 101 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 110 Utility Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh)
Figure 111 Utility Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU)
This measure is heavily influenced by region.
17.7
16.3
16.2
14.2
13.4
13.4
13.2
12.2
11.8
11.6
11.5
11.4
11.2
11.1
11.1
10.9
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.9
9.5
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.8
8.5
8.5
8.0
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.2
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.3
6.1
6.1
5.5
5.0
4.6
4.0
4.0
9.1
- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
34
28
39
13
48
10
47
9
63
20
71
53
18
19
8
44
49
66
35
2
7
23
Median
4
55
67
21
43
12
101
11
52
41
37
14
3
30
1
58
62
45
16
26
5
56
57.3
56.1
53.5
44.2
43.9
42.9
42.0
39.9
34.8
32.3
26.0
23.0
22.4
22.2
19.8
16.6
14.5
13.0
10.9
8.93
6.49
5.47
5.04
4.38
2.74
1.60
1.43
0.82
0.81
0.60
0.44
0.32
0.26
0.25
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.0011
0.00005
5.98
- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
43
52
21
45
5
19
35
3
20
63
4
49
1
67
53
18
9
55
28
16
41
Median
39
10
14
23
48
8
7
44
26
30
25
66
12
2
62
47
56
101
71
11
34
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 102
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 112 Utility Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)
Figure 113 Building Square Footage by Type
55.6
53.3
31.3
29.7
29.6
26.4
24.7
22.3
21.9
20.3
19.1
18.3
17.6
15.3
14.4
14.3
13.4
12.4
12.1
10.9
10.3
9.7
9.6
9.4
8.6
8.5
6.5
6.2
5.9
14.4
- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
39
13
41
49
10
56
53
30
63
9
71
14
58
44
8
Median
5
21
52
12
16
35
43
20
28
4
7
45
37
25
100.0%
95.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
98.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.5%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
98.3%
99.6%
99.0%
99.3%
99.3%
99.1%
99.0%
98.8%
97.7%
98.3%
98.1%
98.1%
94.7%
97.9%
97.9%
96.8%
96.5%
94.3%
95.8%
95.4%
94.9%
91.1%
92.7%
92.1%
86.3%
88.1%
83.5%
81.6%
82.7%
81.1%
50.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
45
49
53
34
30
2
63
26
43
6
58
79
52
3
28
19
57
10
37
12
4
21
18
35
5
25
1
7
47
8
20
66
44
23
55
9
13
39
101
71
48
11
14
16
56
62
67
41
Portable Modular Site-Built
Do your facilities provide excellent spaces for learning?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 103 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Figure 114 Building Square Footage by Usage
This shows the ratio of academic buildings to non-academic buildings. Additionally, it shows the ratio of vacant buildings to occupied buildings. Va-
cant buildings are often the result of shifting populations.
84.4%
86.9%
87.1%
88.9%
90.6%
91.1%
91.8%
92.2%
92.5%
92.8%
93.1%
93.2%
93.4%
93.6%
93.7%
94.1%
94.1%
94.3%
94.3%
94.3%
94.5%
94.6%
95.1%
95.2%
95.2%
95.4%
95.5%
95.7%
95.8%
95.8%
95.8%
95.9%
96.0%
96.1%
96.2%
96.3%
96.3%
96.4%
96.5%
96.6%
96.8%
96.9%
97.1%
97.2%
97.4%
97.4%
0.0%
3.4%
0.0%
5.8%
0.1%
0.6%
1.1%
0.1%
76.3%
8.8%
16.3%
1.7%
4.0%
0.0%
56.4%
0.0%
2.7%
0.2%
16.2%
0.0%
9.9%
0.0%
1.1%
12.5%
3.2%
0.6%
0.0%
1.8%
33.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
5.0%
0.3%
10.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
5.7%
95.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%
45
5
56
19
66
18
39
67
34
28
6
41
52
63
57
53
4
11
20
71
30
14
37
Median
35
3
12
101
62
43
8
9
13
44
21
2
55
16
79
49
25
48
7
10
47
26
23
Academic Non-Academic Vacant
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 104
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 115 Green Buildings – Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent
This shows the proportion of facilities that have earned a green cer-
tificate, such as LEED, or are built in alignment with green certifica-
tion criteria.
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.3%
1.5%
1.9%
2.2%
2.7%
2.8%
3.0%
4.4%
4.6%
4.9%
6.5%
7.5%
9.2%
13.3%
17.0%
23.1%
23.6%
26.7%
85.5%
87.6%
100.0%
0.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
52
67
53
30
55
18
8
43
21
6
4
2
9
63
35
34
26
10
3
62
7
66
Median
5
101
45
57
48
58
37
47
56
11
39
44
71
41
16
1
49
23
14
28
19
12
20
Green Certified Green Equivalent
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 105 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
KPI DEF IN ITION S Custodial Work – Cost per Square Foot
Importance This measure is an important indicator of the efficien-
cy of custodial operations. The value is impacted not only by opera-
tional effectiveness, but also by labor costs, material and supply
costs, supervisory overhead costs as well as other factors. This indi-
cator can be used as an important comparison with other districts to
identify opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to
reduce costs.
Factors that Influence
Cost of labor
Collective bargaining agreements
Cost of supplies and materials
Size of school
Calculation Total cost of district-operated custodial work plus to-
tal cost of contract-operated custodial work divided by total square
footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Custodial Work – Cost per Student
Importance This measure is an important indicator of the efficien-
cy of the custodial operations. The value is affected 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
identify opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to
reduce costs.
Factors that Influence
Cost of labor
Cost of supplies and materials
Scope of duties assigned to custodians
Calculation Total custodial work costs (contractor and district op-
erated) divided by total student enrollment.
Custodial Supply Cost per Square Foot
Importance This measure is an important indicator of the efficien-
cy of the custodial operations. The value is affected 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
identify opportunities for improvement in custodial operations to
reduce costs.
Factors that Influence
Cost of labor
Cost of supplies and materials
Scope of duties assigned to custodians
Calculation Total custodial supply cost of district-operated custo-
dial services divided by total square footage of buildings managed by
the district. This measure only applies to district-operated sites.
Routine Maintenance – Cost per Square Foot
Importance This provides a measure of the total costs of routine
maintenance relative to the district size (by building square footage).
Factors that Influence
Age of infrastructure
Experience of maintenance staff
Training of custodial staff to do maintenance work
Deferred maintenance backlog
Calculation Cost of district-operated maintenance work plus cost
of contractor-operated maintenance work divided by total square
footage of non-vacant buildings.
Routine Maintenance – Cost per Work Order
Importance This provides a measure of the costs of each routine
maintenance work order.
Factors that Influence
Age of infrastructure
Experience of maintenance staff
Training of custodial staff to do maintenance work
Deferred maintenance backlog
Calculation Total costs of all routine maintenance work divided by
total number of routine maintenance work orders.
Routine Maintenance – Proportion Contractor -Operated
Importance Can be used to identify districts that utilize contrac-
tors to perform routine maintenance.
Calculation Number of routine maintenance work orders handled
by contractors divided by total number of routine maintenance work
orders.
Major Maintenance – Cost per Student
Importance This looks at the cost of major maintenance projects
relative to the size of the district (by student enrollment).
Factors that Influence
Number of capital projects
Deferred maintenance backlog
Passage of bond measures
Age of infrastructure
District technology plan
Calculation Total cost of major maintenance work divided by total
student enrollment.
Major Maintenance – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total Costs
Importance This can be used to evaluate the cost of delivered
construction relative to design costs and personnel costs.
Calculation Construction costs of major maintenance/minor ren-
ovation projects divided by total costs of all major mainte-
nance/minor renovation projects.
Renovations – Cost per Student
Importance This indicates the level of spending on major renova-
tions relative to the size of the district (by student enrollment).
Factors that Influence
Number of capital projects
Age of infrastructure
District technology plan
Calculation Total cost of renovations divided by total student en-
rollment.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 106
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Renovations – Delivered Construction Costs as Percent of Total
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 total costs of all major rehab/renovation projects.
Renovations – Design to Construction 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 Construction – Cost per Student
Importance This looks at the total amount of construction spend-
ing relative to district size (by student enrollment).
Factors that Influence
Number of capital projects
Population growth trends
Quality of buildings
Calculation Total costs of new construction projects divided by to-
tal student enrollment.
New Construction – Design to Construction Cost Ratio
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 per Student
Importance This is a broad view of the costs of maintenance, op-
erations, and facilities work. Expenditures may fluctuate drastically
depending on the number of capital projects.
Calculation Total custodial costs (district and contractor) plus to-
tal grounds work costs (district and contractor) plus total routine
maintenance costs (district and contractor) plus total major mainte-
nance/minor renovations costs plus total major rehab/renovations
all divided by total number of students.
M&O Cost Ratio to District Budget
Importance This is a broad view of the costs of maintenance, op-
erations and facilities work. Expenditures may fluctuate drastically
depending on the number of capital projects.
Calculation Total custodial costs (district and contractor) plus to-
tal grounds work costs (district and contractor) plus total routine
maintenance costs (district and contractor) plus total major mainte-
nance/minor renovations costs plus total major rehab/renovations
plus new construction divided by district budget.
Recycling – Percent of Material Stream
Importance This measures the degree to which districts recycle.
Factors that Influence
Placement of recycling bins near waste bins
Number of recycling bins deployed
Material collection contracts
Commitment to environmental stewardship
State requirements
Calculation Total material stream that was recycled (in tons) di-
vided by total material stream (in tons).
Utility Cost per Square Foot
Importance This measures the efficiency of the district's building
utility operations. It may also reflect a district’s effort to reduce en-
ergy consumption through conservation measures being imple-
mented by building occupants as well as maintenance and opera-
tions personnel. Higher numbers signal an opportunity to evaluate
fixed and variable cost factors and identify those factors that can be
modified for greater efficiency.
Factors that Influence
Age of buildings and physical plants
Amount of air-conditioned space
Regional climate differences
Customer support of conservation efforts to upgrade lighting
and HVAC systems
Energy conservation policies and management practices
Calculation Total utility costs (including electricity, heating fuel,
water, and sewer) divided by total square footage of all non-vacant
buildings.
Utility Usage – Electricity Usage per Square Foot (kWh)
Importance This measures the level of electricity usage. Districts
with high usage should investigate ways to decrease usage in order
to reduce costs.
Factors that Influence
Use of high-efficiency light bulbs
Automated light switches
Shutdown policy during winter break
Regulation of heating and air conditioning
Calculation Total electricity usage (in kWh) divided by total
square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Utility Usage – Heating Fuel Usage per Square Foot (kBTU)
Importance This measures the level of heating fuel usage. Heating
fuel can be in a variety of forms, such as fuel oil, kerosene, natural
gas, propane, etc. This excludes electricity that is used for heating.
Calculation Total heating fuel usage (in kBTU) divided by total
square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Utility Usage – Water (Non-Irrigation) Usage per Square Foot (Gal.)
Importance Can be used to evaluate water usage.
Factors that Influence
Low-flow toilets and urinals
Maintenance of faucet aerators
Motion-sensor faucets to reduce vandalism
Calculation Total water usage (in gallons) excluding irrigation di-
vided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Building Square Footage by Type
Importance Can be used to evaluate ratios of building types.
Modular buildings are made of prefabricated materials and con-
structed on-site. Portable buildings often lack full facilities and/or
are lower quality than site-built buildings.
Calculation
Site-Built: Total square footage of all permanent site-built buildings
divided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Modular: Total square footage of all modular buildings (i.e., build-
ings constructed on-site out of pre-manufactured components) di-
vided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 107 Maintenance & Operations
OP
ERA
TION
S
MA
INTEN
AN
CE &
OPER
ATIO
NS
Portable: Total square footage of all portable buildings divided by to-
tal square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Building Square Footage by Usage
Importance Can be used to evaluate ratios of building usage.
Calculation
Academic: Total square footage of all academic buildings divided by
total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Non-Academic: Total square footage of all non-academic buildings
divided by total square footage of all non-vacant buildings.
Vacant: Total square footage of all vacant buildings divided by total
square footage of all non-vacant district buildings.
Green Buildings – Buildings Green Certified or Equivalent
Importance This measure compares the number of energy effi-
cient or "green" buildings in the district.
Factors that Influence
Community support for environmental and sustainability
measures
Grant availability
District policy
Environmental site assessment
Local health issues
Calculation Square footage of all permanent buildings (academic
and non-academic) with a green-building certificate plus square
footage of all permanent buildings (academic and non-academic)
that were built in alignment with a green building code but not certi-
fied.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 108
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E &
OPE
RA
TIO
NS
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 109 Safety & Security
OP
ERA
TION
S
SA
FETY & S
ECU
RITY
SAFETY & SECURITY There are a number of performance metrics that can be used to determine a district’s relative performance in the
area of school safety. For instance, the use of ID badges and other methods of access control are important parts of
security, as are measures of use of alarm systems and Expenditures as a Percent of General Fund. Additionally,
personnel preparedness and capacity is measured by looking at Hours of Training per District Security and Law En-
forcement Member and District Uniformed Personnel
Finally, People Incidents per 1,000 Students and Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students are baseline
measures of incidents in a district.
The following influencing factors are likely to apply to these measures:
Level of crime in the surrounding neighborhoods
Configuration of school (office, front desk, etc.) to make access control a possibility
Inclusion of security systems in a district’s construction and modernization program
Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the need for more staff
Documented need for additional safety and security staff—for example, documented crime statistics and
trends.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 110
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
L IST OF KPIS IN SAFE TY & SEC URITY Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Safety & Security. Indicators in bold are those included in
this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are available to
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
Sites
Incidents - Assaults - Firearm Incidents per 1,000 Students
Incidents - Assaults - Robbery Incidents per 1,000 Students
Incidents - Assaults - Sexual Assault Incidents per 1,000 Students
Incidents - Assaults - Weapon (Excluding Firearm) Incidents per
1,000 Students
Incidents - Bullying Incidents Response Rate
Incidents - Larceny/Vandalism Incidents per Site
Incidents - Larceny/Vandalism Incidents Rate of Arrests
Incidents - People Incidents Rate of Arrests
Incidents, Threat - Incidents per Site
Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - False Alarms per Site
Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Academic Sites
Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Non-Academic Sites
Intrusion/Burglary Incidents - Average Minutes to Respond to Alarm
Intrusion/Burglary Incidents - Percent at Non-Alarmed Sites
Intrusion/Burglary Incidents - Percent of Alarm Failures
Metal Detectors, Any Kind - Academic Sites
Metal Detectors, Any Kind - Non-Academic Sites
Metal Detectors, Hand-Held - Academic Sites
Metal Detectors, Walk-Through - Academic Sites
Real-Time Video Monitoring - Percent of Academic Sites
Real-Time Video Monitoring - Percent of Non-Academic Sites
S&S Expenditures - Percent for Contracted Services
S&S Expenditures - Percent for Personnel
Security Plans - Academic Sites with NIMS-Compliant Plan
Training Hours per Law Enforcement personnel, Contracted
Training Hours per Security personnel, Contracted
Training Hours per Security/Police personnel, District
Vulnerability Assessments of Construction/Renovation Designs -
Percent of Projects
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 111 Safety & Security
OP
ERA
TION
S
SA
FETY & S
ECU
RITY
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 116 Incident Rate vs. Staffing Level
This chart compares incident rates against the safety and security staffing levels. In theory, a district with a high number of incidents might want to
address this issue with higher numbers of staff or other strategies.
(Not shown: District 7, 397 incidents, 1.6 staff; District 23, 1,242 incidents, 1.1 staff; District 47, 1,237 incidents, 0.3 staff.)
14
28
71
6
26
13
20
9
57
35
41
37
12
44
67
49
10
39
11
48
43
21
16
1
18 3
4
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
- 20 40 60 80 100 120
S &
S S
taff
pe
r 1
,00
0 S
tud
en
ts
People Incidents per 1,000 Students
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 112
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 117 Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students
Figure 118 Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students
20.7
19.4
19.1
15.6
14.0
14.0
11.0
10.0
9.9
8.9
7.3
7.1
5.7
5.2
4.5
4.3
3.6
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
0.3
0.2
4.3
- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
6
48
4
47
26
18
57
71
23
43
49
28
67
14
21
37
Median
101
3
1
7
16
9
44
41
13
11
10
39
35
12
20
1,241.7
1,237.0
396.9
229.8
106.1
68.4
49.8
46.8
33.2
31.6
29.3
26.0
24.5
24.0
19.8
18.2
17.8
17.6
16.7
15.1
14.6
14.0
12.7
11.9
5.7
4.2
3.9
3.2
2.3
2.0
1.3
24.5
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
23
47
7
101
21
4
6
48
1
26
37
9
43
57
10
35
Median
13
71
41
14
49
18
39
28
67
3
12
16
44
11
20
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 113 Safety & Security
OP
ERA
TION
S
SA
FETY & S
ECU
RITY
Figure 119 S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students
Figure 120 S&S Expenditures as Percent of District Budget
8
21
23
34
36
37
37
45
45
46
47
50
57
58
60
60
61
63
67
68
70
79
83
86
91
100
104
104
110
161
197
211
220
233
62
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
77
35
5
48
44
47
13
26
49
23
10
12
3
4
16
1
9
Median
41
37
39
67
7
101
71
55
14
18
66
6
20
43
28
21
57
0.10%
0.24%
0.29%
0.34%
0.36%
0.40%
0.45%
0.49%
0.52%
0.54%
0.55%
0.65%
0.67%
0.70%
0.73%
0.75%
0.75%
0.77%
0.80%
0.84%
0.88%
0.91%
0.93%
0.94%
1.00%
1.02%
1.10%
1.17%
1.18%
1.20%
1.29%
1.34%
2.12%
0.75%
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
35
5
12
47
26
48
44
23
10
4
13
1
52
7
71
41
37
Median
39
9
67
66
20
43
18
16
6
55
21
14
57
101
28
25
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 114
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 121 S&S Staff per 1,000 Students
Figure 122 Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel
0.18
0.32
0.34
0.56
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.92
0.97
1.01
1.05
1.11
1.17
1.18
1.26
1.26
1.31
1.32
1.36
1.38
1.61
1.63
1.64
1.64
1.82
2.06
2.74
2.98
3.35
3.63
4.64
5.24
5.47
1.28
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
1
47
5
49
9
12
44
13
71
10
11
41
23
48
39
3
4
Median
16
18
26
67
7
6
37
55
35
14
28
43
101
20
21
66
57
0.1
0.5
2.1
2.8
2.8
3.3
5.0
6.6
7.0
7.9
9.8
15.0
19.6
21.1
21.2
23.1
25.1
31.9
41.2
44.8
47.4
57.5
97.0
133.5
17.3
- 50.0 100.0 150.0
13
44
2
71
4
62
6
37
48
23
7
1
Median
56
20
11
39
101
35
14
41
47
34
3
9
Do your safety/security staff members train enough to be effec-tive during critical events?
Is the number of safety/security staff in your district sufficient to address issues facing the district?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 115 Safety & Security
OP
ERA
TION
S
SA
FETY & S
ECU
RITY
Figure 123 Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team
Figure 124 Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site
-
-
-
-
0.03
0.2
0.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.9
4.0
6.0
6.0
7.4
9.0
9.3
10.0
10.4
10.8
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.1
15.4
15.9
29.7
4.0
- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
57
43
2
34
48
101
28
6
14
7
13
10
11
4
19
16
21
20
Median
41
26
67
3
9
53
25
52
39
66
56
8
12
23
37
71
47
35
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.74
0.79
0.80
0.92
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.03
1.03
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.07
1.07
1.08
1.08
1.12
1.13
3.63
1.00
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
44
57
62
67
7
34
13
101
6
14
43
48
19
3
28
26
9
41
2
Median
16
39
11
47
71
35
8
66
12
23
10
4
53
20
56
25
52
37
21
Do your crisis response teams conduct enough drills to be effec-tive in case of a real emergency?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 116
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 125 Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually
Figure 126 Health/Safety Violations per Site
This is the total number of health and/or safety violations identified
in the district divided by the total number of sites.
10%
28%
30%
47%
59%
78%
87%
89%
89%
92%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
97%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
23
41
7
34
6
21
2
35
44
28
101
14
13
Median
19
10
52
12
48
26
20
39
56
25
16
1
3
37.34
28.74
25.55
15.51
5.63
3.59
2.47
1.00
0.59
0.24
0.23
0.21
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.22
- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
10
44
13
8
7
39
2
25
35
6
26
Median
21
19
16
41
20
3
53
101
28
52
14
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 117 Safety & Security
OP
ERA
TION
S
SA
FETY & S
ECU
RITY
Figure 127 Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students
Figure 128 Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site
35.98
22.45
20.23
19.69
10.03
8.82
7.14
5.98
5.85
3.36
2.84
2.73
2.65
1.88
1.75
1.17
1.13
0.68
0.64
0.52
0.47
0.43
0.15
0.11
2.69
- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00
18
7
14
47
3
43
4
6
23
12
10
48
Median
16
11
26
9
1
101
39
13
20
44
57
28
43.83
24.04
22.95
3.57
2.64
2.30
1.41
1.26
0.83
0.70
0.60
0.59
0.46
0.39
0.34
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.22
0.17
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.34
- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
21
35
53
101
6
7
41
14
1
8
44
62
39
16
4
Median
12
57
11
71
20
3
37
26
2
25
56
48
28
77
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 118
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 129 Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent Of Sites
This is the proportion of sites that are equipped with an intru-
sion/burglary alarm system.
45%
47%
67%
76%
78%
83%
86%
88%
88%
91%
93%
93%
95%
95%
96%
97%
97%
98%
98%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
101
34
57
13
21
49
10
48
28
6
14
67
19
55
1
52
4
62
8
Median
7
71
26
20
9
35
41
37
12
44
39
53
47
25
5
2
16
77
3
Are your sites equipped to prevent theft or vandalism? Are your alarm systems effective?
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 119 Safety & Security
OP
ERA
TION
S
SA
FETY & S
ECU
RITY
KPI DEF IN ITION S
Incidents - Assault/Battery Incidents per 1,000 Students
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents
in each district, adjusted for the size of the district in terms of en-
rollment.
Factors that Influence
Available resources to allocate for safety and security
Staffing formulas
Documented need for additional safety and security staff
through data such as crime statistics
Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the
need for more staff
Enrollment
Calculation Total number of assault/battery incidents divided by
total student enrollment in thousands.
Incidents - People Incidents per 1,000 Students
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents
in each district, adjusted for the size of the district in terms of en-
rollment.
Factors that Influence
Available resources to allocate for safety and security
Staffing formulas
Documented need for additional safety and security staff
through data such as crime statistics
Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the
need for more staff
Enrollment
Calculation Total number of people incidents divided by total stu-
dent enrollment in thousands.
S&S Expenditures per 1,000 Students
Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-
port for safety and security operations as a percent of district gen-
eral fund budget. A low percentage could be an indication that secu-
rity needs are not being met by the district or that other revenue
sources are needed to support security for district staff and stu-
dents.
Factors that Influence
Overall general fund budget
Level of crime statistics of surrounding neighborhoods
District policy for security
Budget allocations
Calculation Total safety and security expenditures divided by total
student enrollment in thousands.
S&S Expenditures Percent of District Budget
Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-
port for safety and security operations as a percent of district gen-
eral operating budget. A low percentage could be an indication that
security needs are not being met by the district or that other reve-
nue sources are needed to support security for district staff and stu-
dents.
Factors that Influence
Overall general fund budget
Level of crime statistics of surrounding neighborhoods
District policy for security
Budget allocations
Calculation Total safety and security expenditures divided by dis-
trict operating expenditures.
S&S Staff per 1,000 Students
Importance This measure gives an indication of the level of sup-
port for safety and security operations as a ratio to student enroll-
ment. A low ratio could be an indication that security needs are not
being met by the district or that other revenue sources are needed
to support security for district staff and students.
Factors that Influence
Overall general fund budget
Level of crime statistics of surrounding neighborhoods
District policy for security
Budget allocations
Calculation Total safety and security staff members divided by to-
tal student enrollment in thousands.
Training Hours per Safety/Security Personnel
Importance Most school districts complete crisis response training
prior to the opening of each school year.
Factors that Influence
Emergency response priority with school/district leadership
Emergency response resources
Thoroughness of school/district crisis response plan
Weather
Availability of outside agencies and personnel to participate
Calculation Total number of hours of safety-related drills and
trainings for all safety and security personnel divided by total num-
ber of safety and security personnel.
Crisis Response Teams - Drills per Team
Importance Ideally, district sites with a designated crisis response
team have all conducted drills of some sort.
Factors that Influence
Geography of district
Priorities of district leadership
Previous traumatic events or crisis
Emergency response resources
Updated procedures and protocols
Calculation Total number of team drills conducted by crisis re-
sponse teams divided by the total number of crisis response teams.
Crisis Response Teams - Teams per Academic Site
Importance Districts should build capacity to respond to crises by
having designated crisis response teams.
Factors that Influence
Geography of district
Priorities of district leadership
Previous traumatic events or crisis
Emergency response resources
Updated procedures and protocols
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 120
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
SAFE
TY &
SEC
UR
ITY
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Calculation Total number of crisis response teams divided by the
total number of academic sites.
Health/Safety Inspections - Sites Inspected Annually
Importance Regular health and/or safety inspections are im-
portant for compliance and risk mitigation.
Calculation Total number of sites/campuses (academic and non-
academic) inspected annually divided by the total number of district
sites.
Health/Safety Violations per Site
Factors that Influence
Risk mitigation efforts
Focus of leadership on health and safety
Calculation Total number of health/safety violations identified at
site inspections divided by the total number of district sites that
were inspected.
Incidents - Bullying/Harassment per 1,000 Students
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents
in each district, adjusted for the size of the district in terms of en-
rollment.
Factors that Influence
Available resources to allocate for safety and security
Staffing formulas
Documented need for additional safety and security staff
through data such as crime statistics
Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the
need for more staff
Enrollment
Calculation Total number of bullying/harassment incidents divid-
ed by total district enrollment in thousands.
Incidents - Intrusion/Burglary Incidents per Site
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents
in each district, adjusted for the size of the district (by number of
sites).
Factors that Influence
Available resources to allocate for safety and security
Staffing formulas
Documented need for additional safety and security staff
through data such as crime statistics
Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the
need for more staff
Effectiveness of security alarm systems
Calculation Total number of intrusion/burglary incidents divided
by total number of district sites.
Intrusion/Burglary Alarm Systems - Percent of Sites
Importance This gives districts an idea of the density of incidents
in each district, adjusted for the size of the district (by number of
sites).
Factors that Influence
Available resources to allocate for safety and security
Staffing formulas
Documented need for additional safety and security staff
through data such as crime statistics
Utilization of technology such as security cameras to offset the
need for more staff
Effectiveness of security alarm systems
Calculation Total number of intrusion/burglary incidents divided
by total number of district sites.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 121 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
TRANSPORTATION Performance metrics in transportation cover a broad range of factors that affect service levels and cost efficiency.
The broad summative measures are Cost per Total Mile Operated and Transportation Cost per Rider, and other
measures include diagnostic tools to weed out inefficiencies and excessive expenses. A key measure of efficiency is
Daily Runs per Bus, which reflects the daily reuse of buses; and important service-level measures include On-Time
Performance and Turn Time to Place New Students.
Careful consideration of each measure and its impact on a district’s transportation services is vital to the improve-
ment of performance.
General factors that influence transportation measures and improvement strategies include:
Types of transported programs served
Bell schedule
Effectiveness of the routing plan
Spare bus factor needed
Age of fleet
Driver wage and benefit structure and labor contracts
Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed
Enrollment projections and their impact on transported programs
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 122
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
L IST OF KPIS IN TR ANS POR TATIO N Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Transportation. Indicators in bold are those included in
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
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 - Miles between Accidents (Contractor-Operated)
Accidents - Miles between Accidents (District-Operated)
Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents (Contractor-
Operated)
Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents (District-Operated)
Bus Equipment - AVL/GPS Links to Routing Software
Bus Equipment - Rider Harnesses, Lap
Bus Equipment - Rider Harnesses, Lap-And-Shoulder
Bus Equipment - Student Tracking Systems
Bus Equipment - Video Cameras
Bus Fleet - Maintenance Hours per Bus
Bus Fleet - Percent Contractor-Operated
Bus Fleet - Percent District-Operated
Bus Inspections - Percent Passed On First Try
Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization
Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization (Contractor-Operated)
Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization (District-Operated)
Bus Usage - Live Miles per Deadhead Mile
Bus Usage - Live Miles per Deadhead Mile (Contractor-Operated)
Bus Usage - Live Miles per Deadhead Mile (District-Operated)
Bus Usage - Miles per Bus
Bus Usage - Miles per Bus (Contractor-Operated)
Bus Usage - Miles per Bus (District-Operated)
Contract Buses - Percent of Ridership
Cost Per Bus (Contractor-Operated)
Cost Per Bus (District-Operated)
Daily Ride Time - General Education
Daily Ride Time - Special Education
Daily Ride Time, Maximum Allowed - General Education
Daily Ride Time, Maximum Allowed - Special Education
Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Bio-Diesel
Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail - Propane
On-Time Performance (Contractor-Operated)
On-Time Performance (District-Operated)
Participation Rate - Alternative Transit
Participation Rate - Any Transportation Service
Participation Rate - Yellow Bus Service
Personnel - Driver Turnover Rate
Personnel - Drivers per Bus
Personnel - Drivers per Supervisor
Personnel - Drivers per Trainer
Personnel - Routes per Planner
Public Transit - Pass/Token Cost as Percent of Retail
Public Transit - Percent of Ridership
Students with Disabilities - Percent of Ridership
Students with Disabilities - Students on Dedicated SWD Buses
Students with Disabilities - Students with Neighborhood Pickup
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 123 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 130 Cost per Mile Operated vs. Cost per Rider
This scatter plot compares two methods of expressing the cost-efficiency of a district’s transportation service—Cost per Mile Operated and Cost
per Rider. (See next chart.)
The correlation coefficient of these two measures is a modest 0.35. This may be due to geographic differences (e.g., district size and population
density), types of students transported (e.g., special education) and other factors. However, districts that are high in one or both measures may
have reason to investigate their cost efficiency.
7
28
71
6 26
45
23
55
9
57
35
41
19
37
12
44
67
49
10
39
53
34 56
11
47 32
30 52
25
66
48
8
43
5 2
21
16
101
1 18
3
79
4
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00
Co
st p
er
Rid
er
Cost per Mile Operated
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 124
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 131 Cost per Bus vs. Cost per Rider
This scatter plot adds another cost-efficiency measure—Cost per Bus—to the comparison in the previous chart. The correlation coefficient of these
two measures is 0.19. (See previous chart.)
7
28
71
46
6 26
45
23 55
54
20
9
57
35
41
19
37
12
44
67
49
10
39
53
34
56
11
47 32
30
52
66
48
8
43
5
2
21
62
16
101
1 18
3
79
4
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000
Co
st p
er
Rid
er
Cost per Bus
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 125 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 132 Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet
Figure 133 Cost per Mile Operated
Adjusted for cost of living.
14.9
14.5
12.0
11.5
11.2
11.1
11.0
10.8
10.8
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.7
9.5
8.9
8.8
8.7
8.3
8.0
7.8
7.5
7.4
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.4
5.0
4.3
3.9
2.7
2.0
2.0
7.9
- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
62
79
57
2
11
7
19
5
16
10
56
43
46
37
47
53
25
49
39
34
Median
14
21
8
6
71
48
9
30
12
35
28
55
32
52
26
20
67
3
18
4
10.42
8.97
7.57
7.43
7.17
7.08
6.63
6.36
6.10
6.10
5.88
5.77
5.71
5.57
5.56
5.55
5.42
5.31
5.05
4.99
4.87
4.65
4.65
4.61
4.13
4.10
4.08
3.98
3.82
3.70
3.60
3.59
3.47
3.31
3.22
3.17
2.98
2.95
2.91
2.13
1.56
1.26
1.08
4.65
$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00
101
43
6
12
45
79
34
26
28
11
1
21
47
67
35
18
48
5
37
3
7
30
Median
9
66
41
19
10
49
71
56
8
2
44
16
55
39
52
53
4
32
23
57
25
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 126
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 134 Cost per Rider
Adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 135 Cost per Bus
Adjusted for cost of living.
4,061
3,466
3,047
3,020
2,991
2,457
2,225
1,708
1,639
1,598
1,547
1,487
1,417
1,385
1,328
1,327
1,306
1,271
1,195
1,172
1,143
1,132
1,072
1,036
1,028
1,006
946
904
887
878
854
830
818
797
785
723
704
699
698
687
683
662
644
506
500
490
306
1,036
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000
54
79
57
101
62
11
66
16
35
4
43
21
56
39
67
48
34
45
28
46
30
26
6
9
Median
49
52
44
1
41
12
18
53
8
20
47
7
2
32
71
5
19
10
3
23
55
37
25
90,387
86,295
85,520
79,804
79,749
79,369
76,834
74,781
73,571
71,459
71,118
68,572
68,066
67,772
66,871
65,722
64,721
60,631
59,871
59,601
59,521
58,682
58,279
58,201
57,179
56,476
56,187
55,661
54,613
54,267
52,808
51,688
51,629
51,532
50,455
50,159
50,044
49,899
48,841
46,254
45,643
41,155
37,502
36,325
35,277
33,591
58,240
$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000
57
12
46
26
35
48
67
79
62
8
11
45
1
3
28
52
20
9
56
34
41
47
7
Median
21
44
18
55
30
71
66
10
2
5
49
37
16
6
4
54
43
39
19
53
32
101
23
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 127 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 136 On-Time Performance
Figure 137 Bus Equipment - GPS Tracking
89.280%
96.000%
98.000%
98.738%
99.093%
99.211%
99.491%
99.556%
99.706%
99.798%
99.845%
99.846%
99.877%
99.889%
99.895%
99.939%
99.976%
99.984%
99.993%
99.798%
80.000% 85.000% 90.000% 95.000% 100.000%
26
39
55
16
57
4
11
3
71
35
Median
14
37
30
28
5
23
101
48
67
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
14%
18%
43%
45%
57%
63%
68%
73%
74%
75%
79%
83%
83%
84%
84%
86%
91%
91%
91%
93%
95%
97%
98%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
57
62
30
32
79
49
25
43
16
23
67
53
5
44
21
11
19
34
71
12
14
8
45
101
18
46
56
20
9
66
7
28
26
55
35
37
39
47
52
48
1
3
4
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 128
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 138 Accidents - Miles between Accidents
15,390
17,020
23,003
25,134
27,565
33,272
37,350
37,678
38,497
40,297
41,133
42,984
45,215
46,677
48,656
51,674
51,864
52,771
53,645
54,804
56,159
62,899
63,947
64,000
65,468
67,328
75,364
76,527
78,181
83,853
84,658
93,142
93,425
98,107
110,634
118,065
130,391
140,988
164,709
166,482
185,294
187,339
201,709
230,330
268,125
432,000
63,973
- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000
79
47
26
18
7
35
5
66
41
2
10
28
101
34
12
9
20
16
71
45
23
11
49
25
19
30
14
43
55
62
53
6
44
8
21
39
52
4
48
1
67
3
37
32
56
57
District-Operated
Contractor-Operated
Overall
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 129 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 139 Accidents - Miles between Preventable Accidents
40,948
60,184
60,278
61,544
61,633
65,768
70,627
70,773
76,379
79,355
80,067
84,376
86,738
88,218
91,340
93,354
98,672
99,903
121,230
121,516
126,713
127,141
127,792
154,216
170,760
212,325
217,318
224,806
232,924
234,979
235,217
240,000
253,974
267,184
310,766
316,507
333,660
374,678
420,000
455,959
751,890
1,080,000
1,206,560
127,141
- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
- 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
47
7
79
35
41
5
26
12
19
23
16
20
66
2
28
34
10
9
55
21
71
49
Median
14
45
6
37
52
48
62
4
11
25
53
8
1
101
44
3
67
32
39
57
56
District-Operated
Contractor-Operated
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 130
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 140 Bus Fleet - Alternatively Fueled Buses
Figure 141 Bus Fleet - Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses
The inverse of this measure is the spare factor. This includes daily
shuttles in additional to regular yellow buses.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
4%
6%
7%
13%
40%
41%
72%
98%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
1
4
8
10
12
14
16
18
19
21
25
26
30
32
34
37
43
45
46
47
53
54
Median
55
57
66
79
101
3
23
28
7
35
48
71
44
39
6
49
56
67
11
41
5
9
73%
73%
74%
75%
77%
78%
78%
79%
79%
79%
80%
80%
81%
81%
81%
81%
82%
82%
83%
83%
84%
86%
86%
87%
87%
88%
88%
89%
89%
89%
89%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
92%
92%
92%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
57
10
12
19
47
71
16
48
7
2
14
28
66
49
37
53
39
79
5
54
11
52
32
Median
46
55
44
26
20
6
1
21
30
45
101
3
18
67
34
35
9
41
4
56
25
23
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 131 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 142 Bus Usage - Daily Runs per Bus
Increasing the number of daily runs per bus is a strategy to decrease
costs and is achieved by establishing a tiered bell schedule that stag-
gers the start and end times of the schools in the district so that
each bus can serve multiple schools.
Figure 143 Bus Usage - Daily Seat Utilization
0.71
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.07
2.08
2.14
2.15
2.36
2.62
2.80
2.95
3.03
3.08
3.22
3.28
3.29
3.36
3.47
3.63
3.68
3.70
3.80
3.85
4.06
4.15
4.24
4.33
4.45
4.48
4.62
4.83
4.93
5.25
5.47
5.54
5.56
5.77
5.97
6.02
6.06
6.11
6.12
6.14
3.75
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
43
41
8
19
35
25
21
46
11
67
39
48
54
53
6
28
56
66
45
34
5
30
Median
9
37
62
44
23
49
57
71
1
16
4
32
18
26
10
79
2
55
3
12
14
52
0.12
0.23
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.45
0.51
0.61
0.63
0.72
0.75
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.98
1.03
1.04
1.04
1.11
1.17
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.29
1.36
1.44
1.45
1.59
1.62
1.69
1.72
1.93
2.04
2.13
2.63
3.26
3.83
1.14
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
62
101
54
46
79
25
11
21
5
1
34
4
71
57
39
37
41
23
28
Median
35
49
44
6
30
52
48
47
8
12
55
3
2
7
14
16
56
53
67
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 132
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Figure 144 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel
Most districts use their purchasing power to negotiate discounts on
fuel.
Figure 145 Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline
Most districts use their purchasing power to negotiate discounts on
fuel.
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
97.6%
92.9%
92.7%
91.9%
91.6%
89.6%
89.5%
89.4%
87.9%
87.8%
87.7%
87.7%
86.1%
86.1%
84.9%
82.3%
81.6%
81.5%
81.4%
80.5%
80.2%
80.0%
79.0%
77.6%
76.4%
87.9%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
7
46
6
26
19
53
8
79
1
3
25
48
11
44
28
66
57
Median
4
52
41
16
47
12
37
55
9
35
49
67
21
71
56
20
121.7%
107.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
97.2%
95.5%
94.0%
93.5%
93.3%
93.0%
90.1%
90.1%
88.6%
86.0%
84.8%
84.8%
83.0%
82.7%
82.7%
80.8%
79.9%
78.7%
75.0%
93.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0%
67
62
7
46
6
19
53
8
66
11
48
3
25
5
16
28
9
52
41
35
47
55
49
71
21
37
56
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 133 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Figure 146 Daily Ride Time - General Education
This is the estimated average daily ride time for a single trip (one-
way).
Figure 147 Daily Ride Time - Special Education
This is the estimated average daily ride time for a single trip (one-
way).
72.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
75.0
60.0
90.0
60.0
58.0
75.0
90.0
40.0
90.0
90.0
60.0
45.0
60.0
60.0
45.0
60.0
70.0
90.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
90.0
60.0
90.0
60.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
65.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.0
54.8
54.0
51.8
45.0
45.0
43.0
41.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
38.0
37.8
37.0
35.0
35.0
33.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
29.0
28.0
27.0
25.0
24.0
22.3
22.0
22.0
21.0
20.5
20.0
19.0
17.5
15.0
35.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
16
67
47
8
21
35
20
30
57
18
48
66
23
41
43
4
39
11
2
10
34
Median
37
28
6
19
56
62
53
71
44
12
49
26
14
45
9
5
79
3
52
55
Daily Ride Time Maximum Allowed
90.0
72.0
60.0
90.0
60.0
55.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
45.0
90.0
60.0
75.0
90.0
60.0
55.0
65.0
60.0
75.0
40.0
90.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
70.0
90.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
90.0
75.0
72.0
65.0
62.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
53.1
51.0
50.0
50.0
49.0
45.0
45.0
44.0
43.0
41.0
41.0
40.0
38.4
36.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
29.0
28.0
25.0
24.8
24.5
21.0
20.0
42.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
- 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
62
16
23
71
28
55
41
67
10
47
8
30
2
14
18
20
57
21
44
48
Median
34
66
4
11
39
7
6
37
53
79
19
12
56
9
45
3
5
26
52
49
Daily Ride Time Maximum Allowed
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 134
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
KPI DEF IN ITION S Bus Fleet - Average Age of Fleet
Importance
Fleet replacement plans drive capital expenditures and on-
going maintenance costs.
Younger fleets require greater capital expenditures but reduced
maintenance costs
A younger fleet will result in greater reliability and service lev-
els.
An older fleet requires more maintenance expenditure but re-
duces capital expenses.
Factors that Influence
Formal district-wide capital replacement budgets and standards
Some districts may operate in climates that reduce bus longevi-
ty
Some districts may be required to purchase cleaner burning or
expensive alternative-fueled buses
Availability of state or local bond funding for school bus re-
placement
Calculation Average age of bus fleet.
Cost per Mile Operated
Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a
pupil transportation program. It allows a baseline comparison across
districts that will inevitably lead to further analysis based on a dis-
trict’s placement. A greater than average cost per mile may be ap-
propriate based on specific conditions or program requirements in a
particular district. A less than average cost per mile may indicate a
well-run program or favorable conditions in a district.
Factors that Influence
Driver wage and benefit structure; labor contracts
Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facilities,
fuel, insurance and maintenance also play a role in the basic
cost
Effectiveness of the routing plan
Ability to use each bus for more than one route or run each
morning and each afternoon
Bell schedule
Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule
changes
Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed
Type of programs served will influence costs
Calculation Total direct cost plus total indirect cost plus total con-
tractor cost of bus services divided by total miles operated.
Cost per Rider
Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a
pupil transportation program. It allows a baseline comparison across
districts that will inevitably lead to further analysis based on a dis-
trict’s placement.
Factors that Influence
Driver wage and benefit structure; labor contracts
Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facilities,
fuel, insurance, and maintenance
Effectiveness of the routing plan
Ability to use each bus for more than one route or run each
morning and each afternoon
Bell schedule
Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule
changes
Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed
Type of programs served will influence costs
Calculation Total direct cost plus total indirect cost plus total con-
tractor cost of bus services divided by number of riders.
Cost per Bus
Importance This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a
pupil transportation program.
Factors that Influence
Driver wage and benefit structure; labor contracts
Cost of the fleet, including fleet replacement plan, facilities,
fuel, insurance, and maintenance
Effectiveness of the routing plan
Ability to use each bus for more than one route or run each
morning and each afternoon
Bell schedule
Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule
changes
Maximum riding time allowed and earliest pickup time allowed
Type of programs served will influence costs
Calculation Total direct transportation costs plus total indirect
transportation costs divided by total number of buses (contractor
and district).
On-Time Performance
Importance This measure refers to the level of success of the
transportation service remaining on the published arrival schedule.
Late arrival of students at schools causes disruption in classrooms
and may preclude some students from having school-provided
breakfast.
Factors that Influence:
Automobile traffic
Accident
Detour
Weather
Increased ridership
Mechanical breakdown
Unrealistic scheduling
Calculation One minus the sum of bus runs that arrived late (con-
tractor and district) divided by the total number of bus runs (con-
tractor and district) over two.
Bus Equipment – GPS Tracking
Importance GPS tracking greatly expands the capacity for routing
management and reporting.
Calculation Number of buses with GPS tracking divided by total
number of buses.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 135 Transportation
OP
ERA
TION
S
TR
AN
SPOR
TATIO
N
Accidents – Miles between Accidents
Importance
Whether a district provides internal service or contracts for its
service, student safety is a primary concern for every student
transportation organization.
Tracking accidents by type allows for trending and designing
specific training programs to reduce/prevent trends noted.
Accident awareness and prevention can reduce liability expo-
sure to a district
Factors that Influence
Definition of accident and injury as defined by the survey vs.
district definition
Preventive accident training programs
Experience of driving force
Calculation Total number of transportation accidents (contractor
and district) divided by total number of miles driven (contractor and
district).
Accidents – Miles between Preventable Accidents
Importance
Whether a district provides internal service or contracts for its
service, student safety is a primary concern for every student
transportation organization.
Tracking accidents by type allows for trending and designing
specific training programs to reduce/prevent trends noted.
Accident awareness and prevention can reduce liability expo-
sure to a district
Factors that Influence:
Definition of accident and injury as defined by the survey vs.
district definition
Preventive accident training programs
Experience of driving force
Calculation Total number of transportation accidents (contractor
and district) that were preventable divided by total number of miles
driven (contractor and district).
Bus Fleet – Alternatively-Fueled Buses
Calculation Number of alternatively-fueled buses divided by total
number of buses.
Importance Bus fleets using alternative fuels tend to be more eco-
friendly, and depending on fuel prices they can be a cheaper alterna-
tive.
Bus Fleet – Daily Buses as Percent of Total Buses
Importance
A goal of a well-run transportation department is to procure
only the number of buses actually needed on a daily basis, plus
an appropriate spare bus ratio.
Maintaining or contracting unneeded buses is expensive and
unnecessary as these funds could be used in the classroom.
Factors that Influence
Historical trends of the number of students transported
Enrollment projections and their impact on transported pro-
grams
Changes in transportation eligibility policies
Spare bus factor needed
Age of fleet
Calculation Number of daily buses divided by total number of
buses.
Bus Usage – Daily Runs per Bus
Importance
There is a positive correlation between the number of daily
runs a bus makes and operating costs.
Efficiencies are gained when one bus is used multiple times in
the morning and again in the afternoon.
Using one bus to do the work of two buses saves dollars.
Factors that Influence
District-managed or contractor transportation
Tiered school bell times
Transportation department input in proposed bell schedule
changes
Bus capacities
District guidelines on maximum ride time
District geography
Minimum/shortened/staff development day scheduling
Effectiveness of the routing plan
Types of transported programs served
Calculation Total number of daily bus runs divided by the total
number of buses used for daily yellow bus service (contractor and
district).
Bus Usage – Daily Seat Utilization
Importance
This is a basic measurement of the cost efficiency of a pupil
transportation program.
Maximizing seat utilization reduces the number of buses need-
ed.
This data provides a baseline comparison across districts that
will inevitably lead to further analysis based on a district’s
placement.
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of the routing plan
Ability to use each bus for more than one run each morning and
each afternoon
Bell schedule
Type of programs served
Calculation Average daily ridership for elementary, middle and
high school divided by total number of passenger seats available for
all daily buses used in the yellow bus home-to-school program (both
district-operated and contractor-operated).
Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Diesel
Importance Fuel discounts reflect the degree to which the district
leverages its buying power when negotiating fuel procurements.
Calculation Per-gallon price paid by the district for diesel divided
by the per-gallon price of diesel at retail.
Fuel Cost as Percent of Retail – Gasoline
Importance Fuel discounts reflect the degree to which the district
leverages its buying power when negotiating fuel procurements.
Calculation Per-gallon price paid by the district for gasoline divid-
ed by the per-gallon price of gasoline at retail
Daily Ride Time – General Education
Importance Cost efficiency must be balanced with service consid-
erations. Districts wish to maximize the loading of their buses but
hopefully not at the expense of an overly long bus ride for the stu-
dents.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Operations Page 136
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
TR
AN
SPO
RTA
TIO
N
OP
ERA
TIO
NS
Factors that Influence:
Bus capacities
State or district or state guidelines on maximum ride time and
earliest pick up time
District geography, attendance boundaries and zones
Programs transported
Calculation Average one-way (single trip) daily ride time in
minutes - General Education
Daily Ride Time – Special Education
Importance Cost efficiency must be balanced with service consid-
erations. Districts wish to maximize the loading of their buses but
hopefully not at the expense of an overly long bus ride for the stu-
dents.
Factors that Influence
Bus capacities
State or district or state guidelines on maximum ride time and
earliest pick up time
District geography, attendance boundaries and zones
Programs transported
Calculation Average one-way (single trip) daily ride time in
minutes - Students with Disabilities
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 137
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
HUMAN RESOURCES
The measures in this section include such districtwide indicators as Teacher Retention Rate and Employee Separa-
tion Rate, as well as indicators that are focused more narrowly on the operation of the district’s human resources
department, such as HR Cost per District FTE, HR Cost per $100k Revenue, Exit Interview Completion Rate, and
Substitute Placement Rate. In addition, there are several measures that can be used to benchmark a district’s
health benefits and retirement benefits, including Health Benefits Enrollment Rate and Health Benefits Cost per
Enrolled Employee.
The factors that influence these measures and that can guide improvement strategies may include:
Identification of positions to be filled
Diverse pool of qualified applicants
Use of technology for application-approval process
Site-based hiring vs. central-office hiring process
Availability of interview team members
Effectiveness of recruiting efforts
Salary and benefits offered
Employee satisfaction and workplace environment
Availability of skills in local labor market
Personnel policies and practices
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Human Resources Page 138
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
L I ST OF KPIS IN HUM AN RES OURC ES Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few, and other key indicators in Human Resources. Indicators in bold are those included in
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
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 - Training and Development
HR Staff per HR Senior Manager
Retirement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee
Retirement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee - Fully Insured Districts
Retirement Health Benefits Cost Per Enrollee - Self-Insured Districts
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 139
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 148 Teacher Retention – Quartile Analysis of Employment Length
This chart shows quartiles in teacher retention rates based on how many years ago each teacher was hired. (This can include new teachers as well
as experienced teachers.) There are sharp drops in retention from one year to two years, and two years to three years. At year four and five, teach-
er retention tends to flatten.
Note that each year represents a different group of teachers, i.e., this should not be interpreted as “longitudinal” data. Rather, it is a snapshot of all
current teachers that were hired five or fewer years ago.
84%
77%
65%
63%
59%
74%
68%
57% 58% 55%
68%
58%
47%
49%
50%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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 first year teacher retention rate (the widest bar in this chart) to the
fifth-year teacher retention rate (the narrowest bar in this chart). Conversely, other districts have more erratic trends from one class of teachers
(i.e., the group of teachers that were hired in the same year) to the next class of teachers.
Note that each year represents a different group of teachers based on how many years ago they were hired. This is not “longitudinal” data. The or-
dering of districts on this chart is by overall average retention over the five teacher classes.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
44
48
23
49
32
41
62
16
7
63
52
10
5
3
4
71
67
46
12
14
39
5 Years
4 Years
3 Years
2 Years
1 Year
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 141
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
Figure 150 Employee Separation Rate – Quartiles by Employee Category
This chart shows the quartiles of separation rates in the various employee categories. It is sorted from left to right by the median value.
Exempt and non-exempt are employee categories.
11.2%
14.5%
20.6%
11.8%
19.4% 18.4%
8.5%
9.3%
9.7% 10.1%
10.5%
12.0%
4.6%
3.5%
5.6%
7.3% 6.1%
9.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Non-School Exempt School-Based Exempt Non-School Non-Exempt Teachers Instructional Support School-Based Non-Exempt
3rd Quartile
Median
1st Quartile
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Human Resources Page 142
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 151 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 1 Year Ago
Figure 152 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 2 Years Ago
42%
57%
63%
63%
65%
70%
70%
71%
72%
73%
74%
75%
76%
77%
82%
84%
84%
90%
90%
93%
97%
74%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
41
44
52
48
23
7
67
5
62
16
49
Median
32
12
10
39
4
3
63
14
46
71
50%
50%
52%
58%
58%
59%
61%
61%
64%
66%
68%
68%
70%
74%
74%
77%
78%
79%
80%
83%
84%
68%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
44
32
23
48
52
5
16
10
7
62
67
Median
49
3
4
63
71
12
46
39
41
14
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 143
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
Figure 153 Teacher Retention - Teachers Hired 3 Years Ago
Figure 154 Teacher Retention – Teachers Hired 4 Years Ago
42%
44%
45%
47%
47%
47%
51%
53%
54%
55%
57%
58%
60%
62%
63%
65%
67%
69%
73%
78%
90%
57%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
63
41
23
32
62
44
48
67
16
49
7
Median
10
52
3
5
46
12
71
4
14
39
30%
41%
46%
47%
49%
50%
52%
57%
57%
58%
58%
60%
60%
61%
62%
63%
63%
67%
72%
85%
91%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
63
23
44
48
32
49
3
10
7
16
5
4
71
46
62
67
52
12
14
41
39
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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.
41%
41%
41%
42%
48%
52%
53%
54%
54%
55%
55%
56%
57%
57%
58%
59%
59%
60%
63%
79%
94%
55%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
44
49
63
48
7
16
71
46
32
62
10
23
41
3
14
52
5
4
12
67
39
49.3%
75.2%
76.2%
78.7%
90.3%
90.6%
90.8%
92.7%
93.6%
93.6%
94.2%
99.3%
99.4%
99.6%
91.7%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
46
14
52
10
4
16
3
Median
71
7
41
49
48
67
44
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 145
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
Figure 157 Substitute Placements with BA/BS or Higher
Figure 158 Employee Separation Rate
This is the overall employee separation rate districts.
3.2%
10.7%
45.9%
76.0%
83.4%
83.8%
84.6%
84.7%
90.0%
92.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
84.6%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
3
39
7
48
14
49
10
Median
44
71
16
41
67
52
15.9%
13.4%
13.0%
12.4%
12.3%
11.4%
11.4%
11.0%
10.9%
10.6%
10.2%
9.9%
9.5%
9.4%
7.6%
6.9%
3.1%
10.9%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
5
44
52
23
71
7
39
49
41
Median
10
12
48
4
14
67
3
32
How does your substitute pool affect this measure?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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
18.2%
13.5%
12.4%
12.0%
11.6%
11.6%
11.1%
11.0%
10.1%
10.0%
9.7%
9.6%
7.6%
7.0%
5.5%
4.8%
2.1%
10.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
39
41
23
71
7
49
52
5
44
Median
14
4
48
67
12
10
3
32
84.7%
25.7%
21.1%
20.2%
18.5%
13.7%
12.6%
11.5%
10.5%
10.4%
8.6%
8.4%
7.8%
4.3%
3.3%
2.2%
1.7%
10.5%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
16
7
44
5
52
10
49
12
23
Median
41
71
3
14
67
39
32
4
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 147
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
Figure 161 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Exempt Staff
Figure 162 Employee Separation Rate – School-Based Non-Exempt Staff
92.7%
52.5%
30.3%
14.5%
13.3%
9.9%
9.5%
9.3%
8.9%
6.3%
5.6%
3.5%
3.2%
2.9%
1.3%
9.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
4
10
5
52
39
23
49
3
Median
48
71
12
41
67
14
44
102.1%
34.8%
19.4%
18.5%
18.3%
17.9%
14.2%
12.0%
12.0%
11.5%
11.5%
10.8%
9.5%
9.4%
8.8%
2.7%
0.1%
12.0%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
44
12
5
52
23
41
67
14
71
Median
49
48
10
7
3
16
32
4
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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
23.8%
19.9%
12.2%
11.5%
10.5%
10.2%
10.0%
8.7%
8.2%
8.2%
7.0%
4.6%
4.6%
4.1%
2.2%
1.1%
8.5%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
5
52
3
67
49
48
71
23
Median
14
10
41
12
44
4
16
7
48.2%
30.6%
26.7%
20.6%
20.5%
12.6%
10.5%
10.3%
9.7%
9.5%
8.8%
7.5%
6.5%
4.7%
4.2%
4.1%
1.0%
9.7%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
10
71
7
5
32
44
23
12
48
Median
3
4
49
41
52
14
67
16
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 149
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
Figure 165 Exit Interview Completion Rate
When employees leave the district, an exit interview (such as a sur-
vey form) can provide important insights into staff morale, and high-
light potential problems that can subsequently be addressed.
Figure 166 Health Benefits Enrollment Rate
This is the proportion of employees that are eligible to receive
health benefits who are actually enrolled.
1.3%
3.1%
4.2%
4.6%
4.6%
4.7%
5.1%
7.0%
8.7%
11.8%
13.0%
42.3%
52.3%
5.1%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
52
7
49
48
23
39
63
Median
5
14
10
44
67
41
67%
71%
72%
82%
85%
86%
87%
90%
93%
94%
95%
97%
97%
98%
100%
100%
100%
93%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
14
39
41
4
3
10
52
49
7
Median
46
32
71
16
63
12
44
67
Do you know why employees decide to leave your district?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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 (district-paid) or direct
costs if a district is self-insured, relative to the number of enrolled
employees. Adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 168 HR Cost per District FTE
This is the total department costs of HR relative to the number of
district employees. Adjusted for cost of living.
24,806
10,866
10,836
9,663
9,199
7,318
6,561
5,791
5,668
5,352
3,716
2,800
1,298
6,561
$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000
62
12
46
32
63
44
10
Median
14
49
71
39
41
52
1,503
978
710
668
597
484
466
449
428
362
336
326
315
300
287
238
439
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
49
52
5
7
3
12
23
71
Median
67
32
14
39
44
4
10
48
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 151
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
Figure 169 HR Cost per $100K Revenue
This is the total department costs of HR relative to the total district
operating revenue. Not adjusted for cost of living.
Figure 170 Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000 Employees
This is the relative number of complaints/charges of discrimi-nation filed by employees with any governmental or regulatory agency, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
1,051
682
572
569
569
563
532
515
459
457
453
420
370
360
345
515
$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200
52
3
5
7
23
14
32
71
Median
10
44
12
67
4
48
39
24.01
8.16
5.75
3.10
2.98
2.28
2.13
1.48
1.29
1.14
1.12
1.10
0.86
0.73
0.72
0.71
0.39
1.29
- 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
4
52
5
32
39
23
14
41
71
Median
7
44
67
12
3
10
16
49
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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.
60.1
31.2
26.8
25.8
20.7
13.3
11.7
11.6
9.9
9.5
7.4
6.1
5.7
3.8
2.9
0.5
10.8
- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
52
7
41
5
49
14
44
3
Median
10
12
67
32
23
71
39
4
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 153
HU
MA
N R
ESOU
RC
ES
KPI DEF IN ITION S Substitute Placement Rate
Importance Failure to place substitutes to fill teacher absences
can adversely affect students, as well as school staff, and should be
reduced to a minimum.
Factors that Influence
Quality of substitute pool database
Substitute back-up policy
Calculation Number of student attendance days where a substi-
tute was successfully placed in a classroom divided by the total
number of student attendance days that classroom teachers were
absent from their classrooms.
Substitute Placement with BA/BS or Higher
Importance Increasing the number of substitutes with a college
degree improves a student’s experience when a teacher is absent.
Calculation Number of teachers retained after one year divided
by number of teachers that were newly hired one year ago.
Exit Interview Completion Rate
Importance Exit interviews can provide important insight into
problems and patterns.
Factors that Influence
Placement of exit interview on separation/resignation forms
Internal review processes
Pro-active focus on customer service
Calculation Total number of exit interviews completed divided by
the total number of employee separations (including retirement,
resignation and termination) in the district.
Teacher Retention
Importance Based on review of this measure, a district may re-
allocate funds to adopt new mentor/induction programs or revise
their current programs. Districts will also have data available to jus-
tify making changes in their selection process and engaging local
universities regarding coursework designed to better prepare grad-
uates for urban teaching. By tracking, monitoring, and examining re-
tention of second year teachers, districts can measure early attrition
rates and thereby manage the cost of bringing in new teachers, re-
vised mentoring/induction program and maintain desired staff con-
tinuity.
Factors that Influence
Culture
Communication
School leadership
Professional development
Selection and hiring process
Support
Calculation Number of teachers retained after X number of years
divided by number of teachers that were newly hired Y number of
years ago.
Employee Separation Rate
Importance These measures may serve as indicators of district
policies, administrative procedures and regulations, and manage-
ment effectiveness. Measuring these allows the district to further
analyze its actions in terms of resources, allocation of funds, policy
and support to its employees. They also may be measures of work-
force satisfaction and organizational climate.
Factors that Influence
Number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) charges filed
by employees divided by total number of employees
State and local laws defining discrimination will impact
Board Policy and organizational protocol for resolution
Organizational climate
Quality and level of supervisory training
Quality and level of EEO Awareness training for all employees
Indicator as to the effectiveness of supervisors and managers
Calculation Number of discrimination complaints divided by total
number of district employees (FTEs) in 10,000s.
Health Benefits Enrollment Rate
Importance Identifies the level of employee enrollment in the dis-
trict health benefits plan.
Calculation Total number of employees enrolled in health bene-
fits plan divided by total number of employees eligible for health
benefits.
Health Benefits Cost per Enrolled Employee
Importance It is important to have a competitive benefit package
to attract and retain employees. However, health care costs repre-
sent an increasing percentage of overall employee costs. Rapid in-
creases in health care costs make it even more critical for districts to
ensure that their health care dollars are well spent and their benefits
are competitive. Health care costs are an important component in
the total compensation package of employees. While it is important
to provide good benefits it is also equally important to do it at a
competitive cost compared with other districts that are competing
for the same applicants.
Factors that Influence
Costs may be influenced by district wellness programs and
promoting healthy lifestyles
Plan benefits and coverage (individual, individual & spouse,
family, etc.) are major factors in determining costs.
Costs are influenced by availability and competitiveness of
providers.
Costs are influenced by geographic location (reasonable and
customary charges for each location).
Costs may vary based on plan structure (fully insured, self-
insured, minimum premium etc.).
Increased costs in health care will mean less money available
for salary or other benefits.
Calculation Total health benefits cost (self-insured) plus total
health benefits premium costs divided by total number of employees
enrolled in health benefits plan.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Human Resources Page 154
HU
MA
N R
ESO
UR
CES
HR Cost per District FTE
Importance This measure can help assess the size of the budget
for the human resources department. Since districts often have dif-
ferent structures and priorities, this indicator should be used in con-
junction with other measures that indicate actual performance.
Calculation Total HR department costs divided by total number of
district employees (FTEs).
Employee Relations - Discrimination Complaints per 1,000 Employees
Factors that Influence
State and local laws defining discrimination
Board Policy and organizational protocol for resolution
Organizational climate
Quality and level of EEO Awareness training for all employees
Indicator as to the effectiveness of supervisors and managers
Quality and level of supervisory training
Calculation Number of discrimination complaints divided by total
number of district employees (FTEs) in 1,000s.
Number of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) charges filed by
employees divided by total number of employees in 1000s.
Employee Relations - Misconduct Investigations per 1,000 Employees
Importance This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of
hiring and supervisory practices within a district. Administrative
costs associated with investigation and resolution diminish re-
sources that could be used more productive educational purposes.
High instances of alleged employee misconduct reflect a negative
public image on the District.
Factors that Influence
Organizational attitude and tolerance toward employee mis-
conduct
Quality of supervision
Quality of training – understanding of expectations
The hiring processes of the district
Calculation Number of misconduct investigations divided by total
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
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Performance metrics in information technology (IT) assess the productivity, cost efficiency, and service levels of
the Information Technology Department. The metrics generally fall in the following categories:
a) Network services
b) Computers and devices
c) Help desk and break/fix technical support
d) Systems and software
Network-service measures examine such service-level indicators as Bandwidth per Student and Number of Days
Network Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity and such cost-efficiency indicators as Network (WAN) Cost per Student.
Measures of personal computers and devices include Average Age of Computers, which reflect the refresh goals of
a district, as well as Devices per Student.
The cost effectiveness of technical support services such as the help desk and break/fix support are measured by
Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket and Break/Fix Staffing Costs per Ticket.
Finally, the performance of systems and software is measured, in part, by the downtime of these systems, as high
rates of interruption are likely to adversely affect district end-users. The operating cost of these systems is meas-
ured with Business Systems Cost per Employee and Instructional Systems Cost per Student.
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Information Technology Page 156
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
L IST OF KPIS IN INF OR MATION TECH NO LOGY Below is the complete list of Power Indicators, Essential Few and other key indicators in Information Technology. Indicators in bold are those in-
cluded in this report. (See “KPI Definitions” at the back of this section for more complete descriptions of these measures.) All other KPIs are availa-
ble to CGCS members on the web-based ActPoint® KPI system.
POWER INDICATORS
Devices - Average Age of Computers
Devices - Computers per Employee
Devices per Student
IT Spending per District FTE
IT Spending per Student
IT Spending Percent of District Budget
Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps)
Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Users (Mbps)
ESSENTIAL FEW
Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices per Teacher
Network - Days Usage Exceeded 75% of Capacity
Network - Overflow Capacity
Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket
Support - First Contact Resolution Rate
Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate
Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket
Support - Mean Time to Resolve Tickets (Hours)
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
Online Learning - Blended Courses Completed per Course Offering
Online Learning - Blended Courses Offered
Online Learning - Online Courses Completed per Course Offering
Online Learning - Online Courses Offered
Support - District Employees per Help Desk FTE
Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee
Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student
Systems Downtime - E-Mail
Systems Downtime - ERP
Systems Downtime - Finance System
Systems Downtime - HR System
Systems Downtime - LCMS/IMS
Systems Downtime - Online Assessment System
Systems Downtime - Payroll System
Systems Downtime - SIS
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 157
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
FEATUR ED AN ALYS IS
Figure 172 Devices per Student vs. Bandwidth per Student
This chart compares the number of student-use devices with the total available bandwidth capacity for connecting to the Internet. The districts in
the bottom-left quadrant have fewer devices and lower Internet connection bandwidth. Those districts in the top-right quadrant are ranked high in
both the number of devices and Internet connection bandwidth.
The Devices per Student measure is an indicator of performance only so far as the district uses the devices effectively for academic purposes and
makes them available for students to use. Bandwidth Capacity, on the other hand, is widely recognized as a must-have for 21st century classrooms,
and as demand from teachers and students for web-based content and applications continues to increase, school districts have an essential imper-
ative to keep pace.
14
7
28
71
13
20
9
35
41
37
12
44 24
40
49
10
11
32
30
51
48
21
16
1
4
-
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
Ban
dw
idth
(M
bp
s) p
er
1,0
00
Stu
de
nts
Devices per Student
Is your district’s technology meeting the demands of the 21st cen-tury?
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Information Technology Page 158
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
DATA D ISC O VER Y
Figure 173 Devices - Average Age of Computers
Figure 174 Devices - Computers per Employee
This does not include computers for student use. Includes laptops
and desktop computers for employees.
2.65
2.80
2.87
2.92
3.02
3.25
3.32
3.35
3.42
3.44
3.44
3.47
3.47
3.52
3.56
3.63
3.67
3.69
3.74
3.76
3.79
3.82
3.84
3.85
4.04
4.10
4.12
4.20
4.26
4.28
4.32
4.32
4.35
4.38
4.38
4.61
4.74
4.91
4.92
5.13
3.77
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
19
27
24
71
44
41
14
16
53
52
12
51
21
8
9
79
7
49
37
3
Median
35
48
10
47
4
101
46
39
56
45
25
40
20
74
30
11
5
32
13
28
0.25
0.42
0.50
0.68
0.75
0.76
0.79
0.82
0.83
0.85
0.88
0.89
0.96
0.99
1.05
1.08
1.17
1.19
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.32
1.42
1.76
2.28
3.83
0.98
- 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
16
7
54
49
48
74
44
11
10
21
4
24
32
Median
14
13
30
51
37
52
20
101
41
12
71
40
47
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 159
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
Figure 175 Devices per Student
This includes student-use or mixed-use computers and tablets. It
does not include staff-assigned devices.
Figure 176 Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices per Teacher
This may include video/data projectors, document cameras/digital
overheads, and interactive whiteboards.
0.22
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.41
0.41
0.42
0.45
0.47
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.59
0.67
0.38
- 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
16
101
12
10
51
49
54
47
41
48
32
44
24
1
13
Median
37
40
9
30
71
21
7
11
28
20
14
35
4
45
0.14
0.32
0.47
0.49
0.68
0.97
1.07
1.25
1.29
1.52
1.53
1.64
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.69
1.72
1.73
1.85
1.85
1.87
1.90
1.92
1.95
2.15
2.20
2.52
2.76
2.76
1.65
- 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
26
74
24
58
14
21
9
32
5
44
37
10
49
12
30
Median
48
67
13
39
16
71
7
4
52
20
47
1
101
40
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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 Spending Percent of District Budget (Including Capital Investments)
0.23%
0.31%
0.35%
0.83%
1.25%
1.29%
1.34%
1.36%
1.37%
1.52%
1.53%
1.57%
1.57%
1.64%
1.64%
1.69%
1.72%
1.73%
2.09%
2.18%
2.24%
2.28%
2.29%
2.39%
2.41%
2.45%
2.49%
2.87%
2.96%
3.90%
4.69%
4.78%
4.90%
1.72%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
67
6
45
54
101
39
25
71
1
9
12
10
13
35
41
11
4
Median
44
16
20
32
5
40
52
7
37
48
24
30
28
47
14
21
0.23%
0.31%
0.35%
1.14%
1.31%
1.44%
1.57%
1.57%
1.60%
1.71%
1.88%
1.92%
2.18%
2.24%
2.34%
2.42%
2.44%
2.46%
2.58%
2.72%
2.72%
2.72%
2.96%
3.01%
3.02%
3.12%
3.68%
3.72%
3.94%
4.04%
5.61%
5.85%
5.89%
2.44%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%
67
6
45
54
101
71
10
13
9
35
25
41
12
32
11
16
39
Median
40
5
7
4
48
30
37
24
44
20
52
1
28
21
47
14
IT Operations
Capital Investments
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 161
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
Figure 179 IT Spending per Student
Figure 180 Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps)
This represents the bandwidth capacity for a district’s connection to
the Internet. SETDA recommends a target minimum of 100 Mbps
per 1,000 students/staff by the 2014-15 school year.
$19
$34
$80
$81
$82
$107
$114
$117
$126
$127
$138
$139
$139
$141
$142
$151
$162
$177
$186
$212
$220
$221
$243
$255
$262
$270
$298
$337
$388
$402
$407
$510
$612
$920
$169
$- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000
67
6
45
101
54
13
39
9
16
1
41
44
3
10
11
32
71
Median
40
4
48
5
37
49
51
12
7
24
35
20
30
14
47
28
21
9.3
1.5
2.3
2.4
2.7
3.0
4.0
4.3
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.7
6.7
7.6
7.7
8.0
9.3
10.3
10.6
11.7
12.5
14.1
15.0
16.0
16.7
19.2
19.8
20.4
23.0
24.1
26.0
26.5
- 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
21
24
37
44
26
6
13
48
35
7
32
12
41
10
9
20
Median
3
5
71
30
1
40
16
28
11
39
49
14
4
51
58
Bandwidth
Expansion Capacity
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
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 districts are often struggling to keep up
their network infrastructure. With a median of 164 days, this meas-
ure suggests that more than half of school districts are near peak
network capacity every day of the school year.
Figure 182 Network - WAN Availability
This is the annual uptime for the Wide Area Network (WAN).
364
212
210
185
185
182
180
180
180
180
180
172
165
165
164
157
148
131
90
72
51
25
15
12
10
10
10
8
5
164
- 100 200 300 400
53
37
21
28
71
44
26
12
32
48
5
52
13
47
7
Median
3
8
20
35
49
58
14
40
1
46
39
79
24
9
99.1367%
99.5646%
99.7260%
99.8648%
99.9146%
99.9344%
99.9541%
99.9690%
99.9702%
99.9804%
99.9807%
99.9863%
99.9922%
99.9936%
99.9957%
99.9957%
99.9962%
99.9968%
99.9973%
99.9978%
99.9984%
99.9985%
99.9989%
99.9990%
99.9990%
99.9991%
99.9993%
99.9993%
99.9996%
99.9998%
99.9998%
99.9998%
99.9999%
99.9999%
99.9999%
100.0000%
100.0000%
100.0000%
100.0000%
100.0000%
99.9981%
98.5% 99.0% 99.5% 100.0%
39
25
12
9
47
30
13
7
20
35
37
56
44
4
71
41
28
101
27
48
Median
21
14
52
58
1
3
49
79
40
26
45
5
46
19
11
6
24
53
32
51
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 163
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
Figure 183 Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket
Figure 184 Support - First Contact Resolution Rate
This is the proportion of support requests that were resolved on first
contact with the help desk.
1,688.8
1,014.9
898.4
863.9
581.4
491.1
348.8
291.5
225.5
220.0
214.4
154.5
149.4
145.7
109.9
107.5
105.3
100.2
97.4
92.4
88.3
87.2
85.1
85.0
81.9
78.6
78.3
70.3
64.4
63.9
59.1
54.1
53.9
46.3
43.3
42.8
39.4
38.5
33.4
27.9
18.2
12.7
11.4
87.2
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
24
21
4
46
30
48
14
20
7
62
74
53
101
28
47
25
79
16
9
49
5
27
Median
3
51
19
10
8
41
11
39
12
56
71
67
13
54
37
44
35
52
40
45
32
3.0%
5.3%
8.5%
10.4%
10.7%
12.7%
13.4%
16.0%
25.2%
26.3%
26.4%
26.8%
29.4%
31.2%
32.8%
32.9%
36.4%
40.2%
41.4%
43.4%
43.8%
46.4%
46.6%
46.7%
47.9%
50.7%
53.9%
55.8%
58.3%
58.7%
61.3%
61.9%
63.2%
66.2%
66.4%
66.4%
66.6%
67.6%
70.9%
82.0%
89.6%
43.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
27
53
35
49
47
25
56
79
101
19
13
28
54
41
37
11
51
20
16
3
58
Median
9
7
12
8
44
52
71
10
5
62
39
14
40
30
21
67
46
48
26
74
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Information Technology Page 164
INFO
RM
AT
ION
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
Figure 185 Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate
Figure 186 Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket
28.4%
27.4%
22.8%
21.0%
20.6%
19.5%
17.6%
16.8%
15.6%
15.2%
14.0%
13.4%
13.3%
12.9%
11.8%
11.1%
11.1%
10.7%
10.3%
9.9%
8.2%
6.3%
6.1%
5.9%
5.0%
4.1%
3.2%
2.1%
1.7%
1.6%
0.4%
11.1%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
25
11
58
8
44
16
21
48
40
26
5
41
7
46
35
10
Median
54
4
39
1
37
52
30
13
47
71
14
79
28
9
67
278.4
161.8
131.6
108.1
81.5
68.3
57.0
54.3
52.0
44.1
43.4
36.9
36.1
34.1
33.4
27.7
27.5
26.8
26.2
25.4
25.2
24.9
24.5
22.8
21.7
21.4
20.3
20.1
19.8
17.5
16.9
13.8
13.5
13.5
12.6
11.3
11.2
10.8
9.9
8.8
7.8
6.4
25.0
$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
51
27
79
62
47
56
20
101
74
54
49
25
16
41
30
28
13
5
7
19
48
Median
53
52
12
45
44
35
37
67
9
71
4
46
8
14
21
39
10
11
3
32
40
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 165
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
Figure 187 Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee
This includes maintenance fees and staffing costs to maintain busi-
ness systems such as ERP, finance, and payroll.
Figure 188 Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student
This includes maintenance fees and staffing costs to maintain sys-
tems such as student information systems (SIS), learning manage-
ment systems (LMS), and content management systems (LMS).
578
485
456
384
354
293
265
260
254
239
224
203
195
194
190
178
176
165
154
151
144
141
110
104
101
93
89
80
66
57
184
$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
30
5
37
47
21
4
13
40
41
1
20
3
39
14
9
Median
52
11
32
12
16
44
101
71
24
48
54
51
7
49
10
578
485
456
384
354
293
265
260
254
239
224
203
195
194
190
178
176
165
154
151
144
141
110
104
101
93
89
80
66
57
184
$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
30
5
37
47
21
4
13
40
41
1
20
3
39
14
9
Median
52
11
32
12
16
44
101
71
24
48
54
51
7
49
10
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Information Technology Page 166
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
KPI DEF IN ITION S Devices - Average Age of Computers
Importance The measure creates an aging index that counts the
number of computers in the district by age. Understanding the aver-
age age of computers provides data for budget and planning pur-
poses, and impacts break-fix support, supplies, and training. Aging of
machines may differ between elementary and secondary schools as
well as administrative offices. Implementation of new software ap-
plications has minimum standards that user machines must meet.
Understanding computer aging will help identify district readiness as
applications become available to staff and students. Developing
comprehensive refresh cycles impacts not only the purchasing of
equipment but also training cycles.
Many organizations in the private sector use a standard of three
years for age of computers before they are replaced. Many school
districts refresh their computers over a five-year period to get max-
imum benefits out of their equipment.
Factors that Influence
School board and administrative policies and procedures
Budget development for capital, operational, and categorical
funds
Budget development for schools and department in refresh and
computer purchasing
Budget development in support, supplies, and maintenance.
Implementation and project management for new software
applications in both instructional and operations areas.
Type of machine (i.e., desktop, laptop, netbook, etc.)
Calculation The weighted average age of all district computers,
calculated as follows: number of one-year-old computers plus num-
ber of two-year-old computers times two plus number of three-year-
old computers times three plus number of four-year-old-computers
times four plus number of five-year-old computers times five plus
number of computers older than five years old times six.
Devices - Computers per Employee
Importance Indicates the number of computers used by employ-
ees.
Calculation Total number of office-use and teacher-use laptops
and desktops divided by the total number of district employees
(FTEs).
Devices per Student
Importance This tracks the movement toward a one-to-one ratio
of students to devices.
Calculation Total number of desktops, laptops and tablets that
are for student-only use or mixed-use divided by total student en-
rollment.
Devices - Advanced Presentation Devices
Importance Hi-tech presentation devices are useful for technolo-
gy-enhanced instruction.
Calculation Total number of advanced presentation devices (vid-
eo/data projectors, document cameras/digital overheads, and inter-
active whiteboards) divided by the total number of teachers (FTEs).
IT Spending per Student / Percent of District Budget
Importance The measure provides a tool for districts to compare
their IT spending per student with other districts. This measure must
be viewed in relationship to other KPIs to strike the correct balance
between the district’s efficiency and its effective use of technology.
If other KPIs such as customer satisfaction, security practices, and
ticket resolution are not performing at high levels, low costs associ-
ated with IT spending may indicate an under-resourced operation.
Factors that Influence
Budget development and staffing
IT expenditures can be impacted by new enterprise implemen-
tations
The commitment of community for support technology invest-
ments in education
IT Department standards and support model
Age of technology and application portfolio
IT maturity of district
Calculation
Percent of Budget: Total IT staffing costs plus total IT hardware, sys-
tems and services costs divided by total district operating expendi-
tures.
Per-Student: Total IT staffing costs plus total IT hardware, systems
and services costs divided by total student enrollment.
Network - Bandwidth per 1,000 Students (Mbps)
Importance This measure compares similarly situated districts
and provides a quantifiable measure toward the goal of providing
adequate bandwidth to support the teaching and learning environ-
ment. Bandwidth per Student provides a relative measure of the ca-
pacity of the district to support computing applications in a manner
conducive to teaching, learning, and district operations. Some dis-
trict and student systems are very sensitive to capacity constraints
and will not perform well. Students and staff have come to expect
certain performance levels based on their experience with network
connectivity at home and other places in the community, and
schools must provide performance on a par with that available
elsewhere.
Factors that Influence
The number of enterprise network based applications
The capacity demands of enterprise network based applications
Fund availability to support network bandwidth costs
Capacity triggers that provide enough time for proper build out
and network upgrades
Network monitoring systems and tools that allow traffic shap-
ing, prioritization, and application restriction
Calculation Total standard available bandwidth (in Mbit/s) divid-
ed by total student enrollment in 1,000s. These data are expressed
in Mbps.
Network - Days Usage Exceeds 75% of Capacity
Importance Staying below the metric threshold is critical to appli-
cation performance and user satisfaction. This metric may also pro-
vide justification for network expansion and capacity planning.
Council of the Great City Schools Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project
Page 167
INFO
RM
ATIO
N T
ECH
NO
LOG
Y
Factors that Influence
The number of online applications sensitive to latency, digital
video, and voice will all impact the amount of bandwidth a dis-
trict needs.
School districts may experience short periods of time with ex-
ceptional network demand and large portions of time with
plenty of excess capacity.
Calculation The number of days that peak daily internet usage
reaches more than 75% of the standard available bandwidth for five
(5) minutes or longer.
Network - WAN Availability
Importance A high amount of downtime of the Wide Area Net-
work (WAN) will likely disrupt the students, teachers and staff in the
district.
Factors that Influence
The number of online applications sensitive to latency, digital
video, and voice will all impact the amount of bandwidth a dis-
trict needs.
Calculation Total minutes of all outages on WAN circuits divided
by the total number of WAN circuits.
Support - Break/Fix Staffing Cost per Ticket
Importance This measure assesses staffing cost per incident,
which may indicate how responsive and how efficient the help desk
is in making itself available to customers. The goal is to improve cus-
tomer satisfaction through resolving incidents quickly, effectively,
and cost efficiently. There are various costs that could be included in
this metric such as hardware, software, equipment, supplies,
maintenance, training, etc. Staffing cost per ticket was selected be-
cause data are easily understood and accessed and salary costs are
typically the biggest cost factor in a help-desk budget.
Factors that Influence
Software and systems that can collect and route contact infor-
mation
Knowledge management tools available to help desk staff and
end users
Budget development for staffing levels
Calculation Total personnel costs of Break/Fix Support costs (in-
cluding managers) divided by the total number of tickets/incidents.
Support - First Contact Resolution Rate
Importance This measure calculates the percentage of user initi-
ated contacts to the help desk, which generates a ticket that is re-
solved without escalation to the next higher support level. FCRR is
an indicator of the number of exception contacts that a support cen-
ter is receiving. It can be used as a management indicator to devise
strategies to lower cost, improve operational ability and workflow,
and improve customer satisfaction. It is more cost effective for the
organization to resolve calls on first contact because the customer is
returned to productive work more quickly. Private industry has rec-
ognized the cost-benefit of expecting that 85% of trouble calls are
resolved on first contact. This measure can also be used as a tool to
help guide quality improvement processes.
Factors that Influence
Software and systems that can collect contact information at
the help desk
Automation tools for common help desk issues like password
reset can improve performance and reduce costs – these num-
bers should be included in data collection
Knowledge and training of help desk staff in enterprise applica-
tions
Knowledge and training of end user of enterprise applications
used
New implementations will cause increase in service calls
Permissions that are set for the help desk staff. If permissions
are restricted, help desk staff will be able to resolve fewer types
of problem calls.
Capacity of the organization to respond to customer support
requests
Ability of help desk ticket application to track work tickets
Tactical assignment of responsibilities may be different in each
organization. The responsibilities of the help desk may vary
from simply opening tickets to complete troubleshooting and
problem resolution.
Calculation Number of tickets/incidents resolved on first contact
divided by the total number of tickets/incidents.
Support - Help Desk Call Abandonment Rate
Importance This measure assesses the percentage of telephone
contacts that are not answered by the service desk staff before the
caller disconnects. CAR is an indicator of the staffing level of the ser-
vice desk relative to the demand for service. The CAR can be used as
a management indicator to determine staffing levels to support sea-
sonal needs or during times of system issues (application or network
problems). On an annual basis, it is a measurement of the effective-
ness of resource management. This measure should be used as a
tool to help guide quality improvement processes.
Factors that Influence
Effective supervision to ensure that service desk team members
are online to take calls
A high percentage could indicate low availability caused by in-
adequate staffing, long call handling times and/or insufficient
processes
Length of time the caller is on hold
Capacity of the organization to respond to customer support
requests
Proper staffing when implementing district-wide applications,
which significantly increase calls
Automation tools like password reset can reduce number of
calls to the help desk and reduce overall call volume
Increased training of help desk can reduce long handling time
freeing up staff to take more calls
Calculation Number of abandoned calls to the Help Desk divided
by total number of calls to the Help Desk.
Support - Help Desk Staffing Cost per Ticket
Importance This measure assesses staffing cost per incident,
which may indicate how responsive and how efficient the help desk
is in making itself available to customers. The goal is to improve cus-
tomer satisfaction through resolving incidents quickly, effectively,
and cost efficiently. There are various costs that could be included in
this metric such as hardware, software, equipment, supplies,
maintenance, training, etc. Staffing cost per ticket was selected be-
cause data are easily understood and accessed and salary costs are
typically the biggest cost factor in a help-desk budget.
Factors that Influence
Software and systems that can collect and route contact infor-
mation
Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools 2013
Information Technology Page 168
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
TEC
HN
OLO
GY
Automation tools for common help desk issues like password
reset can improve performance and reduce costs these num-
bers should be included in data collection
Other duties performed by the help desk staff that restrict
them from taking calls
Knowledge management tools available to help desk staff and
end users
Budget development for staffing levels
Calculation Total personnel costs of the Help Desk (including
managers) divided by the total number of support tickets/incidents.
Systems Cost - Business Systems Cost per Employee
Importance Can be used to evaluate total relative cost of systems.
This includes recurring costs and maintenance fees only; it does not
include capital costs or one-time implementation fees.
Calculation Personnel costs of staff for administration, develop-
ment, and support of enterprise business systems plus annual
maintenance fees for all enterprise business systems plus total out-
sourced services fees for enterprise business systems all divided by
total number of district FTEs.
Systems Cost - Instructional Systems Cost per Student
Importance Can be used to evaluate total relative cost of systems.
This includes recurring costs and maintenance fees only; it does not
include capital costs or one-time implementation fees.
Calculation Personnel costs of staff for administration, develop-
ment and support of instructional systems plus annual maintenance
fees for instructional systems plus total outsourced services fees for
instructional systems all divided by total number of students in the
district.