Evergreen Solutions Financial and Performance Review of the BCPS - Final Report - April 12 2010

Financial and Performance Review of the Burke County School System

FINAL REPORT

April 12, 2010

Financial and Performance Review of the

Burke County School System

FINAL REPORT

Submitted by:

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

2852 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32308

April 12, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Burke County Public Schools


PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Scope of Study ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Overview of the Report ...................................................................................................... 1-2 CHAPTER 2: FISCAL RESOURCES IN BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ....... 2-1 2.1 Financial Data Review .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2 School System Expenditures and Revenues ................................................................. 2-7 2.3 School System Staffing ................................................................................................. 2-9 CHAPTER 3: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Organization and Financial Management ..................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Budgeting .................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3 Purchasing ................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.4 Asset and Risk Management ..................................................................................... 3-27 3.5 School and Day Care Funds ...................................................................................... 3-30 CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF NON-FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS ................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Central Administration.................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Human Resources ....................................................................................................... 4-41 4.3 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 4-50 4.4 Child Nutrition ............................................................................................................ 4-59 4.5 Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 4-72 4.6 Security and Safety ..................................................................................................... 4-93 CHAPTER 5: FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 5-1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2010, the Burke County Board of County Commissioners contracted with Evergreen Solutions, LLC to conduct a Financial and Performance Review of the Burke County School System. This review included a detailed analysis of all of the school system’s financial management functions, including accounts payable, payroll, internal allocation of resources, internal controls, impact of federal and state reporting requirements, use of grant funds, and procurement. The study also included a review of other operations in Burke County Public Schools, including organization and management, human resources, transportation, food service, facilities, and safety and security.

SCOPE OF STUDY

To fulfill the requirements of the contract with Burke County for the financial and performance review, Evergreen Solutions:

• developed a detailed set of information about the status of each BCPS fund source;

• developed a summary report of the status of district financial resources by fund source (federal, state, and local dollars);

• analyzed Burke County funding of Burke County Public Schools and the processes involved; and

• utilized findings to recommend strategies for improvements in the use of funds in Burke County Public Schools.

METHODOLOGY

Evergreen’s approach and methodology for conducting this review included the following components:

• reviewing existing reports and data sources, including independent financial audits, annual budget and expenditure reports, budget guidelines and procedures, accounting procedures, salary schedules, organizational charts, staffing ratios, school board policies, strategic plan, and annual performance reports;

• conducting a diagnostic review and interviews with Board of Education members, County Commissioners, Burke County Manager and staff, BCPS Superintendent, and other BCPS administrators and staff;

• collecting additional reports and data from sources inside and outside the school system;

• conducting a formal on-site review with a team of four consultants; and

• preparing draft and final reports.

Executive Summary Burke County Public Schools

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page ii

OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

The final report for this study consists of the following five chapters:

• Chapter 1: Introduction • Chapter 2: Fiscal Resources in Burke County Public Schools • Chapter 3: Review of Financial Operations and Management • Chapter 4: Review of Non-Financial Management and Operations • Chapter 5: Fiscal Impact of Recommendations

Chapters 3 and 4 contain findings, commendations, and recommendations for specific operational areas, and are provided in the following sequence:

• a description of the operation in Burke County Public Schools; • a summary of our study findings; • a commendation or recommendation for each finding; and • estimated costs or cost savings over a five-year period, which are stated in 2010 dollars.

OVERVIEW OF FISCAL RESOURCES IN BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Evergreen consultants documented and analyzed the revenue and expenditure activities of the school system by fund source (state, federal, and local) and function. This information is valuable as a foundation for discussing primary financial issues currently facing Burke County Public Schools. An analysis of this recent financial information on the school system can serve as the basis for assessing operations and practices, and for developing future program and operational decisions.

There are three major revenue sources that comprise the BCPS budget⎯ state, federal, and local (county) funds. According to the most recent data from the state, the State of North Carolina provided 68.9 percent of the funding for Burke County Public Schools in 2007-08. Federal funding accounted for 11.7 percent of the total, and Burke County contributed about 19.4 percent of the school system’s operating budget. Salaries accounted for 67.9 percent of all funds expended by the district in 2007-08. Additionally, the following percentages represent total expenditures for each category:

• Benefits: 17.3 percent • Purchased Services: 6.8 percent • Supplies and Materials: 7.4 percent • Instructional Equipment: 0.6 percent

Within the context of local funding, highlights include:

• Local funding accounts for $16.3 million of the revenue in 2009-10. Burke County appropriations increased $164,127 or 1.2 percent from 2008-09 to 2009-10. Local revenues recorded by BCPS slightly decreased overall from 2008-09 to 2009-10 (0.3 percent).


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page iii

• Local funds accounted for 12.5 percent and 5.7 percent of administrator and teacher funding, respectively, during 2008-09. In total, local funding accounted for 15.2 percent of staff funding.

• Local funds expended on salaries were $773.82 per pupil in 2007-08. This is $214.79 more than the $559.03 per pupil that was spent in 2006-07.

• Local funds expended on benefits were $208.80 per pupil in 2007-08. This accounts for approximately 15 percent of the total funds spent on benefits.

Within the context of state funding, highlights include:

• BCPS had approximately 1,453 positions funded by the state in 2008-09. Of these employees, 56 were administrators and 1,003 were teachers.

• BCPS increased the number of state-funded positions by approximately 10 percent from 2007-08 to 2008-09. This was largely due to the addition of 165 state-funded teaching positions.

• State salary expenditures were $4,282.82 per pupil in 2007-08. Compared to 2006-07, this is an increase of $163.73. State salary expenditures account for 76.4 percent of total salary expenditures.

• State benefit expenditures were $1,069.64 per pupil in 2007-08. State benefit expenditures account for 74.9 percent of total benefit expenditures.

Within the context of federal funding, highlights include:

• BCPS receives about 7.8 percent of its staffing funding from federal sources.

• Federal funding for personnel remained relatively stable from 2006-07 through 2008-09; ranging from 7.0 percent to 8.0 percent. For the most current school year in which data was available, federal funds accounted for 7.8 percent of funding for personnel.

• Per pupil federal salary expenditures were $548.98 in 2007-08. This represents an increase of $29.61 from the previous year.

MAJOR FINDINGS, COMMENDATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This executive summary highlights commendations and recommendations. Additional findings, commendations and recommendations, and the details supporting the major recommendations included in this executive summary, are contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of the full report.

Major Commendations

Burke County Public Schools is commended for:

• improving cost efficiency and effectiveness for both employees and the district by mandating direct deposit of employee checks;


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page iv

• addressing excessive workers’ compensation costs and reducing claims through training and safety inspections;

• efforts to control and reduce accidents, injuries, and claims leading to lower insurance premiums;

• recognizing and aggressively addressing inequities in instructional technology opportunities for its students;

• examining areas in which the school system can capitalize on economies of scale for purchases;

• establishing high goals for strategic planning, outreach to the community, and the transparency of planning processes;

• recognizing the merits of creating a Foundation for BCPS and for the community as a whole;

• creating an effective enterprise program with before-school, after-school, and summer school programs to generate revenues despite economic challenges;

• enacting effective measures that should continue to reduce its costs for substitute teachers;

• achieving a complete and consistent high level of efficiency in the Transportation Department;

• sustaining a diligent preventive maintenance and bus inspection program;

• contributing positively to its Child Nutrition Incentive Program;

• staffing its Maintenance Department at a level that is within the recommended best practice range;

• effectively staffing custodial services as well as maintaining exceptional cleanliness of its facilities;

• implementing an Energy Education Program to assist with achieving a major reduction in energy use and cost as well as maintaining its energy consumption profile that has been largely in line with nationally-recognized benchmarks;

• maintaining a substantive, timely and useful array of policies and procedures in the area of security and safety; and

• installing surveillance cameras on its entire fleet of school buses.


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page v

Major Recommendations

The major findings and recommendations related to improvements in the efficiency and overall management of Burke County Public Schools are presented in this section.

Review of Financial Operations and Management

• Burke County Public Schools should consolidate and reorganize all financial functions under a Chief Financial Officer and advertise for the position. The consolidation of all financial-related functions will provide better coordination of these functions and provide better oversight of financial processes and procedures. The relocation of financial functions from departments with program responsibilities will provide managers of those programs to have more time for their core functions. Transferring the purchasing operation from the Child Nutrition/ Purchasing Department and separating these two functions will allow Child Nutrition managers to concentrate on actions needed to improve the program’s financial position (Recommendation 3-1).

• The district should determine the total cost for its Child Nutrition Program and take actions to increase fees or reduce operating costs to enable the fund to reimburse the Local Current Expense Fund for all support and indirect costs. Calculating the total cost of operating the BCPS Child Nutrition Program, and the costs incurred by the Local Current Expense Fund that are not reimbursed, will provide BCPS managers and the School Board with financial data that will enable better management of district funds. When total costs are known, decisions can be made either to increase fees to fund the total costs (whereby the Local Current Expense Fund can be reimbursed) or the operating costs of the program can be reduced to achieve the same goal (Recommendation 3-7).

• Burke County Public Schools should develop a Board Policy for day care funds, centralize accounts, allocate total costs, and transfer fund balances at the end of each year that exceeds target operational amounts to the Local Current Expense Fund (i.e., the funding source for general operations of the district). Centralizing day care funds will provide better oversight to the monies in this account and help ensure these funds are expended only for day care costs. A Board policy should standardize how and what funds can be expended for and provide a source of revenue for the Local Current Expense Fund (Recommendation 3-16).

Non-Financial Management and Operations

• The Superintendent’s span of control should be reduced to enable him to focus on broader districtwide responsibilities. Burke County Public Schools should adopt Evergreen’s proposed executive organizational structure. The proposed positions of Executive Director of Accountability and Planning, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Director of Human Resources, and School Community Engagement Officer should be advertised (Recommendation 4-1).


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page vi

• Burke County Public Schools should eliminate the Instructional Coaches and add Content Coordinators to work under the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. Creating Content Coordinators to work closely with other instructional leaders in the district will achieve the goal to provide a cohesive, seamless system for teaching and learning throughout the K-12 sequence. Specific content areas which should have coordinators include Mathematics, Reading, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Arts, Physical Education/Athletics, and Career Technical Education/Workforce Development (Recommendation 4-2).

• The Superintendent should reorganize the Department of Curriculum and Instruction to better align staff with similar roles and responsibilities, and consolidate grant-funded positions. Implementing these changes will enable the Executive Director of Student Services to better focus on the support nature of that role. Consolidating all health and safety-related responsibilities under one coordinator should better assure that all activities and decisions are cohesive (Recommendation 4-3).

• Burke County Public Schools should create an Office of Accountability and Planning. Currently, there is a lack of clarity regarding the data functions in the Offices of Technology and Student Accountability. With the addition of the position of Executive Director for Accountability and Planning, the Assistant Director should be eliminated. The part-time Administrative Assistant for Textbooks should be converted into a full-time position serving as the Administrative Assistant to the Executive Director as well as having responsibility for textbooks (Recommendation 4-5).

• Burke County Public Schools should immediately increase day care rates for before-school, after-school, and summer school programs, monitor comparative costs annually, and continue to raise rates incrementally toward state reimbursement rates. BCPS is not competitive with other regional programs or local private child care providers. Costs have increased considerably in the past nine years, but revenues have not. Reimbursement by the state is capped by the rates that BCPS charges for its programs. By not increasing rates, BCPS is limiting its income for the program and its reimbursement rate from the State of North Carolina (Recommendation 4-8).

• The district should combine its two alternative schools to maintain a teacher/student ratio of no more than 1:15. By combining the two schools and reducing teaching staff by five, class sizes for 180-220 students with the combined enrollment would range from 1:12 to 1:15. This action would reduce transportation and operating costs for an entire facility and program, and eliminate the staff costs of operating two separate programs (Recommendation 4-11).

• The Board of Education should continue to review and revise Board policies, eliminating those that reiterate state laws and regulations, eliminate hard copies, and post polices on the BCPS Web site. A revision of the Board Policy Manual is long overdue. Once it is completed, annual reviews and updates should be conducted. Containing redundant state requirements unnecessarily adds length to the Policy Manual. Once policies are reviewed and streamlined, the Manual will be more user friendly and likely accessed more


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page vii

frequently by staff and the public. The Policy Manual should be accessible online (Recommendation 4-12).

• Burke County Public Schools should continue to reduce the number of assistant principal months in BCPS to the number of months funded by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI). Reducing school administrators to equal DPI allocations will allow BCPS to redirect those additional funds toward classroom instruction (Recommendation 4-14).

• The Board of Education should implement a process that ensures a cost-benefit analysis of legal costs originating with the district before undertaking legal actions. BCPS should discuss and determine how much money it is willing to support in legal expenses with the Burke County over increased funding as well as future lawsuits. The implementation of this recommendation should result in an organized, ongoing process designed to control legal expenses. Once legal action has begun, the Board should monitor expenditures and regularly discuss the merits of its continuation versus costs to the district in terms of dollars, public good will, and distraction from its core educational mission (Recommendation 4-15).

• Job descriptions are an essential management tool for specifying minimum qualifications, knowledge, skills and ability requirements, and essential job functions. The BCPS Human Resources Department should develop job descriptions for each position, and tie them directly to performance evaluations. The Executive Director of Human Resources should work with district staff to update BCPS job descriptions. (Recommendation 4-19).

• Burke County Public Schools should create an employee attendance incentive program to award employees at six-week, semester, or at the end of the year with bonuses for perfect attendance. Such action has helped other school districts reduce substitute teacher costs. In so doing, these districts have kept teachers in classrooms and helped focus more concertedly on improving student achievement. BCPS should create a committee of administrators and teachers to examine programs in other districts and develop one tailored to BCPS needs and resources (Recommendation 4-23).

• Burke County Public Schools should develop and implement a labor productivity improvement program for its Child Nutrition Department. Although many campuses meet or exceed meals per labor hour (MPLH) guidelines, there is room for improvement in labor productivity in the Child Nutrition Department. Initially, the Child Nutrition Department should set quarterly productivity improvement goals for the seven schools most in need of improvement, based on the MPLH productivity guidelines (Recommendation 4-27).

• Burke County Public Schools should obtain severe need lunch reimbursement eligibility, and maintain severe need breakfast reimbursement eligibility for BCPS students. Severe need lunch reimbursement eligibility may require a few years to accomplish, since the “second preceding school year” is the qualifying measure. Because reimbursement at severe need levels is higher than regular reimbursements, it is highly desirable to have


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page viii

BCPS qualify for the maximum possible reimbursement from federal funds (Recommendation 4-28).

• Burke County Public Schools should set a meal price policy indexed to the USDA reimbursement rates. The school system should arrive at a benchmark price for its meals for 2010-11, and then set an index against which future price increases will be set. BCPS should consider the new benchmark paid price profile for 2010-11 displayed in Chapter 4. The meal price structure should be tested for profitability, as it will be the benchmark from which future price increases should be put into effect. By indexing this benchmark price structure to changes in the reimbursement rate for free or reduced meals from USDA, a logical and fair pricing process can be implemented by the school system (Recommendation 4-29).

• Burke County Public Schools should prepare a “Five-Year Facilities Master Plan 2011-2015”, update it annually, use it as the official planning guide, and measure progress against the plan. The Five-Year Facilities Master Plan for 2011-2015 should be established as a living document that guides all facilities planning, design, and construction activities of the district (Recommendation 4-34).

• The BCPS central office is currently housed in several separate facilities. BCPS should consolidate all central office functions into one building in a geographically central location (Recommendation 4-35).

• Burke County Public Schools should consolidate at least two pairs of elementary schools, combine the alternative schools, and remove portables, due to low utilization. This consolidation should be addressed in detail in the recommended Five-Year Facilities Master Plan, and specific consolidation and related proposals should be part of the planning process. The closing of schools is frequently an emotionally-charged issue, and should therefore follow the public participation aspects of facilities master planning delineated under Recommendation 4-34. Only when the general public understands that school closings and other consolidation efforts have been considered carefully and deliberately, can BCPS achieve broader acceptance and support (Recommendation 4-36).

• The BCPS School Board should review its facilities use policy once a year in order to make any changes reflecting charges, facilities available for use, procedures, or any other aspects of the policy. While it is not expected or necessary that changes to the policy are made every year, an annual examination of the policy’s provisions will ensure that the policy reflects the most current situation in the school system. BCPS should take advantage of SchoolDude’s availability for analyzing optimum income strategies for facilities use, and for making strategic recommendations. Above all, the policy must be consistently and uniformly implemented at all BCPS facilities (Recommendation 4-37).


Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page ix

FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Some of these recommendations can be implemented immediately, while others may take months or years to implement. Exhibit 1 provides the summary for Evergreen’s recommendations that have a fiscal impact. A detailed fiscal summary chart is provided in Exhibit 5-2 of the full report.

Exhibit 1 Fiscal Impact Summary

Cost Savings Years Total 5-Year

(Costs) or Savings

One-Time (Costs) or Savings 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

TOTAL SAVINGS $2,394,575 $3,151,655 $5,247,275 $6,297,575 $6,297,575 $23,388,655 $0

TOTAL COSTS ($304,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($1,401,795) ($127,500)

TOTAL NET SAVINGS $2,090,216 $2,877,296 $4,972,916 $6,023,216 $6,023,216 $21,986,860 ($127,500)

TOTAL FIVE-YEAR NET SAVINGS MINUS ONE-TIME SAVINGS $21,859,360


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In January 2010, the Burke County Board of County Commissioners engaged Evergreen Solutions, LLC, to conduct a performance and financial review of Burke County Public Schools (BCPS). The overriding objective of this study was to assist Burke County Public Schools in continuing to succeed and improve in its primary mission⎯the education of all students.

According to statistics provided on Burke County Public Schools by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Web site, approximately 14,032 students were educated in BCPS in 2007-08 school year. In 2007-08, the district consisted of 30 schools and employed 1,667 full-time staff, including 1,038 teachers. BCPS reported total per pupil expenditures of $8,254 (which represents a state rank of 83 out of 115 school districts).

1.1 SCOPE OF STUDY

To fulfill the requirements of the contract with Burke County for the performance and financial review, Evergreen Solutions:

• developed a detailed set of information about the status of each district fund source;

• developed a summary report of the status of district financial resources by fund source (federal, state, and local dollars);

• analyzed Burke County funding of Burke County Public Schools and the processes involved; and

• utilized findings to recommend strategies for improvements in the use of funds in Burke County Public Schools.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

Evergreen’s approach methodology for conducting this study included the following components:

• reviewing existing reports and data sources, including independent financial audits, annual budget and expenditure reports, budget guidelines and procedures, accounting procedures, salary schedules, organizational charts, staffing ratios, School Board policies, strategic plan, technology plan, and annual performance reports;

• conducting a diagnostic review and interviews with Board of Education members, County Commissioners, Burke County Manager and staff, BCPS Superintendent, and other BCPS administrators and staff;

• collecting additional reports and data from sources inside and outside the district;

• conducting the formal on-site view with a team of four consultants; and

• preparing draft and final reports.

Introduction Burke County Public Schools


Diagnostic Review

A diagnostic review of Burke County Public Schools was conducted in January 2010. Evergreen consultants interviewed central office administrators and Board members concerning the management and operations of Burke County Public Schools.

On-Site Review

A team of four consultants conducted the formal on-site review of Burke County Public Schools during the week of February 21, 2010. Prior to conducting the on-site review, each team member was provided with an extensive set of information about BCPS operations. During the on-site work, team members conducted a detailed review of the structure and operations in their assigned functional areas.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT

The final report for this study consists of the following five chapters:

• Chapter 2.0: Fiscal Resources in Burke County Public Schools • Chapter 3.0: Review of Financial Operations and Management • Chapter 4.0: Review of Non-Financial Management and Operations • Chapter 5.0: Fiscal Impact of Recommendations

Chapters 3 through 4 contain findings, commendations, and recommendations for specific operational areas, and provide the following sequence:

• a description of the operation in Burke County Public Schools; • a summary of our study findings; • a commendation or recommendation for each finding; and • estimated costs or cost savings over a five-year period which are stated in 2010 dollars.

Throughout the report, Evergreen has made relevant comparisons between Burke County Public Schools and a selected group of North Carolina peer school systems. This peer group included the school districts of:

• Buncombe County • Catawba County • Cleveland County • Henderson County • Iredell-Statesville County

Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2 provide a brief comparison of the peer school systems. Exhibit 1-1 displays the ratio of students per staff and students per school at BCPS and the peer school districts. As can be seen, BCPS has a ratio of 7.4 students per staff and a ratio of 464.7 students per school. In comparison to the peer districts, this figure is low. Peer districts average 7.9 students per one staff member and 586 students per school. While the student per staff ratio is only slightly higher among peer school districts, the students per school ratio at peer districts is 26.1 percent higher than at BCPS.

Introduction Burke County Public Schools


Exhibit 1-1 Overview of Peer School Systems

2008-09 School Year

School DistrictTotal Student Population***

Total Number of Schools* Total Staff**

Students Per Staff

Students Per School

Burke County 13,941 30 1,887 7.4 464.7

Buncombe County 25,724 40 3,177 8.1 643.1

Catawba County 17,560 28 2,027 8.7 627.1

Cleveland County 16,496 29 2,230 7.4 568.8

Henderson County 13,282 22 1,696 7.8 603.7

Iredell-Statesville 21,291 35 2,729 7.8 608.3

Six-District Average 18,049 31 2,291 7.9 586.0 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Web site, 2010. *Includes Combined Schools **Full-time positions only ***First Month: 2008-09 school year

Exhibit 1-2 displays the percentage of minority students, percentage of special education students, and the per pupil expenditure at each peer district. The number of minority students was greatest in Cleveland, Iredell-Statesville, and Catawba Counties, at 34 percent, 28.6 percent, and 26.4 percent respectively. BCPS was only one percentage point behind the district average of 27 percent. Additionally, the exhibit shows that 17.5 percent of BCPS students are served by special education programs. This is 4.2 percent higher than the average, and 4.6 percent higher than the next highest percentage (13.1 percent in Buncombe County).

Per pupil expenditures at BCPS are $8,254 whereas the average among peer counties is $8,185. The two counties with higher per pupil expenditures are Buncombe and Cleveland counties, with per pupil expenditures of $8,432 and $8,666, respectively. BCPS ranks 83 among the 115 school districts in regards to per pupil expenditures. Chapter 2, which follows, contains additional peer school district comparisons.

Exhibit 1-2 Overview of Peer School Systems

2008-09 School Year

School DistrictPercent Minority

Students

Percent Special Education Students*

Per Pupil Expenditure**

State Rank for Expenditures**

Burke County 26.0% 17.5% $8,254 83

Buncombe County 20.8% 13.1% $8,432 73

Catawba County 26.4% 12.6% $7,896 103

Cleveland County 34.0% 12.6% $8,666 67

Henderson County 26.0% 12.0% $8,034 97

Iredell-Statesville 28.6% 12.2% $7,830 106

Six-District Average 27.0% 13.3% $8,185 88 Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Web site, 2010. *Unduplicated count of children ages 3-21 as of December 1, 2008. **Based on 2007-08 school year


CHAPTER 2: FISCAL RESOURCES IN

BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS


2.0 FISCAL RESOURCES IN BURKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Chapter 2 describes the economic and financial environment of Burke County Public Schools (BCPS). The chapter is divided into the following three major sections:

2.1 Financial Data Review 2.1.1 Average Daily Membership, Per Pupil Expenditures, and Per Pupil Capital

Outlay 2.1.2 State, Federal, Local, and Total Per Pupil Expenditures

2.1.3 County Appropriations

2.2 School System Expenditures and Revenues 2.2.1 Total Federal, State, and Local Expenditures 2.2.2 Federal, State, and Local Expenditures by Category 2.2.3 General Fund (Local Funds) Revenues 2.3 School System Staffing 2.3.1 State-Funded Staff

2.3.2 Federal-Funded Staff 2.3.3 Local-Funded Staff 2.3.4 Salary and Benefits

An analysis of economic and financial information provides a basis for assessing operations and practices, and for developing future program and operational decisions. This chapter provides an analysis of resources provided to BCPS. The revenues and expenditures are organized by funding source (state, federal, and local) and function. The information contained in this chapter provides the foundation for discussing financial issues facing Burke County Public Schools.

Background data for Chapter 2 were compiled from the following sources:

• the State of North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) Web site containing published Statistical Profiles for 2007, 2008, and 2009;

• the State of North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Financial and Business Services; and

• the BCPS Financial Summary for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.

Each presentation looks at the data with slightly different objectives. All data used in this analysis are presented in exhibits identifying the source and any calculations performed. Chapter 2 reviews data that the State of North Carolina has collected and is the basis for comparisons to other school systems in the state. State reporting timelines, mid-year financial transfers, and differences in the grouping of financial data by Burke County Public Schools and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction produce certain instances where financial

Fiscal Resources in Burke County Public Schools Burke County Public Schools


data are not aligned. Additionally, numerical rounding can produce minor differences between and among financial reports.

2.1 FINANCIAL DATA REVIEW

The State of North Carolina has 115 school districts⎯Wake County being the largest with an average daily membership (ADM) of 133,215 in FY 2008 and total per pupil expenditures of $8,119, and Tyrrell County being the smallest with an ADM of 558 and total per pupil expenditures of $16,273. For the 2007-08 school year, BCPS was the 28th largest district with an ADM of 14,032. For 2007-08, BCPS ranked 83rd in per pupil expenditures (PPE) and 82nd in the per pupil capital outlay five-year average (PPCO).

The most recent North Carolina Statistical Profile contains confirmed 2007-08 data including per pupil expenditures and per pupil capital outlay. This profile was released shortly after we initiated this study. This state publication allowed comparisons to be made among school districts with the latest available data.

2.1.1 AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP, PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES, AND PER PUPIL CAPITAL OUTLAY

Exhibit 2-1 provides average daily membership, per pupil expenditures, and per pupil capital outlay for BCPS and five comparison school systems for the 2005-06 thru 2007-08 school years. As can be seen, Henderson County is the smallest of the six districts, while Buncombe County and Iredell-Statesville are the largest in comparison to the other school districts, ranking 11th and 17th respectfully. As the exhibit shows, the variance in per pupil expenditures among the school districts is relatively small, with the greatest difference existing between Iredell-Statesville and Cleveland County, with PPE’s of $7,830 and $8,666, respectively.

As can be seen, the BCPS PPE ranking declined from 2005-06 to 2007-08; BCPS had a PPE rank of 104 in 2005-06, 96 in 2006-07, and 83 in 2007-08. BCPS also moved down in PPCO ranking from being 61 in 2005-06 to 82 in 2007-08. Additionally, BCPS per pupil expenditures increased from $6,976 in 2005-06 to $8,254 in 2007-08, with a slight decrease in ADM of approximately 1.6 percent over the same period.

Analyzing alignment with statewide averages provides an overview of how BCPS compares to all school districts within the state. BCPS has improved its alignment with the average statewide PPE over the three-year period, decreasing from an 8.2 percent deviation from the average statewide PPE in 2005-06 to a 3.1 percent deviation in 2007-08. Inversely, BCPS’s deviation from the statewide PPCO five-year average increased over the same three-year period.

Exhibit 2-2 compares the change in ADM in Burke County Public Schools and the peer school districts over a three-year period. As can be seen, three of the districts—Iredell-Statesville, Catawba, and Henderson—experienced a growth rate greater than two percent (5.1 percent, 2.8 percent, and 2.5 percent, respectively). In contrast, the Buncombe County student enrollment grew by 0.5 percent while both Burke and Cleveland County student enrollments declined by 1.6 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively.



Exhibit 2-1 Final Average Daily Membership, Per Pupil Expenditures, and

Per Pupil Capital Outlay 2005-06 through 2007-08 School Years

Number Rank Number Rank Number Rank

Burke County 14,032 28 $8,254 83 $290 82Buncombe County 25,367 11 $8,432 73 $652 43Catawba County 17,475 24 $7,896 103 $821 33Cleveland County 16,580 25 $8,666 67 $322 78Henderson County 12,887 30 $8,034 97 $207 102Iredell-Statesville 21,236 17 $7,830 106 $570 47Six-District Average 17,930 $8,185 $477Statewide Average $8,522 $849



School District

2005-06

2007-08

2006-07

Average Daily Membership Total Per Pupil ExpendituresPer Pupil Capital Outlay

Five-Year Avg

Source: Data obtained from Table 29 of NC Statistical Profiles 2007, 2008 and Table 28 for 2009.

Exhibit 2-2

Average Daily Membership Change 2005-206 through 2007-08 School Years

School DistrictADM Change from 2005-06 to 2006-07

Percent Change

ADM Change from 2006-07 to 2007-08

Percent Change

ADM Change from 2005-06 to 2007-08

Percent Change

Burke County -208 -1.5% -23 -0.2% -231 -1.6%Buncombe County 182 0.7% -51 -0.2% 131 0.5%Catawba County 328 1.9% 143 0.8% 471 2.8%Cleveland County -118 -0.7% -180 -1.1% -298 -1.8%Henderson County 214 1.7% 95 0.7% 309 2.5%Iredell-Statesville 591 2.8% 444 2.1% 1,035 5.1%

Average 165 0.8% 71 0.4% 236 1.2%Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2010.



2.1.2 STATE, FEDERAL, LOCAL, AND TOTAL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES

Exhibit 2-3 displays per pupil expenditures (PPE) by state, federal, and local funding sources for BCPS and the comparison school districts. As can be seen, from 2005-06 to 2007-08, the BCPS total PPE increased by $1,277.50, which was more than the statewide average change of $925.51. From 2006-07 to 2007-08, Burke County’s total PPE increased by $655.03, which was more than the statewide average change of $504.24. This shift over the three-year period moved Burke County Public Schools from 104 to 83 in state PPE ranking.

Further analysis was conducted by comparing BCPS to peer districts. As can be seen, state and federal expenditures in BCPS were greater than the peer district average during 2007-08. However, during the same year, local expenditures in BCPS were lower than the peer average of $1,877.91 by $274.41, or 14.6 percent. Historically, the state and federal PPE for BCPS have been higher than both the statewide average and the peer district average whereas the local PPE has been lower than both the statewide and peer district average figures.

Exhibit 2-3 State, Federal, Local and Total Per Pupil Expenditures (PPE)

2005-06 through 2007-08 School Years

PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank PPE Rank

Burke County $5,689.78 72 $960.54 53 $1,603.50 72 $8,253.82 83Buncombe County $5,526.20 89 $728.61 91 $2,176.71 28 $8,431.52 73Catawba County $5,468.53 93 $570.01 103 $1,857.45 46 $7,895.99 103Cleveland County $5,897.67 60 $897.10 59 $1,871.71 45 $8,666.48 67Henderson County $5,451.14 96 $781.13 84 $1,801.30 50 $8,033.57 97Iredell-Statesville $5,274.85 106 $598.21 102 $1,956.81 40 $7,829.87 106Six-District Average $5,551.36 $755.93 $1,877.91 $8,185.21Statewide Average $5,616.02 $830.49 $2,075.15 $8,521.66



School District

2005-06

State Federal Local Total

2007-08

2006-07

Source: Data obtained from Table 24 of NC Statistical Profiles 2007, 2008, and 2009.



Exhibit 2-4 presents the change in PPE by funding source for each school system. As the exhibit shows, local PPE in BCPS increased by $89.66 from 2005-06 to 2006-07, which represented a 7.8 percent increase. From 2006-07 to 2007-08, local PPE in BCPS increased by $357.00, or 28.6 percent. The local PPE increased for BCPS by a net percentage of approximately 38.6 percent over the three-year period, while the statewide net percentage increased by 12.2 percent. Over the same three-year period, the state PPE for BCPS increased by a net 14 percent compared to the statewide average PPE increase of approximately 14.5 percent. Federal PPE for BCPS changed by 15.8 percent, whereas the statewide average increased by a net of 1.4 percent.

Exhibit 2-4 Changes in Per Pupil Expenditures (PPE) 2005-206 through 2007-08 School Years

PPEPercent Change PPE

Percent Change PPE

Percent Change PPE

Percent Change

Burke County $244.67 4.5% $53.36 5.9% $357.00 28.6% $655.03 8.6%Buncombe County $345.27 6.7% $15.69 2.2% $211.11 10.7% $572.07 7.3%Catawba County $335.95 6.5% ($31.80) -5.3% $175.37 10.4% $479.52 6.5%Cleveland County $389.09 7.1% ($14.82) -1.6% $180.02 10.6% $554.29 6.8%Henderson County $286.71 5.6% ($32.73) -4.0% $97.25 5.7% $351.23 4.6%Iredell-Statesville $388.41 7.9% ($48.88) -7.6% $316.64 19.3% $656.17 9.1%Six-District Average $331.68 6.4% ($9.86) -1.7% $222.90 14.2% $544.72 7.2%Statewide Average $342.14 6.5% $21.00 2.6% $141.10 7.3% $504.24 6.3%

Burke County $455.09 9.1% $77.72 9.4% $89.66 7.8% $622.47 8.9%Buncombe County $378.44 7.9% ($31.30) -4.2% $39.46 2.0% $386.60 5.2%Catawba County $313.84 6.5% ($24.58) -3.9% $99.34 6.3% $388.60 5.5%Cleveland County $334.46 6.5% $65.53 7.7% $13.81 0.8% $413.80 5.4%Henderson County $241.20 4.9% ($19.09) -2.3% $19.34 1.1% $241.45 3.2%Iredell-Statesville $264.84 5.7% $10.90 1.7% $85.39 5.5% $361.13 5.3%Six-District Average $331.31 6.8% $13.20 1.4% $57.83 3.9% $402.34 5.6%Statewide Average $370.28 7.6% ($9.92) -1.2% $60.91 3.3% $421.27 5.5%

Change from 2005-06 to 2006-07

School District


Change from 2006-07 to 2007-08

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2010.

When comparing BCPS to the six-district average, BCPS realized a greater increase in total PPE than the other school districts. From 2005-06 to 2006-07, the PPE in BCPS increased by 8.9 percent, compared to the 5.6 percent average for peer districts. BCPS also saw a larger increase in PPE than its peers from 2006-07 to 2007-08, with an increase of 8.6 percent compared to the district average of 7.2 percent. The exception was Iredell-Statesville with a PPE increase of 9.1 percent.

2.1.3 COUNTY APPROPRIATIONS

Local revenue is directly related to county appropriations. Per Pupil Appropriation (PPA) measures how much a county contributes per pupil to operate its school district. Per pupil appropriations for the past three years in BCPS and the peers are shown in Exhibit 2-5. As can



be seen, statewide, BCPS has moved from ranking 86 in PPA to 88, with a 2.8 percent increase in 2006-07 and a 2.7 percent increase in 2007-08. BCPS had a lower percentage increase among the six peer districts and was four (4) percentage points lower than the state average for 2007-08. In contrast, 2005-06 reflected that the percentage increase in BCPS was the second most among the peers and larger than the statewide average increase of four (4) percent.

The average PPA in BCPS for the three-year period is $943; this is $336 (26.3 percent) less than the peer district (without BCPS) average of $1,278 and $628 (40 percent) less than the statewide average of $1,571. The peer district average appropriation for the three-year period is $25.4 million, whereas the BCPS average is just $13.3 million during the same three-year period. The $13.3 million is calculated by averaging the total appropriation to BCPS for the three-year period. The $25.4 million dollar is calculated by averaging the peer district appropriation amounts (see the “Amount” column in Exhibit 2-5) for all three years.

Exhibit 2-5 County Appropriations and Supplemental Taxes for Education


Burke County $13,580,000 $968 88 $25 2.7%Buncombe County $43,829,784 $1,728 24 $105 6.5%Catawba County $24,010,760 $1,374 52 $147 12.0%Cleveland County $19,026,043 $1,148 71 $20 1.8%Henderson County $18,521,651 $1,437 43 $74 5.4%Iredell-Statesville $29,932,382 $1,410 48 $98 7.5%Six-District Average $24,816,770 $1,344 $78 6.0%Statewide Average $1,670 $105 6.7%



School District

2006-07

2005-06*

Per Pupil Appropriation Change

from Prior Year

Percent Increase from

Prior YearAmount PPA Rank2007-08

Source: Data obtained from Table 30 of NC Statistical Profiles 2007, 2008 and Table 29 for 2009. * change from prior year data calculated using data available, but not displayed from 2004-05.



2.2 SCHOOL SYSTEM EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES

Expenditure and revenue information allow benchmark data to be compiled and analyzed so that comparisons can be made between BCPS and the peer districts. The following subsections show expenditures for BCPS and the peer districts as well as present revenue sources in BCPS provided by the district. Unlike previous exhibits, the exhibits in this section do not provide comparisons to statewide averages because this information was not available for the data presented.

2.2.1 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES

There are three major revenue sources that comprise the BCPS budget. These include federal, state, and general (local) funds. BCPS realizes slightly more state and federal expenditures than the peer average of 67.9 percent and 9.2 percent, respectively.

Exhibit 2-6 illustrates the total expenditures by source in BCPS and the peer school districts. As shown, local expenditures in BCPS are lower than all peer school districts at 19.4 percent of total expenditures, which is 3.6 percent lower than the peer school average of 23 percent.

Exhibit 2-6 Comparison of Expenditure Sources in Peer School Districts


Federal State Local Total

Burke County 11.7% 68.9% 19.4% 100.0%Buncombe County 8.7% 65.5% 25.8% 100.0%Catawba County 7.2% 69.3% 23.5% 100.0%Cleveland County 10.3% 68.1% 21.6% 100.0%Henderson County 9.7% 67.9% 22.4% 100.0%Iredell-Statesville 7.6% 67.4% 25.0% 100.0%Six-District Average 9.2% 67.9% 23.0% 100.0%



2007-08

2006-07

2005-06

School District

Source: NC Statistical Profiles Part II, 2010.



2.2.2 FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY

Exhibit 2-7 displays expenditures by category as a percentage of total expenditures. This exhibit shows that, for 2007-08, BCPS expended approximately 67.9 percent of funds on salaries, which was only slightly higher than the peer average of 67.1 percent. Further information on salary and benefit expenditures is provided in Section 2.3. In order to describe the revenue for Burke County Public Schools in detail, Evergreen consultants separated expenditures into state, federal, and local funds in the following subsections.

Exhibit 2-7 Comparison of Total Expenditures by Category in Peer Districts


Salaries BenefitsPurchased Services

Supplies and Materials

Instructional Equipment

Other Objects

Burke County 67.9% 17.3% 6.8% 7.4% 0.6% NABuncombe County 68.3% 16.8% 5.6% 8.0% 1.3% NACatawba County 66.4% 16.1% 6.5% 9.6% 1.4% NACleveland County 66.5% 16.8% 7.0% 8.7% 1.0% NAHenderson County 67.1% 16.6% 6.4% 8.9% 1.0% NAIredell-Statesville 66.3% 16.6% 6.1% 10.8% 0.2% NASix-District Average 67.1% 16.7% 6.4% 8.9% 0.9%

Burke County 68.4% 16.7% 6.1% 7.7% 0.6% 0.5%Buncombe County 69.7% 16.3% 5.5% 7.1% 0.7% 0.7%Catawba County 67.5% 15.8% 6.3% 8.4% 1.6% 0.4%Cleveland County 66.7% 16.0% 6.4% 9.7% 0.7% 0.5%Henderson County 67.5% 16.1% 6.6% 8.4% 0.9% 0.5%Iredell-Statesville 68.2% 16.2% 5.9% 8.7% 0.4% 0.6%Six-District Average 68.0% 16.2% 6.1% 8.3% 0.8% 0.5%

Burke County 67.7% 16.6% 6.2% 8.2% 0.7% 0.6%Buncombe County 68.9% 16.4% 5.3% 8.0% 0.6% 0.8%Catawba County 66.5% 15.6% 6.7% 9.0% 1.7% 0.5%Cleveland County 65.9% 15.7% 7.0% 10.1% 1.0% 0.3%Henderson County 66.0% 15.7% 7.4% 9.4% 0.9% 0.6%Iredell-Statesville 67.4% 16.3% 5.8% 9.5% 0.4% 0.6%Six-District Average 67.1% 16.1% 6.4% 9.0% 0.9% 0.6%

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08School District

Source: NC Statistical Profiles Part II, 2010.

2.2.3 GENERAL FUND (LOCAL FUNDS) REVENUES

Local funding accounts for $16.3 million of the revenue in Burke County Public Schools in 2009-10. Exhibit 2-8 lists the local revenue sources as prepared in the 2009-10 Local Current Expense Budget on the BCPS Web site. This exhibit compares the last two fiscal years and shows changes in the fiscal resources contributing to total local revenue.

As shown, BCPS appropriations increased $164,127 or 1.2 percent from 2008-09 to 2009-10. Local revenues recorded by BCPS slightly decreased overall from 2008-09 to 2009-10 (0.3 percent). Other local revenues include fines and forfeitures, interest earnings, and e-rate reimbursements.



Exhibit 2-8 BCPS Local Revenue Sources

2008-09 and 2009-10 School Year

Dollar Amount Percentage

County Appropriation $13,870,000 $14,034,127 $164,127 1.2%Charter Schools $120,000 $120,000 $0 0.0%Contracted Services Nurses $200,000 $210,000 $10,000 5.0%Fines and Forfietures $700,000 $700,000 $0 0.0%Sales and Use Tax Refund $80,000 $100,000 $20,000 25.0%Medicaid Reimbursement $130,000 $140,000 $10,000 7.7%Federal Revenue - ROTC $125,000 $135,000 $10,000 8.0%Tuition $4,000 $5,000 $1,000 25.0%Rental of School Property $15,000 $30,000 $15,000 100.0%Interest Earned on Investments $85,000 $80,000 ($5,000) -5.9%Miscellaneous Revenue $6,000 $12,000 $6,000 100.0%Miscellaneous Revenue - Parking Security $30,000 $30,000 $0 0.0%E-rate Reimbursement $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 200.0%Workers' Compensation Reserve $130,000 $130,000 $0 0.0%Insurance Settlements - School Property $3,500 $3,500 $0 0.0%Indirect Cost Allocated $260,000 $280,000 $20,000 7.7%Indirect Cost - Child Nutrition Program $200,000 $240,000 $40,000 20.0%Fund Balance Appropriated $350,000 $0 ($350,000) -100.0%Total Revenue from Local Sources $16,313,500 $16,264,627 -$48,873 -0.3%

Revenue Source

Increase or (Decrease) from Previous Year

2008-09 Budget

2009-10 Budget

Source: Burke County Public Schools "2009-10 Local Current Expense Budget", December 2009.

2.3 SCHOOL SYSTEM STAFFING

Exhibit 2-9 presents selected data items on BCPS staffing, including full-time administrators and teachers, as well as the breakdown by funding source. In 2008-09, state funding provided 77 percent of total BCPS staff, local funding provided 15.2 percent, and federal funding provided 7.8 percent.

BCPS administrators comprise 3.4 percent of the full-time staff while teachers comprise 61.8 percent. As reported to the State of North Carolina, the number of administrative positions decreased by eight from 2006-07 to 2007-08, and increased by ten from 2007-08 to 2008-09; this equates to a net increase of two administrative positions. Local fund support for these positions decreased from ten positions in 2006-07 to eight positions in the following two years. Alternatively, the number of locally-funded teacher positions increased from 21 positions in 2006-07 to 66 positions in 2008-09. Since the state-collected data only include full-time positions, a district’s decision to use a significant number of part-time positions in any capacity could skew these totals.



Exhibit 2-9 Burke County Public Schools

Three-Year Staffing Summary 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years

ChangeFull-Time % Total Full-Time % Total Full-Time % Total

State 51 82.3% (5) 46 85.2% 10 56 87.5%

Federal 1 1.6% (1) 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%Local 10 16.1% (2) 8 14.8% 0 8 12.5%Total 62 100.0% (8) 54 100.0% 10 64 100.0%% Total Full-Time Employees 3.5% 3.2% 3.4%

Teachers Full-Time % Total Full-Time % Total Full-Time % TotalState 867 88.7% (29) 838 80.7% 165 1,003 86.0%Federal 90 9.2% 10 100 9.6% (3) 97 8.3%Local 21 2.1% 79 100 9.6% (34) 66 5.7%Total 978 100.0% 60 1,038 100.0% 128 1,166 100.0%% Total Full-Time Employees 54.9% 62.3% 61.8%

Full-Time % Total Full-Time % Total Full-Time % TotalState 1,350 75.8% (32) 1,318 79.1% 135 1,453 77.0%Federal 131 7.4% 3 134 8.0% 13 147 7.8%Local 301 16.9% (86) 215 12.9% 72 287 15.2%Total 1,782 100.0% (115) 1,667 100.0% 220 1,887 100.0%% Total Full-Time Employees 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2007-08

2007-08

Total TeachersTotal Teachers

2008-09 Administrators

Total Staff

2006-07

Administrators

2008-092007-08

Administrators

2008-09 Total Staff

Total Teachers

Administrators

2006-07Change

Staff

2006-07 Total Staff


2.3.1 STATE-FUNDED STAFFING

Burke County Public Schools receives approximately 77 percent of its staff funding from the State of North Carolina. State educational funds are allocated using formulas to determine the appropriate amount of funding in various categories. According to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (Source: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/allotments/general/2008-09policymanual.pdf), some of the formulas used to fund North Carolina school systems include:

• Central Office Administration - Provides funding for salaries and benefits for central office administration. County school systems with an average daily membership (ADM) range of 10,000 – 14,999 receive a base amount of $600,000, plus $90,000 for each additional 5,000 students. This category is used to pay for personnel including:

Superintendent Directors/Supervisors/Coordinators Associate and Assistant Superintendents Finance Officers Child Nutrition Supervisors/Managers Community Schools Coordinators/Directors Athletic Trainers Health Education Coordinators



Maintenance Supervisors Transportation Directors

• Classroom Teachers - Provides guaranteed funding for salaries for classroom teachers. To qualify as a classroom teacher and to be charged against this allotment, an individual must spend a major portion of the school day providing classroom instruction and must not be assigned to administrative duties in either the central or school offices. If a local education agency (LEA) decides to employ a math/science/computer teacher, this individual does not have to spend a portion of the school day providing classroom instruction.

Teachers are allotted by the state based on the number of students (based on allotted ADM) and rounded to the nearest one-half position on these ratios:

Grades Number of Students for

One Teacher Allotment

K-3 18 4-6 22 7-8 21 9 24.5 10-12 26.64

• Instructional Support Personnel (Certified) - Provides funding for salaries for certified instructional support personnel to implement locally designed initiatives which provide services to students who are at risk of school failure as well as the students' families. It is the intent of the General Assembly that the positions must be used first for counselors, then for social workers and other instructional support personnel who have a direct instructional relationship to students or teachers to help reduce violence in the public schools. These positions are allotted on the basis of one per 200.10 allotted ADM. The positions are then multiplied by the LEA's average salary plus benefits. These positions cannot be used as administrators, coordinators, supervisors, or directors.

• Non-Instructional Support Personnel - Provides funding for non-instructional support personnel and associated benefits. These funds may be used at the central office or at individual schools. Funds are allotted on the basis of dollars per allotted ADM. These funds may be used for:

Clerical Assistants Custodians Duty Free Period Liability Insurance Substitutes Textbook Commission - Clerical Assistant



• School Building Administration - Provides funding for salaries including benefits for principals and assistant principals with this allocation:

Principals: Each school with 100 or more pupils in final ADM and/or seven or more full-time state allotted/paid teachers and instructional support personnel (based on prior year sixth pay period) is entitled to 12 months of employment for a principal.

Assistant Principals: One month of employment per 80 allotted ADM, rounded to the nearest whole month. The total months are then multiplied by the LEA's average monthly salary (based on prior year 6th pay period plus LI) plus benefits.

• Teacher Assistants - Provides funding for salaries and benefits for regular and self-contained teacher assistants. Funds are allotted based on allotted ADM in grades K-3. Benefits are included.

• Other formulas used to determine school system funding include:

ABC Incentive Awards Academically or Intellectually Gifted At-Risk Student Services/Alternative Schools Children With Disabilities Small County Supplemental Funding

The State of North Carolina maintains a statewide salary schedule for instructional certified staff; most revenue received from the State is used for compensation. The state allotment formulas generate a base allotment for many positions within a school system.

Exhibit 2-10 provides a comparison of state-provided, full-time employees in BCPS and the comparison districts. As Exhibit 2-10 shows, BCPS student per full-time employee ratio in 2006-07 is 10.4 (14,055 ADM divided by 1,350 full-time employees). In comparison to each of the peer districts, this figure is approximately in the middle. The different staffing ratios for each district are the result of the unique characteristics of that district’s student population being applied to the state allocation formula.

In 2007-08, the comparison district average ADM was 18,709 with 1,824 full-time employees. This results in a student to full-time employee ratio of 10.3, which is somewhat below that of BCPS. In order for BCPS to achieve a ratio exactly on the average of its peers, the district would either have to gain staff or lose students. If BCPS hired approximately 50 new full-time staff members, this would yield a new student to full-time employee ratio of 10.3 [(14,032 students) / (1,318 + 50 staff)]. Alternatively, if the district lost 457 students, the resulting ratio would again be equal to the average of the peers [(14,032 – 457 students) / (1,318 staff)].



Exhibit 2-10 Comparison District Analysis State-Supported Employees

2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 School Years

Average Daily Membership

State Provided

EmployeesAverage Daily Membership

State Provided


State Provided

EmployeesBurke County 14,055 1,350 14,032 1,318 NA 1,453 Students per Employee 10.4 10.6Buncombe County 25,418 2,373 25,367 2,400 NA 2,356 Students per Employee 10.7 10.6Catawba County 17,332 1,572 17,475 1,628 NA 1,610 Students per Employee 11.0 10.7Cleveland County 16,760 1,697 16,580 1,665 NA 1,680 Students per Employee 9.9 10.0Henderson County 12,792 1,211 12,887 1,253 NA 1,213 Students per Employee 10.6 10.3Iredell-Statesville 20,792 2,091 21,236 2,174 NA 2,080 Students per Employee 9.9 9.8Comparison District Average 18,619 1,789 18,709 1,824 0 1,490 Students per Employee 10.4 10.3 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 0.3 50.0 NA N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 14,055.0 1,350.3 14,032.0 1,368.0 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership

4,564.0 439.0 4,677.0 456.0 N/A N/AComparison District Average 18,619 1,789 18,709 1,824 0.0 1,490

2008-092006-07 2007-08

School District


Exhibits 2-11 and 2-12 provide a similar analysis for administrators and teachers allocated by the state formula. Exhibit 2-11 shows that, in 2006-07, BCPS had one full-time administrator for every 276 students. In comparison, the average in the peers was one full-time administrator per 291 students. Exhibit 2-12 shows that, in 2006-07, BCPS had one full-time teacher for every 16.2 students. The average of the comparison districts is one full-time teacher per 16.7 students.



Exhibit 2-11 Comparison District Analysis

State-Supported Administrators 2006, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years


State Provided Admin





Burke County 14,055 51 14,032 46 NA 56 Students per Employee 275.6 305.0Buncombe County 25,418 91 25,367 81 NA 82 Students per Employee 279.3 313.2Catawba County 17,332 61 17,475 62 NA 60 Students per Employee 284.1 281.9Cleveland County 16,760 60 16,580 63 NA 62 Students per Employee 279.3 263.2Henderson County 12,792 39 12,887 20 NA 47 Students per Employee 328.0 644.4Iredell-Statesville 20,792 69 21,236 75 NA 73 Students per Employee 301.3 283.1Comparison District Average 18,619 64 18,709 60 0.0 65 Students per Employee 290.9 310.8 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

-2.7 -0.8 N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

14,055.0 48.3 14,032.0 45.2 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 15.7 4,677.0 15.0 NA N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 64.0 18,709.0 60.2 0.0 64.8

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District





State Supported Teachers 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years

Average Daily

Membership

State Provided Teachers





Burke County 14,055 867 14,032 838 NA 1,003 Students per Employee 16.2 16.7Buncombe County 25,418 1,522 25,367 1,463 NA 1,477 Students per Employee 16.7 17.3Catawba County 17,332 958 17,475 969 NA 969 Students per Employee 18.1 18.0Cleveland County 16,760 1,088 16,580 1,067 NA 1,059 Students per Employee 15.4 15.5Henderson County 12,792 739 12,887 782 NA 776 Students per Employee 17.3 16.5Iredell-Statesville 20,792 1,267 21,236 1,405 NA 1,220 Students per Employee 16.4 15.1Comparison District Average 18,619 1,115 18,709 1,137 0 1,100 Students per Employee 16.7 16.5 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee -25.5 14.9 N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

14,055.0 841.5 14,032.0 852.9 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership

4,563.8 273.3 4,677.0 284.3 NA N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 1,114.8 18,709.0 1,137.2 0.0 1,100.2

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District


2.3.2 FEDERAL-FUNDED STAFFING

The most recent figures show that Burke County Public Schools receives 7.8 percent of its staffing funding from federal sources. Exhibits 2-13 through 2-15 compare federal staffing. Exhibit 2-13 reviews total district staffing provided through federal funds. In 2007-08, BCPS had one federally-funded, full-time employee position per 105 students. This ratio was lower than the comparison district average of one position per 119 students. In order to achieve the comparison average, BCPS would need to reduce its number of federal positions by 15.8 full-time employees.




Total Full-Time Employees Supported by Federal Funds 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years


Federal Provided

Employees

Average Daily

Membership

Federal Provided


Federal Provided

EmployeesBurke County 14,055 131 14,032 134 NA 147 Students per Employee 107.3 104.7Buncombe County 25,418 506 25,367 229 NA 220 Students per Employee 50.2 110.8Catawba County 17,332 127 17,475 82 NA 87 Students per Employee 136.5 213.1Cleveland County 16,760 206 16,580 203 NA 171 Students per Employee 81.4 81.7Henderson County 12,792 137 12,887 140 NA 128 Students per Employee 93.4 92.1Iredell-Statesville 20,792 153 21,236 134 NA 112 Students per Employee 135.9 158.5Comparison District Average 18,619 226 18,709 158 0 144 Students per Employee 82.5 118.7 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 39.5 (15.8) N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 14,055.0 170.5 14,032.0 118.2 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 55.3 4,677.0 39.4 N/A N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 225.8 18,709.0 157.6 0.0 143.6

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District


Federal funds are not as structured and controlled like the state funds. There is more flexibility as can be seen in the analysis of the administrative staff. Not all districts choose to charge administrators to federal programs.

Exhibit 2-14 reviews total administrative staffing provided through federal funds. In 2007-08, BCPS had no federally-funded administrative position for its 14,032 students.




Administrators Supported by Federal Funds 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 School Years

Average Daily

MembershipFederal Provided Administrators


Federal Provided

AdministratorsAverage Daily Membership

Federal Provided Administrators

Burke County 14,055 1 14,032 0 NA 0 Students per Employee 14,055.0 NABuncombe County 25,418 24 25,367 2 NA 2 Students per Employee 1,059.1 12,683.5Catawba County 17,332 2 17,475 1 NA 1 Students per Employee 8,666.0 17,475.0Cleveland County 16,760 1 16,580 1 NA 1 Students per Employee 16,760.0 16,580.0Henderson County 12,792 2 12,887 2 NA 2 Students per Employee 6,396.0 6,443.5Iredell-Statesville 20,792 3 21,236 4 NA 2 Students per Employee 6,930.7 5,309.0Comparison District Average 18,619 6 18,709 2 0 2 Students per Employee 2,909.2 9,354.5 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

3.8 1.5 N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 14,055.0 4.8 14,032.0 1.5 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 1.6 4,677.0 0.5 NA N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 6.4 18,709.0 2.0 0.0 1.6

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions with, February 2010.

Exhibit 2-15 reviews total teacher staffing provided through federal funds. In 2007-08, BCPS had one federally-funded teacher position per 140 students. This ratio was lower than the comparison district average of one teacher position per 327 students. In order to achieve the comparison average, BCPS would need to reduce its number of federal positions by 57 full-time employees.




Teachers Supported by Federal Funds 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years


Federal Provided Teachers

Average Daily

Membership




Burke County 14,055 90 14,032 100 NA 97 Students per Employee 156.2 140.3Buncombe County 25,418 102 25,367 65 NA 61 Students per Employee 249.2 390.3Catawba County 17,332 78 17,475 58 NA 66 Students per Employee 222.2 301.3Cleveland County 16,760 63 16,580 60 NA 56 Students per Employee 266.0 276.3Henderson County 12,792 55 12,887 44 NA 41 Students per Employee 232.6 292.9Iredell-Statesville 20,792 28 21,236 59 NA 31 Students per Employee 742.6 359.9Comparison District Average 18,619 65 18,709 57 0 51 Students per Employee 285.6 327.1 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee (40.8) (57.1) N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

14,055.0 49.2 14,032.0 42.9 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 16.0 4,677.0 14.3 N/A N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 65.2 18,709.0 57.2 0.0 51.0

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions with data from NC Statistical Profile Part II, 2010. 2.3.3 LOCAL-FUNDED STAFFING

Funding from local programs account for approximately 15 percent of BCPS staff funding. Exhibits 2-16 through 2-18 compare local staffing in a similar manner as state and federal staffing were reviewed. Exhibit 2-16 reviews total district staffing provided through local funds. In 2007-08, BCPS had one locally-funded full-time position per 65 students. This ratio was higher than the comparison district average of one local position per 43 students. In order to achieve the comparison average, BCPS would need to increase its number of locally-funded positions by 109 full-time employees.




Total Staff Provided by Local Funds 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 School Years


Local Provided


Local Provided


Local Provided

EmployeesBurke County 14,055 301 14,032 215 NA 287 Students per Employee 46.7 65.3Buncombe County 25,418 450 25,367 677 NA 601 Students per Employee 56.5 37.5Catawba County 17,332 361 17,475 356 NA 330 Students per Employee 48.0 49.1Cleveland County 16,760 399 16,580 425 NA 379 Students per Employee 42.0 39.0Henderson County 12,792 277 12,887 288 NA 355 Students per Employee 46.2 44.7Iredell-Statesville 20,792 252 21,236 412 NA 537 Students per Employee 82.5 51.5Comparison District Average 18,619 348 18,709 432 0 440 Students per Employee 53.5 43.3 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee (38.5) 108.7 N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

14055 262.5 14032 323.7 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 85.3 4,677.0 107.9 N/A N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 347.8 18,709.0 431.6 0.0 440.4

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions with data from NC Statistical Profile Part II, 2010.

Exhibit 2-17 reviews total administrative staffing provided through local funds. In 2007-08, BCPS had one locally-funded administrator position per 1,754 students. This ratio was higher than the comparison district average of one administrative position per 628 students. In order to achieve the comparison average, BCPS would need to increase its number of locally-funded administrative positions by 14.4 full-time employees.

Exhibit 2-18 reviews total teacher staffing provided through local funds. In 2007-08, BCPS had one locally-funded teacher position per 140 students. This ratio was lower than the comparison district average of one teacher position per 273 students. In order to achieve the comparison average, BCPS would need to decrease its number of local positions by 49 full-time employees.




Administrators Supported by Local Funds 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years

Average Daily

Membership

Local Provided Admin



Average Daily

Membership


Burke County 14,055 10 14,032 8 NA 8 Students per Employee 1,405.5 1,754.0Buncombe County 25,418 1 25,367 25 NA 32 Students per Employee 25,418.0 1,014.7Catawba County 17,332 16 17,475 20 NA 22 Students per Employee 1,083.3 873.8Cleveland County 16,760 38 16,580 39 NA 42 Students per Employee 441.1 425.1Henderson County 12,792 17 12,887 48 NA 13 Students per Employee 752.5 268.5Iredell-Statesville 20,792 19 21,236 17 NA 15 Students per Employee 1,094.3 1,249.2Comparison District Average 18,619 18 18,709 30 0 25 Students per Employee 1023.0 627.8 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 3.7 14.4 N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

14,055.0 13.7 14,032.0 22.4 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 4.5 4,677.0 7.4 N/A N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 18.2 18,709.0 29.8 0.0 24.8

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions with data from NC Statistical Profile Part II, 2010.




Teachers Supported by Local Funds 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years


Local Provided Teachers





Burke County 14,055 21 14,032 100 NA 66 Students per Employee 669.3 140.3Buncombe County 25,418 73 25,367 91 NA 91 Students per Employee 348.2 278.8Catawba County 17,332 63 17,475 61 NA 63 Students per Employee 275.1 286.5Cleveland County 16,760 46 16,580 57 NA 52 Students per Employee 364.3 290.9Henderson County 12,792 67 12,887 62 NA 79 Students per Employee 190.9 207.9Iredell-Statesville 20,792 54 21,236 72 NA 162 Students per Employee 385.0 294.9Comparison District Average 18,619 61 18,709 69 0 89 Students per Employee 307.2 272.7 0.0

Full-Time Employee Change Required for Burke County Staffing to Equal Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee 24.7 (48.5) N/A N/ABurke County Staffing at Comparison District Average Student per Full-Time Employee

14,055.0 45.7 14,032.0 51.5 N/A N/ADifference from Comparison District Average Daily Membership 4,563.8 14.9 4,677.0 17.1 NA N/AComparison District Average 18,618.8 60.6 18,709.0 68.6 0.0 89.4

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

School District

Source Created by Evergreen Solutions with data from NC Statistical Profile Part II, 2010.

Exhibits 2-19 through 2-24 contain detailed staffing comparison for BCPS and the five comparison districts. These data should be viewed with care as most data are self-reported by the school districts and can be inaccurate due primarily to possible misunderstandings of appropriate codes or simple human error. Since the state-collected data only include full-time positions, a district’s decision to use a significant number of part-time positions in any capacity could skew these totals as well.



Page 2-22


Three-Year Staffing Comparisons 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years

State Federal Local Total State Federal Local Total State Federal Local TotalOfficials, Administrators & Managers 9 6 15 9 4 13 12 1 4 17

Principals 26 26 24 1 25 24 1 25

Asst. Principal, Teaching

Asst. Principal, Non-teaching 21 2 23 13 3 16 15 5 20

Subtotal Administrators 56 8 64 46 0 8 54 51 1 10 62

Elementary Teachers 399 43 20 462 328 57 57 442 333 48 12 393

Secondary Teachers 217 6 12 235 140 8 8 156 155 5 2 162

Other Teachers 387 48 34 469 370 35 35 440 379 37 7 423

Subtotal Teachers 1,003 97 66 1,166 838 100 100 1,038 867 90 21 978

Guidance 48 1 49 43 43 44 2 46

Psychological 4 4 1 9 5 4 9 5 5 10

Librarian, Audiovisual 28 28 22 1 23 24 1 25

Consultant, supervisor 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

Other Professionals 19 3 20 42 16 4 4 24 11 5 14 30

Total Professionals 1,159 104 96 1,359 971 109 113 1,193 1,003 102 48 1,153

Teacher Assistants 175 40 24 239 198 22 19 239 195 26 22 243

Technicians 2 3 5 3 1 10 14 3 1 10 14

Clerical, Secretarial 78 2 10 90 58 2 26 86 62 2 27 91

Service Workers 38 1 99 138 86 86 85 146 231

Skilled Crafts 1 46 47 2 39 41 2 40 42

Laborers, Unskilled 9 9 8 8 8 8

Total 1,453 147 287 1,887 1,318 134 215 1,667 1,350 131 301 1,782

2008-09 Public School Personnel 2007-08 Public School Personnel 2006-07 Public School PersonnelCategory

Source: NC Statistical Profile, 2010.



Exhibit 2-20 Buncombe County Public Schools Three-Year Staffing Comparisons

2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years

State Federal Local Total State Federal Local Total State Federal Local TotalOfficials, Administrators & Managers 11 2 7 20 11 2 4 17 16 6 1 23

Principals 41 41 41 41 41 41

Asst. Principal, Teaching 34 18 52

Asst. Principal, Non-teaching 30 25 55 29 21 50

Subtotal Administrators 82 2 32 116 81 2 25 108 91 24 1 116

Elementary Teachers 726 25 35 786 730 25 35 790 851 50 901

Secondary Teachers 244 2 29 275 231 2 34 267 314 25 339

Other Teachers 507 34 27 568 502 38 22 562 357 27 73 457

Subtotal Teachers 1,477 61 91 1,629 1,463 65 91 1,619 1,522 102 73 1,697

Guidance 71 71 67 67 64 4 68

Psychological 13 1 14 12 1 13 13 1 14

Librarian, Audiovisual 44 44 43 43 44 44

Consultant, supervisor 8 2 10 20 4 3 7 14 16 4 20

Other Professionals 68 8 28 104 61 4 26 91 45 5 50

Total Professionals 1,763 74 161 1,998 1,731 75 149 1,955 1,779 151 79 2,009


Technicians 26 26 28 28 29 29


Service Workers 256 80 336 338 1 188 527 197 171 368

Skilled Crafts 7 70 77 4 72 76 74 74

Laborers, Unskilled 27 1 28

Total 2,356 220 601 3,177 2,400 229 677 3,306 2,373 506 450 3,329





Exhibit 2-21 Catawba County Public Schools



Principals 28 28 28 28 27 27






Other Teachers 7 5 3 15 7 3 3 13 3 4 4 11

Subtotal Teachers 969 66 63 1,098 969 58 61 1,088 958 78 63 1,099

Guidance 47 47 48 48 44 44

Psychological 5 5 6 6 3 1 4

Librarian, Audiovisual 28 28 26 26 27 27

Consultant, supervisor 19 2 1 22 4 5 9 4 5 9




Technicians 24 24 20 20 20 20

Clerical, Secretarial 65 33 98 63 33 96 64 29 93

Service Workers 66 58 124 70 110 180 66 1 118 185

Skilled Crafts 14 42 56 15 41 56 13 40 53

Laborers, Unskilled

Total 1,610 87 330 2,027 1,628 82 356 2,066 1,572 127 361 2,060





Exhibit 2-22 Cleveland County Public Schools Three-Year Staffing Comparisons

2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years


Principals 29 29 28 28 28 28






Other Teachers 217 26 33 276 115 24 29 168 106 14 22 142


Guidance 42 1 43 41 1 42 42 2 44

Psychological 3 4 7 2 6 1 9 4 6 10

Librarian, Audiovisual 26 26 16 10 26 19 9 28

Consultant, supervisor 1 1 3 5 2 4 2 8 2 4 6




Technicians 2 8 10 1 11 12 2 1 19 22


Service Workers 104 66 170 84 1 82 167 85 1 74 160

Skilled Crafts 12 41 53 12 40 52 12 43 55

Laborers, Unskilled

Total 1,680 171 379 2,230 1,665 203 425 2,293 1,697 206 399 2,302





Exhibit 2-23 Henderson County Public Schools Three-Year Staffing Comparisons

2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 School Years


Principals 22 22 7 14 21 19 2 21





Secondary Teachers 187 11 198 215 15 230 218 1 9 228

Other Teachers 232 16 22 270 159 10 19 188 143 23 17 183

Subtotal Teachers 776 41 79 896 782 44 62 888 739 55 67 861

Guidance 32 2 34 33 1 34 32 2 34

Psychological 5 3 1 9 5 3 8 7 2 1 10

Librarian, Audiovisual 19 2 21 20 20 20 20

Consultant, supervisor 14 5 19 10 5 1 16 7 8 15

Other Professionals 21 4 4 29 10 5 2 17 11 2 13

Total Professionals 914 55 101 1,070 880 59 114 1,053 855 67 89 1,011


Technicians 8 8 4 4 1 7 8


Service Workers 24 180 204 95 122 217 92 101 193

Skilled Crafts 8 30 38 7 29 36 9 27 36

Laborers, Unskilled

Total 1,213 128 355 1,696 1,253 140 288 1,681 1,211 137 277 1,625





Exhibit 2-24 Iredell-Statesville County Public Schools



Principals 34 34 34 1 35 33 1 34

Asst. Principal, Teaching 1 1 2 2 2 2




Secondary Teachers 172 80 252 230 15 245 187 9 196

Other Teachers 432 6 22 460 453 29 10 492 423 21 19 463


Guidance 50 1 3 54 52 2 54 48 2 50

Psychological 8 8 7 7

Librarian, Audiovisual 30 4 34 31 4 35 35 1 36

Consultant, supervisor 1 1 1 1 1 1




Technicians 1 9 10 1 10 11 1 1 7 9


Service Workers 310 195 505 287 155 442 311 77 40 428

Skilled Crafts 42 42 43 43 1 43 44

Laborers, Unskilled

Total 2,080 112 537 2,729 2,174 134 412 2,720 2,091 153 252 2,496





Exhibit 2-25 provides a summary comparison of student enrollment and the central office and school administration in the six comparison school systems. This exhibit combines the information in previous sections on federal, state, and locally-funded positions to provide a synopsis for comparison. As can be seen, the students per administrator ratio in BCPS is higher than four of the five peer districts, with the exception of Iredell-Statesville.

Exhibit 2-25 Comparison of Student Enrollment and Administrative Staff

2008-09 School Year

School DistrictStudent

Enrollment*

Total Administration, Central Office, Principals, Assistant

PrincipalsTotal Students Per

AdministratorPrincipal/Assistant

PrincipalBurke County 14,032 64 219.3 26/23Buncombe County 25,367 116 218.7 41/55Catawba County 17,475 83 210.5 28/32Cleveland County 16,580 105 157.9 29/43Henderson County 12,887 62 207.9 22/15Iredell-Statesville 21,236 90 236.0 34/28Six-District Average 17,930 87 208.4 30/33

Source: NC Statistical Profile, 2010. *Based on ADM from 2007-08 Exhibit 2-26 provides a summary of student enrollment and teaching staff in the six comparison school systems. This exhibit combines the information in previous sections on federal, state, and locally-funded positions to provide a synopsis for comparison. As can be seen, BCPS has a lower student to teacher ratio than all other peer districts, with 12 students per teacher. This ratio is 3.9 students less than the highest ratio of 15.9 students per teacher in Catawba County.

Exhibit 2-26 Comparison of Student Enrollment and Teaching Staff

2008-09 School Year

School DistrictStudent

Enrollment*

Total Elementary, Secondary, and Other

TeachersTotal S tudents Per

TeacherElementary/Secondary

TeachersBurke County 14,032 1,166 12.0 462/235Buncombe County 25,367 1,629 15.6 786/275Catawba County 17,475 1,098 15.9 741/342Cleveland County 16,580 1,167 14.2 608/283Henderson County 12,887 896 14.4 428/198Iredell-Statesville 21,236 1,413 15.0 701/252Six-District Average 17,930 1,228 14.5 621/264 Source: NC Statistical Profile, 2010. *Based on ADM from 2007-08



2.3.4 SALARY AND BENEFITS

Exhibit 2-27 contains a detailed per pupil salary expenditure comparison for BCPS and the five comparison districts. These figures align with the information presented throughout the chapter in which, on average, BCPS spends more state and federal dollars on staffing than its peers, but less local dollars. For the last two years, BCPS has spent more per pupil than the peer district average on salaries.

Exhibit 2-27 Comparison of Per Pupil Salary Expenditures



Burke County $4,282.82 $548.98 $773.82 $5,605.62

Buncombe County $4,113.50 $459.80 $1,187.32 $5,760.62

Catawba County $4,037.42 $271.11 $931.67 $5,240.20

Cleveland County $4,359.34 $494.17 $910.46 $5,763.97

Henderson County $4,086.31 $459.14 $847.99 $5,393.44

Iredell-Statesville $3,756.23 $313.97 $1,118.69 $5,188.89

Six-District Average $4,105.94 $424.53 $961.66 $5,492.12

Burke County $4,119.09 $519.37 $559.03 $5,197.49

Buncombe County $3,956.60 $391.46 $1,128.45 $5,476.51

Catawba County $3,834.81 $309.16 $859.40 $5,003.37



Iredell-Statesville $3,710.31 $334.65 $845.91 $4,890.87


Burke County $3,755.76 $466.26 $501.20 $4,723.22

Buncombe County $3,668.76 $416.50 $1,066.25 $5,151.51

Catawba County $3,577.36 $304.44 $793.82 $4,675.62



Iredell-Statesville $3,480.42 $318.92 $791.40 $4,590.74


School District

Per Pupil Salary Expenditures by Source

2007-08

2006-07

2005-06




Exhibit 2-28 displays per pupil expenditures for benefits. Per pupil expenditure trends for benefits follow the same general trends as per pupil salary expenditures.

Exhibit 2-28

Comparison of Per Pupil Benefit Expenditures 2005-06 through 2007-08 School Years

Federal State Local Total

Burke County $148.99 $1,069.64 $208.80 $1,427.43

Buncombe County $171.62 $1,001.99 $241.88 $1,415.49

Catawba County $75.79 $976.07 $231.70 $1,283.56

Cleveland County $145.46 $1,074.74 $233.42 $1,453.62

Henderson County $122.15 $979.11 $223.62 $1,324.88

Iredell-Statesville $92.05 $927.13 $285.93 $1,305.11

Six-District Average $126.01 $1,004.78 $237.56 $1,368.35

Burke County $140.24 $968.37 $157.80 $1,266.41

Buncombe County $107.92 $913.68 $264.21 $1,285.81

Catawba County $82.02 $887.29 $203.42 $1,172.73

Cleveland County $136.61 $979.95 $186.13 $1,302.69



Six-District Average $114.41 $921.85 $202.65 $1,238.90

Burke County $130.49 $879.98 $150.84 $1,161.31

Buncombe County $114.44 $855.74 $246.54 $1,216.72

Catawba County $76.33 $828.64 $189.58 $1,094.55

Cleveland County $125.28 $893.98 $192.72 $1,211.98



Six-District Average $108.93 $857.68 $192.96 $1,159.56

School District 2007-08

2006-07

2005-06



CHAPTER 3: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT


3.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Sound school district financial management involves the effective use of limited resources to support services. School districts must maximize their resources available from all sources and must account for use of these resources accurately to local taxpayers, and state and federal governments. The planning and budgeting process must support district goals. An effective purchasing program provides districts with quality materials, supplies, services and equipment in a timely manner at the lowest price. Proper accounting must reduce the risk of lost assets and ensure their appropriate use. The district must provide the School Board and administrators with timely, accurate and useful reports concerning its financial condition.

Financial managers collect, analyze, and provide financial information for decision makers. Successful financial operations require qualified personnel with an adequate separation of duties, as well as an accounting system that provides timely, useful, and accurate information to support operating decisions. Comprehensive policies and procedures that ensure proper management of financial resources are important.

This chapter reviews the financial management, purchasing, asset and risk functions of Burke County Public Schools (BCPS). The review is organized around the five sections listed below:

3.1 Organization and Financial Management 3.2 Budgeting 3.3 Purchasing 3.4 Risk and Asset Management

3.5 School and Day Care Funds

BCPS selected five other districts as their peer districts for comparison purposes for this performance and financial review. These comparison school districts are Buncombe, Catawba, Cleveland, Henderson, and Iredell-Statesville. Exhibit 3-1 presents a comparison of total expenditures by source of funding for Burke County and the peer districts. As shown in the exhibit, Burke County funds 68.9 percent of expenditures from state sources⎯the second highest among peers and higher than the peer average. Burke County funds only 19.4 percent from local funding which is the lowest among the peer districts, and 3.6 percentage points lower than the peer average.

Exhibit 3-1 Total Expenditures by Source

2007-08 School Year

School District Total Expenditures by Source

State Federal Local Total Burke County 68.9% 11.7% 19.4% 100.0% Buncombe County 65.5% 8.7% 25.8% 100.0% Catawba County 69.3% 7.2% 23.5% 100.0% Cleveland County 68.1% 10.3% 21.6% 100.0% Henderson County 67.9% 9.7% 22.4% 100.0% Iredell-Statesville 67.4% 7.6% 25.0% 100.0% Peer Average 67.9% 9.2% 23.0% 100.0%

Source: North Carolina Statistical Profiles, 2007-08.

Financial Management Burke County Public Schools


Exhibit 3-2 compares the average daily membership, total per pupil expenditures, and rank per pupil expenditures for Burke County and peer school districts. Burke County has the second lowest average daily membership among peer districts and ranks 83rd statewide in per pupil expenditures. Three peer districts have lower total per pupil expenditures and two have a higher total per pupil expenditure. As can be seen, Burke County’s total per pupil expenditures are $268 less than the statewide average.

Exhibit 3-2 Per Pupil Expenditures

2007-08 School Year

School District

Average Daily

Membership Total Per Pupil

Expenditure

Rank per Pupil

Expenditures Burke County 14,032 $8,254 83 Buncombe County 25,367 $8,432 73 Catawba County 17,475 $7,896 103 Cleveland County 16,580 $8,666 67 Henderson County 12,887 $8,034 97 Iredell-Statesville 21,236 $7,830 106 Statewide Average $8,522

Source: North Carolina Statistical Profiles, 2007-08. Compared to peer districts, Burke County’s percentage of total expenditures for salaries of 67.9 percent is second highest among peer districts as shown in Exhibit 3-3. Burke County’s percentage for benefits is the highest among peer districts. The district’s percentage for supplies and materials is the lowest and for instructional equipment is the second lowest among peer districts.

Exhibit 3-3 Comparison of Percentage of Expenditures by Type

2007-08 School Year

District Salaries Benefits Purchased

Services Supplies and

Materials Instructional Equipment Total

Burke County 67.9% 17.3% 6.8% 7.4% 0.6% 100.0% Buncombe County 68.3% 16.8% 5.6% 8.0% 1.3% 100.0% Catawba County 66.4% 16.1% 6.5% 9.6% 1.4% 100.0% Cleveland County 66.5% 16.8% 7.0% 8.7% 1.0% 100.0% Henderson County 67.1% 16.6% 6.4% 8.9% 1.0% 100.0% Iredell-Statesville 66.3% 16.6% 6.1% 10.8% 0.2% 100.0% Peer Average 67.1% 16.7% 6.4% 8.9% 0.9% 100.0%

Source: North Carolina Statistical Profiles 2007-08. Although the district’s average daily membership has been decreasing, the number of positions have been increasing as shown in Exhibit 3-4. Between 2006-07 and 2008-09, the district added a net of 105 employees⎯a 5.9 percent increase. A total of 206 professional positions were added including two administrators, 188 teachers, and 16 other professionals. During this same period, 85 non-professional positions were reduced.



Exhibit 3-4 Comparison of Number of Positions in Burke County Public Schools


Category 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Percent Change

2006-07 to 2008-09 Officials, Administrators & Managers 17 13 15 (11.8%) Principals 25 25 26 4.0% Asst. Principal, Non-teaching 20 16 23 15.0% Subtotal Administrators 62 54 64 3.2% Elementary Teachers 393 442 462 17.6% Secondary Teachers 162 156 235 45.1% Other Teachers 423 440 469 10.9% Subtotal Teachers 978 1,038 1,166 19.2% Guidance 46 43 49 6.5% Psychological 10 9 9 (10.0%) Librarian, Audiovisual 25 23 28 12.0% Consultant, supervisor 2 2 1 (50.0%) Other Professionals 30 24 42 40.0%

Total Professionals 1,153 1,193 1,359 17.9% Teacher Assistants 243 239 239 (1.6%) Technicians 14 14 5 (64.3%) Clerical, Secretarial 91 86 90 (1.1%) Service Workers 231 86 138 (40.3%) Skilled Crafts 42 41 47 11.9% Laborers, Unskilled 8 8 9 12.5% Total 1,782 1,667 1,887 5.9%

Source: North Carolina Statistical Profiles, 2006-07 through 2008-09.

3.1 ORGANIZATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

A district’s financial management operation includes the functions of collection, disbursement and accounting for local, state and federal funds. An effective fiscal operation implements detailed policies and internal controls to process the district's daily business transactions efficiently while providing accurate, complete, and timely information to district management and the school board. Payroll is a major part of any district, since it normally represents the bulk of the expenses.

In BCPS, the majority of the district’s financial operations are under the direction of the Finance Officer who reports directly to the Superintendent. The Finance Officer is responsible for the functions associated with accounting, budgeting, reporting, accounts payable, payroll, but does not oversee the purchasing, warehouse, and fixed asset operations.

FINDING

BCPS requires all employees to use a direct deposit program for employee paychecks. The only employees that receive hard copy checks are new employees and only for the first month of their employment when required account information is being coordinated with the employee’s bank. Direct deposit of employee pay checks is efficient for both employees and Burke County Public



Schools. Employees do not have to make trips to their bank to make deposits into their account and BCPS does not have to use paper to print the checks, and distribute the checks to employees.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for its mandatory direct deposit of employee checks that is cost effective and efficient for both employees and the district.

FINDING

To strengthen the government financial expertise of the BCPS Finance Office, which the 2007-08 external audit report pointed out as a deficiency, four members including the Finance Officer are participating in the North Carolina Association of School Business Officials Finance Academy’s training and certification program. The Finance Officer, Assistant Finance Officer, Accounts Payable Manager and the Payroll Manager are all in the second year of a three-year program. Once successfully completing the training (which is expected to be June 2011), the Finance Officer and Assistant Finance Officer will be certified as Finance Officers and the Accounts Payable and Payroll Managers will be certified as Governmental Office Managers.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for providing training to members of its Finance Office to strength the governmental financial expertise of staff.

FINDING

The BCPS organization for financial-related functions is fragmented and not centralized. Only a portion of financial functions are under the direction of the Finance Officer, limiting coordination and potential cost-effective revisions to processes.

The Finance Department’s responsibility include general accounting and reporting, budgeting, accounts payable, payroll, and internal auditing of school funds. The Finance Officer is assisted by:

• an Assistant Finance Officer/Internal Auditor whose primary duties are auditing school funds, assisting school bookkeepers, and accounting for grant funds,

• a Payroll Manager who has two Payroll Specialists that are responsible for processing all payroll related documents and reposts, and

• an Accounts Payable Manager who has two Accounts Payable Specialists that are responsible for processing all payments to vendors.



Other financial functions are assigned to program departments where the assignment of the financial functions is not a core item of their programs. For example, purchasing responsibilities are assigned to the Child Nutrition/Purchasing Department.

The BCPS purchasing program is managed by the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing who reports to the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services. The time for the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing is split between the dual responsibilities of managing food services and managing district purchasing activities. The Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing is assisted in performing purchasing functions by a staff of three who also share purchasing and child nutrition duties. The Purchasing staff includes:

• a Purchasing Assistant who primarily handles bids and spends approximately 90 percent of her time on purchasing functions;

• a Purchasing Clerk who primarily enters information taken from purchase requests (B-1 forms) into the computer system to create purchase orders, and also spends approximately 90 percent of time on purchasing functions; and

• a Purchasing Clerk who is responsible for maintaining the district’s fixed asset system and processing purchasing documents related to warehouse orders. She spends approximately 50 percent of her time on purchasing functions.

It is estimated that purchasing duties require approximately 2.8 FTEs. The estimate of FTEs assumes a 50-50 split of the director’s position between purchasing and child nutrition duties. The purchasing responsibilities for other staff include:

• Director .50 FTE • Purchasing Assistant .90 FTE • Purchasing Clerk .90 FTE • Purchasing Clerk .50 FTE Total 2.8 FTEs

Consolidating all financial-related functions within the BCPS Finance Office enables interrelated processes to be better coordinated and would eliminate duplication. For a consolidation of all financial-related functions to be most effective, the head of the office must be a very experienced and talented professional. The title used by many districts for the position that manages a consolidated department or office is Chief Financial Officer. The title reflects that the position has primary responsibility for all financial processes in a school district.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-1:

Consolidate and reorganize all financial functions under a Chief Financial Officer, advertise for the position, and allow all interested persons to apply for the position, including the current Finance Officer.



The consolidation of all financial-related functions will provide better coordination of related functions and provide better oversight of financial related processes. The relocation of financial functions from departments with program responsibilities will provide management of those programs to have more time for their core functions. Transferring the purchasing functions from the Child Nutrition/Purchasing Department will allow management of that department to concentrate on actions needed to improve its financial position as discussed later in this chapter.

Reorganizing the Finance Office, replacing the Finance Officer with a Chief Financial Officer, and recruiting for the most qualified individual will ensure that BCPS has the opportunity to employ the most experienced individual for this critical position (see Section 4.1, Recommendation 4-4, for revised organizational chart).

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources, and combined with other efficiency recommendations discussed later in this chapter, should allow for the reduction of one specialist position. Although there will need be salary adjustments increasing the compensation for a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Purchasing Assistant, they will be more than offset by the elimination of a specialist position (see Section 4.1, Recommendation 4-4, for cost implications of CFO position).

The fiscal impact of this recommendation is based on eliminating one specialist position in the Finance Office, and will result in annual savings of $34,923. Annual savings are calculated based on the average salary of specialist positions of $26,659 plus benefits of $8,264.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminate One Specialist in Finance Office

$34,923 $34,923 $34,923 $34,923 $34,923

FINDING

A portion of the Finance Office’s accounts payable process is time consuming and of limited value. Duplicate verification of receiving information for invoices over $500 provides little if any value.

Accounts payable employees in the Finance Office follow the majority of the normal accepted practice of verification of documents prior to processing payments to vendors, but included in the process is a requirement for two receiving verifications for some purchases. Accounts payable employees receive copies of purchase orders after they are processed, verification from the warehouse when items have been received at the warehouse or from schools or departments when items are delivered directly to them, and receive invoices from vendors when items have been shipped. The verification process requires information on invoices to be compared to information on purchase orders to ensure amounts billed are the same as were contracted for, and to obtain reports to ensure all items have been received.



However, in addition to the accepted practice of using the receiving information provided by the warehouse, Accounts Payable Clerks also send invoices for more than $500 to the schools and departments that ordered the items for a second receiving verification. This process is not normal for accounts payable processes, takes a considerable amount of time both in the Finance Office and for schools and departments, and provides very little if any added value to the process.

BCPS processes over 14,000 checks from state, federal, and local funds per year and accounts payable staff estimate that approximately 60 percent or over the $500 amount and receive dual receiving information. Interviews with accounts payable staff revealed that they almost never receive verification from the second receiving at schools and departments that is different than the first receiving.

All processes must be justified and add a benefit commensurate with its cost. Efficient financial operations require processes with little if any value to be eliminated.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-2:

Eliminate the time consuming process that requires a second receiving verification of invoices that exceed $500.

Eliminating the requirement for sending invoices that exceed $500 for a second receiving verification will reduce the amount of time spent by accounts payable staff and staff in schools and departments. Relying on the receiving report from the warehouse is the normal practice in financial operations and should provide sufficient assurance that items have been received without the added time consuming burden of dual receiving verification.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. Although time saved by accounts payable staff will not allow for a full-time position to be reduced, it will provide the Finance Officer the flexibility to redirect staff time to more beneficial processes. However, this and other recommendations in this chapter when implemented should allow for the reduction of one specialist position.

FINDING

BCPS does not have a formal policy to track the status of recommendations included in audits and other reports to ensure appropriate recommendations are being implemented in a timely manner. Various types of reviews and audits are performed on BCPS operations and reports prepared for the reviews and audits contain recommendations for needed improvements.

Audits of BCPS financial statements must be performed by qualified certified public accountants each year. External auditors issue a management in conjunction with the annual audit where comments on noncompliance issues are addressed. These comments are intended to be used to



improve internal controls and program compliance. General Statute 115C-441 states that “no obligation may be incurred by a local school administrative unit unless the budget resolution includes an appropriation authorizing the obligation and an unencumbered balance remains in the appropriation sufficient to pay in the current fiscal year the sums obliged by the transaction for the current fiscal year.” Comments provided by the outside auditor for the 2007-08 audit reported that BCPS in the General (Local) Fund spent in excess of the budget and violated General Statute 1156C-441. For 2007-08, it was also reported that the district spent in excess of the budget in the State Public School Fund.

Again, the 2008-09 management letter from the outside auditor pointed out that the same violations of statute continued uncorrected during 2008-09. The report stated that, in the General (Local) Fund, the district again spent in excess of the budget, and that in the Capital Outlay Fund for 2008-09, the district spent in excess of the budget.

The Evergreen Team was informed that the normal district practice is for the Finance Office to address the findings independently within the department. No formal process is completed or status reports prepared for the Superintendent or School Board to ensure processes are changed to eliminate a reoccurrence.

Without a system to track and report on the status of recommendations, BCPS continues to run the risk of failing to take needed action. Board members and district administrators need periodic information on the current status of previous recommendations in order to hold BCPS personnel accountable and to ensure that needed improvements are made.

Critical components of a tracking system for report recommendations include assigning responsibility for initial identification of recommendations, frequency and format for reporting to administrators and the governing board, management responsibilities for implementing recommendations, and assigning responsibility for periodically reporting the status of these recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-3:

Adopt a formal Board policy for tracking and periodically reporting on the status of report recommendations made to Burke County Public Schools.

By adopting a Board policy and procedure for tracking and periodically reporting the status of report recommendations, BCPS will ensure that corrective actions are addressed in a timely manner. Reports to the Superintendent and School Board should enable them to monitor the completion of action steps needed to improve processes.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.



FINDING

BCPS lacks sufficient controls to ensure that expenditures do not exceed budget limits approved by the School Board. Expenditures in both the 2007-08 and 2008-09 fiscal years exceeded authorized budget limits in a number of accounts.

Although the automated system contains edits that stop payments to vendors when sufficient budgeted funds are not available, the controls can be overridden and payroll expenditures can be processed without going through the edit process.

Comments provided by the outside auditor for the 2007-08 audit reported that BCPS in the General (Local) Fund spent in excess of the budget and violated General Statute 1156C-441 for:

• Regular Instruction - $460,065: • School Leadership - $7,516; • Accountability - $315; • Policy, Leadership and Public Relations - $48,144; and • Ancillary Services - $154,999.

For 2007-08, it was also reported that BCPS spent in excess of the budget in the State Public School Fund for:

• Special Population Support and Development - $11,835; and • Policy, Leadership and Public Relations - $1,943.

The recommendation by the external auditor for 2007-08 recommended that expenditures be compared to the budget prior to payments being authorized. The corrective action plan, as stated by the district, would be:

Re-iterating to all staff with the capability to make Budget Journal Entries, that no budget Journal Entry is to be made between varying purchase codes without a Board Amendment being presented beforehand for any entry in excess of $1,000, or and Amendment for less than $1,000 at the next scheduled Board Meeting. I (Finance Director) will also monthly review all Budget Journal Entries to make certain none are in violation of Policy.

The corrective action plan as stated by BCPS did not address the problem which was controlling expenditures and not budget adjustment processing.

Once again, in the 2008-09 management letter from the outside auditor, the same violations of statute continued uncorrected during 2008-09. The report stated that, in the General (Local) Fund, BCPS spent in excess of the budget for:

• Policy, Leadership and Public Relations - $30,224.

In the Capital Outlay Fund for 2008-09, the district spent in excess of the budget for:

• Real Property and Buildings - $1,814,339;



• Buses and Motor Vehicle - $995,013; and • Debt Service $291,362.

The North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, in a letter dated February 9, 2010, also addressed the statute violations and stated “expenditures should be controlled or the budget amended prior to making any disbursements that would exceed appropriations”. The district's response was “the 2009-10 budget ordinance has been passed by the Board of Education. Included in the ordinance are/were all known and anticipated revenues and expenditures for the 2009-10 fiscal year. Any adjustments to anticipated revenues and expenditures are being amended at each regularly scheduled BOE meeting”. Again, the actions only address making budget adjustments to cover expenditures after the budget has been exceeded. The real issue is monitoring budgets and controlling expenditures to ensure they stay within appropriated expenditure limits and are not incurred without appropriate authority.

Addressing the results of overexpenditures by making subsequent budget adjustments does not provide any expenditure control. Without expenditure controls that monitor and project expenditures for all types of expenses, BCPS will continually run the risk of unknowingly exceeding authorized budgets and violations of statute provision. Many districts either encumber funds for salaries and benefits or include processes during monthly report preparations that analyze and project expenditures for all types of expenses.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-4:

Implement specific monitoring and controls that ensure that expenditures are managed, stay within appropriations, and do not violate statutory provisions.

Implementing expenditure controls will help ensure that BCPS does not unknowingly exceed expenditure budgets and continue to violate statute. A process should be implemented where salary and benefits are encumbered to restrict the use of these budgeted funds for other purposes. Reports should be prepared each month that compare estimates of total anticipated expenditures to approved expenditure budgets.

Finance Office staff should analyze expenditures to date to determine expenditure trends and unanticipated costs. The staff should then estimate the expenditures that are anticipated for the remainder of the year based on the analysis completed, and determine if budgets are sufficient for the projected total year expenditures. Should projected expenditures indicate that sufficient budgets will not be available, actions should be taken immediately that will restrict future expenditures or obtain Board approval prior to incurring the expenses. It is imperative that BCPS monitor expenditures and identify budgets that are not sufficient for projected total expenditures in sufficient time that the Superintendent and School Board can take action and not wait until expenditures have occurred and budget adjustments are made just to cover the exceeded budget limits.



FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

Although the BCPS 2009-10 Local Current Expense Fund was appropriated by Burke County at the function/purpose level, the district does not provide Burke County with financial reports. Without financial reports, it is impossible for the County to monitor district expenditures to help ensure compliance with budgeting the funds by function.

Between the 2004-05 and 2008-09 fiscal years, Burke County and BCPS had a funding understanding whereby the district would share in revenues received by Burke County for ad valorem taxes. A transfer of the combined excess balance of $240,035 was made to the Local Current Expense Fund.

During this period, BCPS received 24 percent of ad valorem taxes and thus was not required to submit a budget request to Burke County for funding approval. Although periodic reports during this time would have provided Burke County with informative data, there was no requirement for BCPS to submit such reports and none were submitted.

However, due to provisions of a lawsuit settlement, the 2009-10 year funding to the district was no longer covered by the participating 24 percent funding agreement. BCPS was required to submit a budget request for funding to Burke County by function. The approval by Burke County of the funding request also contained a provision that transfers between functions could not exceed 10 percent without Burke County approval. Financial information is needed by the County to monitor this transfer provision.

To help ensure compliance with funding provisions—whether state, federal or local—successful school districts provide needed financial information to interested parties in a timely and accurate manner. Providing the needed financial information keeps interested parties informed and, many times, identifies issues early where corrective action, if needed, is much easier to implement.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-5:

Provide Burke County with the financial reports that will provide Burke County staff with the capability to monitor authorized transfer limits.

Providing Burke County with financial reports in a mutually agreeable format will enable monitoring of budget transfer limits. Providing financial information will also provide Burke County with useful general expenditure data that keeps the County Commissioners and staff informed of BCPS costs.



FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

BCPS lacks a Board policy and does not receive reports on a local capital account that provides funding for Career and Technical Education projects. There is also some uncertainly as to what purposes the fund can be used for.

BCPS maintains a local capital account that is used to fund the costs of houses constructed by students enrolled in the Career and Technical Education Program. Funds from the sale of completed houses have historically been deposited back into this fund to provide resources for subsequent projects. Although a considerable amount of dollars are processed through the fund, BCPS lacks a policy and procedures for its program, no reports are prepared for the fund, and there is some uncertainty pertaining to what the fund balance can be used for.

BCPS staff indicated that there are two houses nearing completion which will be sold in the near future. The district practice is for the monies received from the sale of the houses to be deposited back into the fund to be available for future projects. However, $1,000,000 was transferred from the fund to the Local Current Expense Fund during the 2008-09 year to provide needed cash to pay for expenditures which exceeded the cash available in the Local Current Expense Fund. The financial statements for 2008-09 report the $1,000,000 as a loan to the Local Current Expense Fund from Capital Outlay Funds.

Discussions with BCPS staff indicated there is some uncertainty as to whether the $1,000,000 has to be or will be returned to the capital funds. Proper and effective management of district funds require a legal determination as to their proper use, polices to provide staff with direction, and reports to provide information to the Superintendent, School Board, and the public.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-6:

Obtain a legal opinion on the appropriate use of the local capital fund for the CTE Program, develop a Board policy and administrative procedures pertaining to the management of these funds, and prepare reports for the School Board.

Developing polices governing the use of the local capital funds for CTE projects will help ensure that the funds are managed appropriately and in compliance with Board direction. Obtaining a legal opinion pertaining to the authorized use of the funds will provide the School Board with a firm understating as to whether the $1,000,000 loaned to the Local Current Expense Fund has to be repaid and provide information for future decisions. Regular reports will enable the Board to fulfill its responsibilities associated with monitoring and managing district funds.



FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

Although the BCPS Child Nutrition Fund does not pay all support and indirect cost, in the past, the program’s expenditures consistently exceeded revenues. BCPS has not calculated total cost for the Child Nutrition Fund to determine the fees that are needed to totally fund the program’s costs.

During each of the last four years, the Child Nutrition Program’s fund balance has decreased. In each of the last two years, the program has had expenditures that exceeded revenues by over $500,000 each year. Exhibit 3-5 presents the revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances for the four years⎯2005-06 through 2008-09. During this four-year period, the fund balance has decreased from $2,572,134 to $1,534,377⎯a 40 percent decrease.

Exhibit 3-5 Child Nutrition Fund Balance

2005-06 through 2008-09 Fiscal Years

Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Beginning Balance Revenues $2,672,134 $2,638,067 $2,576,420 $2,039,269 Revenues $7,068,810 $7,314,356 $7,410,334 $7,563,435 Expenditures $7,102,878 $7,376,003 $7,947,485 $8,068,325 Net Change in Fund Balance ($34,067) ($61,647) ($537,151) ($504,891) Ending Balance $2,638,067 $2,576,420 $2,039,269 $1,534,377 Source: BCPS Financial Statements, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09.

The Child Nutrition Fund is charged a portion of indirect support costs annually. The Finance Office charges the fund approximately 50 percent of calculated indirect costs which amounts to approximately $320,000 a year. BCPS does not charge the entire calculated amount due to the fund’s expenditures consistently exceeding revenues. In addition, the pro-rata share of utilizes, building maintenance, custodial and other support costs are not charged to the fund. All allocable support and indirect costs not charged to the Child Nutrition fund is paid for by the Local Current Expense Fund, thus reducing the amount available for paying costs directly related to educating BCPS students.

Effective financial management of Child Nutrition Programs requires accurate and complete financial information. Decision makers cannot effectively manage a program, such as a Child Nutrition Program, without knowing the total costs of operating the program, the fees that need to be charged to fully fund the program, and the impact on the Local Current Expense Fund when all cost is not paid by the program.



RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-7:

Determine the total cost for the Child Nutrition Program, take actions to increase fees or reduce operating cost to enable the fund to reimburse the Local Current Expense Fund for all support and indirect costs.

Calculating the total cost of operating the BCPS Child Nutrition Program, and the costs incurred by the Local Current Expense Fund that are not reimbursed, will provide BCPS managers and the School Board with financial data that will enable better management of district funds. When total costs are known, decisions can be made either to increase fees to fund the total costs whereby the Local Current Expense Fund can be reimbursed or the operating costs of the program can be reduced to achieve the same goal. Should decisions be made not to reimburse the Local Current Expense Fund, information will at least be available so that the decision will be an informed decision based on complete financial information.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of this recommendation will result in additional funds being available in the Local Current Expense Fund and is based on charging the Child Nutrition Fund for all allowable indirect and support costs.

The exact amount cannot be calculated without the supporting data normally collected when performing a full review of a Child Nutrition Program. Substantial data are needed to analyze current indirect cost calculations, building space occupied, utility costs and building maintenance support. However, it is estimated that an additional $400,000 a year could be charged to the Child Nutrition Fund and is based on charging the other 50 percent of indirect costs not currently charged and for other support costs not included in the indirect costs (such as utilities, custodial, and building maintenance).

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Reimburse the Local Current Expense Fund for all Support and Indirect Costs

$400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000

3.2 BUDGETING

A budget enables a school district to adequately maintain and control its financial resources. The school board, central administration, school administrators, department heads, teachers, and community members should be involved in the budgeting process. The budget should reflect the overall goals and objectives of the district's long-range strategic plan. Given the scarcity of resources available to a school district, it is critical that districts budget their dollars effectively. Sound fiscal management entails forecasting a reasonable but conservative revenue number, as well as a reasonable but aggressive expenditures to ensure that adequate funds are available.



FINDING

Although the BCPS local fund balance has drastically decreased during the last two years, BCPS does not have a fund balance policy to address the situation. An adequate fund balance is needed to cover unanticipated financial situations.

The fund balance (also referred to as carryover) is defined as the excess of assets over liabilities, and this amount is used in future years to offset any revenue shortfalls or adjustments that may occur. In many instances, the fund balance is seen as the amount of money available to bridge the difference between mandated state and federal expenditures and actual revenue allocations. Many school districts establish a policy to maintain a specific fund balance, and superintendents follow administrative procedures to implement this policy each year.

In the past two fiscal years, BCPS has allowed its fund balance to be reduced from $3,256,488 on June 30, 2008 to a negative $449,467 on June 30, 2009. Exhibit 3-6 presents a summary of activity in the district’s Local Current Expense Fund that resulted in a reduction of the fund balance by $3,705,955 during the two years from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009.

A school district’s fund balance policy is a critical component in the development and implementation of an annual budget. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that governmental entities establish a formal policy on the level of unreserved fund balance in the local fund, and that the fund balance should be no less than five to 15 percent of regular local fund operating revenues or no less than two months of regular local fund operating expenditures.

Exhibit 3-6 Local Fund Balance on

Burke County Public Schools 2005-06 through 2008-09 Fiscal Years

Category 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Beginning Balance Revenues $1,579,847 $3,031,788 $3,256,488 $1,163,620 Revenues $21,981,334 $21,372,760 $21,083,564 $22,565,237 Expenditures $20,529,393 $21,148,060 $23,176,432 $24,178,325 Net Change in Fund Balances $1,451,941 $224,700 ($2,092,868) ($1,613,087) Ending Balance $3,031,788 $3,256,488 $1,163,620 ($449,467) Source: BCPS Financial Statements, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-8:

Develop a school board policy to establish a minimum fund balance expectation to be used as a guide during budget development, and prepare monthly reports for the School Board.

Developing and implementing a local fund balance policy will enable BCPS to manage its Local Current Expense Fund resources. The Superintendent should draft a policy for Board adoption that establishes a minimum fund balance expectation. The policy should include guidelines for



how to reach this minimum expectation and continue to maintain its fund balance at the established level.

In addition, the Finance Officer should prepare a monthly report for the School Board that shows the impact that current year revenues and expenditures are expected to have on the fund balance at the end of the year.

Exhibit 3-7 illustrates a possible format for a report to the School Board.

FISCAL IMPACT


Exhibit 3-7 Sample Fund Balance Monthly Report

Burke County Public Schools

Local Fund Balance Monthly Report For the Month Ended xx-xx-xx

Description Year to Date

Totals

Estimated for the Remainder of the

Year

Estimated Yearly Totals

Totals Beginning Fund Balance Revenues $0,000 Revenues: County Appropriation $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Contracted Services Nurses $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Other Revenue Sources $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Total Revenue $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Expenditures: Salaries, Supplements and Benefits $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Instructional Support Expenses $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Pupil Support Expenses $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Boar of Education $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Administrative Support Expenses $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Utility Expenses $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Business Support Services (Repairs and Maintenance) $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Insurance Expense $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Support Services (Personnel Department) Public Relations $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Travel $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Other Expenses $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Total Expenditures $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Fund Balance $0,000 $0,000 $0,000

Source: Developed by Evergreen Solutions, February 2010.



FINDING

BCPS does not have a formal policy as to when budget adjustments are required or what approvals are required before adjustments can be made. Also, processes are not in place to hold principals and department heads accountable for exceeding their authorized expenditure budgets.

Even though a formal policy does not exist, the budget resolution for 2009-10 states that the Superintendent is hereby authorized to transfer appropriations within a fund under the following conditions:

• he may transfer amounts between subfunctions and objects of expenditure within a function without limitations and without a report being required;

• he may transfer amounts not to exceed $1,000 between functions of the same fund with a report on such transfers being required at the first meeting of the Board of Education (applies to the Local Current Expense Fund); and

• he may not transfer any amounts between funds or from any contingency appropriation within a fund.

The direction provided by the budget resolution pertaining to budget adjustments seems to be somewhat unclear. At the February 2010 budget meeting, the Finance Officer presented 16 pages of budget adjustments⎯three pages required Board approval and the other 13 were for information purposes only. Frequent budget adjustments are not advisable since they defeat the purpose of the budget as a planning and control tool, and are very time consuming for staff to prepare and enter into the automated finance system. If budgets are prepared with a reasonable amount of care, few amendments are normally necessary.

When finance officials desire to amend a budget they should state their case in writing to the Board that includes:

• identifying the expenditures to be increased;

• stating how the increase is to be funded (e.g., by a reduction in estimated year-end fund balance, by a reduction in other expenditures, or by an increase in receipts above budgeted amounts);

• providing the justification for the amendment; and

• indicating the course of action if the amendment is not approved.

For any budget system to work and to serve as a tool to manage district funds, it is imperative that a system of accountability be in place. Budgets and subsequent expenditures within the budget limits are not only statutory requirements, but are very important for effective budget management. Inadequate monitoring and management in both 2007-08 and 2008-09 allowed expenditures to exceed authorized budgets, and thus increased the risk of the BCPS budget being exceeded.



RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-9:

Establish a budget control system where schools and departments are held accountable for their budgets, develop a budget adjustment policy that provides guidance as to when budget adjustments are to be prepared, and require documentation of adjustments in Board minutes.

A budget adjustment policy will ensure that all expenditures receive the approval of the School Board and ensure that total budgeted funds are not exceeded. The Finance Officer should draft a policy that states when a budget must be adjusted and the process that must be followed to obtain Board adoption. The policy should also include what actions the Finance Officer is to take if invoices or purchase orders are sent to the Finance Office for processing when authorized budgeted amounts are not available. The Finance Officer should present the policy to the Superintendent and the Board for adoption. The policy should then be distributed to all department heads and principals.

In developing the budget control policy, it should be decided at what level school and department budgets are to be controlled. Many districts manage salary budgets at the district level and do not allow amounts to be transferred from salary budgets for other purposes without Board approval. Also, many school districts place budget controls at a high level for each school and department (such as an amount for utilities, other operating costs, and capital outlay). Although expenditures are still recorded at detailed levels, the expenditures all rollup to higher-level budget categories, and departments and schools then have the ability to expend budget amounts for a variety of expenditures. Strict controls and accountability are established at the high budget category level.

FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

BCPS does not have a budget calendar nor a formal process that requires consistent involvement from school and department staff or the public. A formal budget calendar is an important planning tool that establishes specific tasks, responsibilities, and deadlines for completing the budget process. The calendar also documents the process that a district follows in the development of the annual budget.

For fiscal year June 30, 2009, a budget resolution was not adopted by the Board until April 27, 2009. According to North Carolina law, a budget must be adopted. The State has very specific guidelines regarding the adoption of the budget and requires that a Board adopt interim appropriations if the budget resolution cannot be adopted by July 1. Without a budget calendar that highlights when this requirement is mandated, deadlines can go unmet.



BCPS has not established or followed a formal set of procedures in the development of its annual operating budget. The practice normally followed is for the Finance Officer to meet individually with principals and department heads. Budgets are developed within estimated funding amounts. The Finance Officer then takes the budget requests to the Superintendent who reviews and modifies the requests as appropriate. The budget is then taken to the School Board for approval using standard automated reports for reporting the budget to the State.

In the past, BCPS did not obtain community involvement through public meetings nor use advisory committees. Community input was not solicited to help identify priorities for the budget or to help identify where reductions should be made when funding is not sufficient for needs.

In addition to establishing specific tasks, responsibilities, and deadlines for completing the budget process, a budget calendar provides the community with notice of its opportunity for input so they can plan accordingly. The budget calendar also identifies all the steps necessary to develop and adopt the budget within the time established by law. The calendar guides the Superintendent and the Board from year to year to ensure the continuity of the budget process. Without a budget calendar, districts subject themselves to missing important dates or tasks. There are many formats for budget calendars and steps that have to be performed. A budget calendar should be customized to meet the needs of the district.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 3-10:

Develop a formal budget calendar to standardize the budget process and to provide steps for specific input by school staff, department staff, and the community.

To help ensure that BCPS consistently receives input from the public and staff in schools and departments, a formal budget calendar should be developed that details what specific steps are to be followed and when the involvement of various groups of stakeholders is to occur. The budget calendar should be prepared and communicated to all stakeholders including the public, and should be displayed on the BCPS Web site.

A sample budget calendar is presented in Exhibit 3-8.

Exhibit 3-8 Sample Budget Calendar

for Burke County Public Schools

Date Description of Activity Responsible xx-xx-xx Develop proposed budget calendar for superintendent review Finance Officer xx-xx-xx Present budget calendar for board approval Finance Officer xx-xx-xx Meeting to obtain community input. xx-xx-xx Board work sessions to establish preliminary budget guidelines and goals Board members xx-xx-xx Budget instructions presented to and discussed with principals and

department heads Finance Officer

xx-xx-xx Budget requests due to Finance Department Principals and Department Heads xx-xx-xx Budget work sessions Finance Officer, principals and

department heads Source: Developed by Evergreen, February 2010.



FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

Timely, accurate, and easily understood reports are a necessity for Board members to effectively monitor the district’s financial activity, status of its funds, and budgets. In the past, the BCPS School Board did not receive any financial reports during the year. In the current year, this has started to change with financial reports given to the Board in December 2009 and January 2010.

Although the district’s budget, approved by the School Board, includes information on revenues, expenditures, and some limited information on positions, the Board does not receive routine reports to keep it informed on how BCPS is progressing on meeting revenue goals and staying within expenditure limits. Information is not provided during the year that indicates what the financial position of Burke County Public Schools is expected to be at the end of the year. An indication of the district’s financial condition at the end of the year requires informed staff to analyze revenues received and expenditures made, and to make estimates of what revenues and expenditures will be needed for the remainder of the year using various criteria.

Financial information needs to be submitted to School Board members routinely to enable them to make informed decisions. Exhibit 3-9 provides a general description of routinely provided reports to Board members used by other school districts.

Exhibit 3-9 Examples of Basic Finance Reports

Used by School Districts

Sample Contents Frequency Comparison of budgeted to actual revenue by fund and expenditures by department and related variance. Budgeted amounts should show beginning budget amounts and adjustments that are made during the year.

Monthly

Notes explaining significant variances (5 percent or more) in the budgeted categories. Monthly

Revenue and expenditure data showing columns for current and prior year actual amounts for similar period. Monthly

Bar graphs and pie charts depicting comparative revenue and expenditure information. Monthly

Summary of monthly grant activities, including number and dollar value of grants submitted, number and dollar value of grants awarded, and the ratio of grants awarded to grants submitted-all compared to prior years.

Quarterly

Summary reports for enterprise funds showing a simplified balance sheet and operating statements. Quarterly

Status of the General Fund balance and impact of current and future actions will have. Monthly




Many governmental entities use the format shown in Exhibit 3-10 for providing budget information to School Board members. The format is used both when reporting revenues and expenditures by object for the entire fund and also by department. Many of these types of reports also include comparisons to the previous year.

For management reports to be useful they must be formatted in a way that the data are easily understood and consistently accurate, and that the users are trained sufficiently to enable them to interpret the data. Executive-level reports need not be extensive, but should provide basic summary-level financial and program-related information in an easy to understand format to enable efficient decision making by Board members.

Without timely budget information, the School Board is unable to adequately monitor the financial condition of the district. Unless financial data are provided to Board members, they are unable to assess the revenue and expenditure trends, and are limited in their ability to provide timely assistance in developing corrective actions before a financial situation escalates.

Exhibit 3-10 Example of Budget Document

Description

Current Year

Estimated/Budgeted

Current Month

Received/ Expended

Year to Date

Received/ Expended

Projected to End of

Year

Projected

Remaining Balance

Revenues: XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Total Revenue $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Expenditures XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 XXXXXX $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Total Expenditures $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000Source: Developed by Evergreen Solutions, February 2010.

RECOMMENDATION


Develop summary and easily understood financial reports for the School Board, and train Board members on how to interpret financial information.

Requiring monthly budget status reports will provide the School Board with better oversight for the BCPS budget. Should funding for BCPS become more restricted, closer oversight will identify problem areas or where savings could be obtained.



FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

The BCPS 2009-10 budget document is basically 37 pages of numerical information using essentially the same schedules required by the State Department of Education. Other than one page, that is titled 2009-10 Budget Message, the schedules contain no narrative or explanatory information. The packet of documents that encompasses the district’s budget begins with a one-page transmittal letter from the Superintendent to School Board members.

The packet then has five separate documents that present a variety of financial information. The documents include:

• a one-page document titled Local Current Expense Budget 2009-10 (This document compares the 2009-10 budgets to the 2008-09 budget for four revenue categories and 13 expenditure categories.);

• a 25-page budget document provides a further breakdown of revenues and expenditures for the Local Current Expense Fund Budget;

• a one-page pie chart that shows the percentage of the district’s budget that is from Local, State, Federal, Capital and Child Nutrition;

• one-page titled Budget Resolution 2009-10 Revenue Sources as a percent of Total Revenue (The schedule shows the numerical amounts for the revenue sources shown in the pie chart); and

• a six-page document titled Budget Resolution 2009-10. This document is presented to the Board and, when approved, becomes the official budget for the district. The document has individual schedules that present the revenues and expenditure budgets for the Local Current Expense Fund, State Public School Fund, Federal Grants Fund, School Food Service fund, and Capital Outlay Fund. The last page of the document includes a number of provisions, as transfer authority, and provides for the signatures of the Board Chairman and Secretary.

For 2009-10, the budget provided a total of $126,178,593 in appropriations. Exhibit 3-11 presents the district’s budget by fund source and amount separated for instructional programs and supporting services.

Many district budgets include multi-year comparative data in an easy to understand format to provide useful information to readers. Schedules are included for each department that present budgeted amounts by summarized categories (such as salaries, benefits, operating and capital with comparisons shown for the budget year to the previous two to three years). Also, budget documents contain schedules showing positions by department for the current year compared to the previous four or five years, and comparative schedules for revenues by source.



Exhibit 3-11 Summary of Budget for Burke County Public Schools

2009-10 Fiscal Year

Fund Instructional

Program Supporting

Services Total Local Current Expense Fund $8,140,778 $14,905,619 $23,046,397State Public School Fund $60,852,604 $8,866,508 $69,719,112Federal Grant Program $11,692,970 $4,828,746 $16,521,716School Food Service Fund $7,963,007 $7,963,007Capital Outlay Fund $2,427,354 $6,501,006 $8,928,361 Total Budget $83,113,706 $43,064,887 $126,178,593

Source: BCPS Budget Documents, 2009-10.

A school district’s budget is most effective when it is useful to both district staff and the community in understanding the financial details. A budget document has three major purposes, the document serves as a:

• communications device; • policy document; and • financial plan.

The Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) are two national organizations that promote excellence in the form, content, and presentation of budget documents.

The following is a list of components for ASBO-certified budget documents:

• table of contents that identifies major budget sections; • executive summary that presents an overview of key initiatives and financial priorities; • background and current information about the district—its mission and its goals; • organization chart; • overview of the budget process; and • graphs and charts to facilitate understanding and illustrate key financial information.

Many school districts across the country use these criteria to apply for awards these organizations grant, but some use it primarily to improve their budget document's content, format, and presentation. School districts have an opportunity to "tell their story" when their budgets communicate what is behind and beyond the numbers.

RECOMMENDATION


Improve the BCPS budget document, and submit the document for review to the Association of School Business Officials (ASBO) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for continued improvement.



Improving the BCPS budget document to include summary comparative information by departments and schools, summary comparative information for positions and other useful information will enable the School Board and community to better understand how taxpayer dollars are being used in educating students. Submitting the budget document to either the GFOA or ASBO for review and comment will enable BCPS to continue to make the district’s budget document a more useful tool.

FISCAL IMPACT


3.3 PURCHASING

Effective purchasing and warehousing functions provide school districts with supplies, materials, equipment, and services of acceptable quality, when districts need them and at the lowest possible prices. Purchasing includes those activities associated with the acquisition of supplies, materials, services, and equipment. Warehousing ensures proper storage and delivery of goods needed by schools and departments.

FINDING

The BCPS purchasing process requires all purchases to come through the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing before a purchase is initiated. This process makes obtaining many low cost items untimely and inefficient. The district has not delegated purchasing authority to any staff other than to the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing.

The purchasing process requires all departments and schools, needing materials or services regardless of the amount, to prepare a request to purchase on a B-1 form that is sent to the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing. The B-1 form is manually completed by schools and the central office; however, the child nutrition, transportation, and maintenance departments have the ability to prepare the form electronically. Due to the current funding situation, the Finance Officer reviews all purchase orders before they are completed and sent to a vendor. The information on the B-1 form is keyed into the purchasing system, funds are encumbered, and five copies of a purchase order are prepared. The Purchasing Office keeps one copy of the B-1 form, one goes to the vendor, one to the school/department, one to the warehouse, and one to the Finance Office.

The district’s purchasing guidelines are presented in Exhibit 3-12.

After reviewing the B-1 form and determining that the department or school has obtained needed quotes or bids, a purchasing assistant takes information on the B-1 form and enters it into the purchasing system to create a purchase order. If the purchase request is for an item contained in a state contract, the purchase is made from the identified state contract vendor unless the items have been found at a lower price.




Purchasing Guidelines 2009-10 School Year

Purchase Amount Threshold Action Authorized to Make Purchase

Up to $1,000 Request purchase from best vendor considering price, quality and availability.

Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing must approve

$1,000 to less than $2,500 Three telephone or written quotes unless sole source or emergency.

Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing must approve

$2,500 to less than $5,000 Written invitations for bids and written responses

Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing

$5,000 to less than $90,000 Request for price proposals (Form B-3, Invitation to Bid) and General Terms and Conditions mailed or faxed to prospective bidders.


$90,000 or more Formal bid process, requiring public advertisement.


Source: BCPS Purchasing Office, February 2010.

A few standing purchase orders have been prepared for selected departments to assist them in obtaining routine small dollar purchases, mainly building maintenance supplies and some office supplies. Standing purchase orders for $1,000 or less are issued to a few local vendors where materials and supplies are frequently purchased. These standing purchase orders allow departments to purchase small dollar items from the selected vendors without having to complete the entire individual purchase order process. Individual invoices are received for each purchase and a payment is processed.

Centralizing purchasing authority solely to the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing certainly provides a considerable amount of control over purchasing activity and may in some instances provide a lower cost for items. However, the savings from lower cost is, in most cases, more than offset by the inconvenience of delays and the amount of administrative time that it takes to process all purchase requests through the Purchasing Office. Interviews with departments that are required to have the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing purchase all items indicated a general dissatisfaction with the process.

Many school districts have delegated limited purchasing authority to department heads and principals to make purchases. This practice improves the timeliness of purchases and reduces the amount of administrative time it takes to complete individual requests for purchases and purchase orders. Along with the delegation to purchase are guidelines that require bid-quote forms to be attached to invoices that show the required process was followed before making the purchase.



RECOMMENDATION


Delegate purchasing authority to principals and department heads for low cost purchases to increase efficiency and timeliness of receiving needed items.

Revising the BCPS purchasing process to allow departments and schools to complete lower cost purchasing transactions without first coming through the Purchasing Office will enable departments and schools to obtain items more timely and reduce the administrative time that is required to prepare request for purchases. This action will not only reduce the burden on the departments and schools, but will also provide the Purchasing Department more time to spend on high dollar purchases and provide more training to departments.

FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

BCPS has not established a procurement card (P-card) program for use by employees when making small dollar purchases. Purchase orders are required for acquisition of all materials and supplies of any dollar amount.

Procurement cards are designed to maintain control of expenses, while reducing administrative costs associated with authorizing, tracking, and paying specific small, recurring purchases. Procurement cards are similar to debit cards, but are designed to provide a high level of control while streamlining and simplifying the process for making low-dollar, high-volume purchases. P-cards can be controlled at several levels, including by department and by employee. Card limits can be set by individual employee; by single purchase limits; with monthly, weekly, or daily limits; or some combination. Merchant category codes can also be established with each card so that employees can only make purchases through pre-approved vendors.

Districts can set spending limits for each card at issuance and place restrictions on the types of purchases made. An effective procurement card program centralizes the approval of cardholders, restricts cardholders to employees or job positions specifically approved by the School Board, lists examples of appropriate types of transactions, and imposes limits based upon particular positions

Procurement card expenditures are paid monthly to the issuing bank in the form of one lump-sum payment. Card holder payments can be reviewed daily, weekly, or monthly by both the cardholder and accounts payable staff. Using procurement cards significantly reduces the number of purchase orders and payments processed annually. Procurement card policies normally state that violations can result in revocation of the card and disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.



BCPS processes over 11,000 purchase orders per year. Although the district captures the dollar amount of each purchase order, the number that was under $1,000 was not available. It was estimated that over 50 percent were under the $1,000 amount which many districts use as limit for use of procurement cards.

Using procurement cards can significantly reduce the number of purchase requisitions and payments processed. Procurement cards have produced savings by reducing the number of purchase orders and payments, and in some instances by obtaining lower prices from their suppliers due to faster payments. As an example, Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia implemented a procurement card program that has drastically reduced the number of purchase requisitions processed and number of vendor payments that have to be made. In addition, Norfolk Public Schools receives over $150,000 annually in rebates from its procurement card contract.

RECOMMENDATION


Establish a Purchasing Card Program to increase efficiencies in the purchasing and payment processes.

The use of procurement cards will provide BCPS with a more efficient process to obtain small dollar purchases and make subsequent payments to vendors. Time savings in the accounts payable process could be significant and dependent upon the procurement card limits and provisions.

FISCAL IMPACT


3.4 ASSET AND RISK MANAGEMENT

An effective asset and risk management program controls costs by protecting districts against significant losses. Risk management includes the identification, analysis, and reduction of risk to the district's assets and employees through insurance and safety programs. Fixed asset management should account for district property efficiently and accurately, and safeguard it against theft and obsolescence.

FINDING

BCPS has significantly reduced its workers’ compensation costs. With the assistance of its financial advisor and third-party administrator, the district has reduced its cost incurred in 2005-06 of $544,340 to only $92,384 in 2009-10⎯an 83 percent decrease. The district’s Safety Officer worked closely with outside service providers to coordinate training for district staff and conducts a variety of inspections to ensure facilities are risk free.



COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for addressing excessive workers’ compensation costs and reducing claims through training and safety inspections.

FINDING

Burke County Public Schools was recently notified that its Experience Modification Factor (EMF) would be revised downward to .99. This is considerable achievement, indicating a marked decrease in accident, injuries and insurance claims. Every employer that spends more than $50,000 per year on workers’ compensation has an EMF. Each employer starts with an experience modification factor of 1.00 and goes up and down depending on claim experience. The lower the claim rate, the lower the experience modification factor, and thus the insurance premium charged.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for its efforts to control and reduce accidents, injuries, and claims, and its recent achievement of an EMF of .99, leading to lower insurance premiums.

FINDING

Although BCPS has a fixed asset system, it does not have formal polices to adequately protect its investment in fixed assets. There are no requirements for annual physical inventories to be conducted, approvals before items can be deleted from the asset inventory, guidelines that require reimbursement for items lost due to negligence, or for a police report or employee affidavit for lost or stolen items.

The district’s fixed asset system is maintained in the Purchasing Office under the direction of the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing. A Purchasing Clerk is responsible for entering items purchased into the fixed asset system and for deleting items when requested. The Finance Office sends invoices and other documents to the Purchasing Clerk when the expenditure coding indicates that the invoice is in payment of fixed asset items.

On June 30, 2009, BCPS had over $129 million invested in fixed assets from its Local Current Expense Fund and over $700 thousand from its Child Nutrition Fund. Exhibit 3-13 shows a summary of the district’s investment in fixed assets on June 30, 2009.

BCPS does provide limited direction in Section XIV of the purchasing manual. Section XIV provides information pertaining to fixed assets that are purchased, as well as the process that is to be followed to add items purchased to the fixed asset system. In addition, Section XVII of the manual indicates that the disposal of BCPS assets declared surplus will be under the direction of a Surplus Material Committee that is chaired by the Purchasing Agent. Section XIV shows an effective date of April 1, 1994 without any revisions, and Section XVII shows a revision date of October 1999.



Exhibit 3-13 Capital Assets in Burke County Public Schools

June 30, 2009

Description Governmental

Activities Business-type

Activities Total Land $3,414,165 $3,414,165 Buildings improvements $181,187,782 $181,187,782 Construction in Progress $351,033 $351,033 Equipment $5,222,994 $3,435,133 $8,658,127 Vehicles $10,610,957 $10,610,957 Subtotal $200,786,931 $3,435,133 $204,222,064 Less Accumulated Depreciation

$71,699,351 $2,734,091 $74,433,442

TOTAL $129,087,580 $701,042 $129,788,622 Source: BCPS Financial Statements, June 30, 2009.

Although BCPS does not have a specific requirement for a physical inventory to be conducted annually, interviews indicated that inventories are sometimes performed at the request of the Purchasing Department. How the results are to be used is unclear.

BCPS practice allows items that cannot be found to be deleted from the inventory listing without any approvals being obtained. Principals and department heads can request items to be deleted from their inventory listings without providing justifications and further approvals are not required. The procedure for lost or destroyed property does not hold site administrators responsible for lost or destroyed items. Section XIV of the purchasing manual requires a person to be designated at each school or department to be the fixed asset contract person; however, interviews indicated that it was unclear who the designated individuals are at schools and departments.

Fixed asset policies normally address many issues that pertain to an entity’s investment in fixed assets. Policies include guidelines for all fixed assets and regularly address:

• who is responsible for accounting for the district’s investment in fixed assets and the system that is to be used for the accounting;

• responsibility and accountability for the property and equipment owned;

• requiring annual physical inventories and approvals that must be obtained before items can be deleted from asset records;

• capitalization thresholds for property, equipment, land, and infrastructure;

• depreciation methods, salvage value, and a schedule of estimated useful lives;

• determining capitalized improvements versus maintenance expenses;



• reporting junked, stolen, or missing property, and what approvals are required to delete these items from the inventory;

• receiving donated property; and

• transferring assets between departments.

To protect its investment in fixed assets, districts must track their assets and have policies that provide direction on how the assets are to be managed. As items are acquired, they are immediately added to the list, and when the district disposes of an item through normal processes they are taken off the listing. When an item can not be found, the situation is examined and proper approvals required before the item can be taken from the asset inventory.

Best practice examples have shown that school districts that have control over fixed assets are those that assign responsibility to specific individuals and then hold those individuals accountable for any missing assets or other discrepancies. In addition, Board members review and approve reports that show a detailed listing of any missing or stolen assets and who was responsible for the custody of those assets.

RECOMMENDATION


Develop a Board Policy to help ensure the protection of the district’s investment in its fixed assets.

Developing policies for BCPS fixed assets will ensure that the investment in fixed assets is properly managed and protected. Assigning individual accountability, and requiring approvals for items lost or stolen, will increase controls over the district’s investment in fixed assets. Requiring justifications and approvals for items lost or stolen should enhance oversight by principals and department heads as well as custody of fixed assets.

FISCAL IMPACT


3.5 SCHOOL AND DAY CARE FUNDS

School funds are essentially monies maintained at schools in bank accounts established for each school. Funds come from a variety of activities at the school such as fund raisers and athletics. Principals have management responsibility for the funds. Day care funds are maintained as school funds, but identified and maintained in separate accounts.

FINDING

An annual audit is conducted by an outside auditing firm of BCPS school funds; however, the audit is limited in scope and the Finance Office performs a more detailed audit of all school



funds each year. The Assistant Finance Officer prepares an audit schedule each year that includes all school funds and day care accounts. A comprehensive and detailed audit program is used for each audit that includes specific processes for auditing receipts, disbursements, and balances.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for conducting detailed audits of its school and day care funds to help ensure proper use and accountability.

FINDING

Although the management of the 17 day care sites is centralized and provided by two co-directors, funds for the programs are managed and under the direction of principals at individual schools. There is no BCPS policy for the management of day care funds.

The BCPS Day Care Program generates revenues and incurs approximately $1.7 million dollars a year in costs. Exhibit 3-14 presents financial activity for the 17 day care facilities in the district for 2008-09. Funds are accounted for as school funds and transactions are entered into the school fund system. As shown in Exhibit 3-14, the cumulative accounts had a balance at June 30, 2009 of $667,636, and $16,059 was transferred from the day care funds to other school funds by principals for other purposes.

Exhibit 3-14 Day Care Funds Financial Activity

in Burke County Public Schools 2008-09 Fiscal Year

School Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursement Transfers

Ending Balance

Chesterfield $15,455 $34,845 $38,713 $2,096 $13,683 Drexel $53,026 $162,342 $164,917 ($394) $50,057 East Burke Middle $19,735 $65,712 $75,626 $1,383 $11,205 Forest Hill $20,886 $62,459 $62,041 ($320) $20,984 George Hildebrand $45,191 $110,572 $115,089 $40,674 Glen Alpine $52,362 $151,309 $135,014 ($1,147) $67,510 Hallyburton $42,378 $78,594 $91,030 ($128) $29,814 Hildebran $35,796 $114,623 $97,413 $53,005 Icard $27,552 $82,553 $79,750 $30,355Liberty $35,394 $49,309 $60,749 ($92) $23,862 Mull $9,115 $81,157 $89,729 $543 Oka Hill $50,950 $142,085 $132,126 ($218) $60,691 Ray Childers $89,686 $141,511 $159,991 ($990) $70,215 Rutherford College $70,857 $94,553 $95,251 $70,159 Salem $54,564 $132,726 $133,284 $54,006 Valdese $31,053 $91,540 $87,013 $2,197 $37,777 W.A Young $43,575 $100,635 $92,669 ($18,447) $33,095 TOTAL $697,575 $1,696,524 $1,710,404 ($16,059) $667,636

Source: BCPS School Fund Reports, 2008-09.



Although not a formal policy, BCPS operates under a School Board directive whereby each account is to keep a fund balance equal to three months of expenditures. There is no guidance as to how to reach the desired fund balance or what is to happen to the funds if the balance exceeds the desired target. Exhibit 3-15 shows the status of each day care fund and how it compares to the three-month expenditure target as of June 30, 2009.

Exhibit 3-15 Day Care Fund Balances* Exceeding Three-Month Target

2008-09 Fiscal Year

School Balance

June 30, 2009

Three Months of Expenditures Fund

Balance Target

Excess (Deficit) of Balance Over Fund

Balance Target Chesterfield $13,683 $9,678 $4,005 Drexel $50,057 $41,229 $8,828 East Burke Middle $11,205 $18,907 ($7,702) Forest Hill $20,984 $15,510 $5,474 George Hildebrand $40,674 $28,772 $11,902 Glen Alpine $67,510 $33,754 $33,756 Hallyburton $29,814 $22,757 $7,057 Hildebran $53,005 $24,353 $28,652 Icard $30,355 $19,937 $10,418 Liberty $23,862 $15,187 $8,675 Mull $543 $22,432 ($21,889) Oka Hill $60,691 $33,031 $27,660 Ray Childers $70,215 $39,998 $30,217 Rutherford College $70,159 $23,813 $46,346 Salem $54,006 $33,321 $20,685 Valdese $37,777 $21,753 $16,024 W.A Young $33,095 $23,167 $9,928 TOTAL $667,636 $427,601 $240,035 Source: BCPS School Fund Reports, 2008-09, and Evergreen Calculations, 2010. *Includes expenditures for day care and feeding programs.

BCPS day care funds are not charged the cost for use of buildings nor for increased utility costs. Total costs are not identified to enable the district to know if the program is self-sufficient, if the program is generating receipts that exceed costs, or if the district is subsidizing the program from its Local Current Expense Fund. However, the Finance Office does calculate an indirect charge for services provided by various district staff that supports the day care program, including staff from the Finance Office, Purchasing Department, Human Resources, and the Superintendent. Indirect costs charged to the Day Care Funds for 2009-10 totaled $102,834 and were allocated to each account based on the site’s percentage of total receipts for the 2008-09 fiscal year.

For funds to be managed properly, and to ensure that they are only expended for intended purposes, policies and guidelines must be in place. Centralizing funds and providing management authority helps to ensure that standard processes are used for each site’s funds.

RECOMMENDATION


Develop a Board Policy for day care funds, centralize accounts, allocate total costs, and transfer fund balances at the end of each year that exceed target amounts to the Local Current Expense Fund (i.e., the funding source for general operations of the district).



Centralizing day care funds will provide better oversight to the monies in the accounts and help ensure they are expended only for day care costs. A Board policy will standardize how and what funds can be expended for and provide a source of revenue for the Local Current Expense Fund.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact of this recommendation is based on the transfer of the combined excess balance of $240,035 to the Local Current Expense Fund. The combined balances of all day care funds at June 30, 2009 of $667,636 exceeded the three-month combined target balance of $427,601 by $240,035 as shown in Exhibit 3-15.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Transfer Fund Balances $240,035 $240,035 $240,035 $240,035 $240,035


CHAPTER 4: REVIEW OF NON-FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS


4.0 REVIEW OF NON-FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

This chapter reviews non-financial administrative and support services in Burke County Public Schools and is divided into the following six sections:

4.1 Central Administration 4.2 Human Resources 4.3 Transportation 4.4 Child Nutrition 4.5 Facilities 4.6 Safety and Security

The findings contained in this chapter are intended to identify operational strengths and challenges in Burke County Public Schools. The associated commendations and recommendations are designed to highlight practices that are exemplary as well as provide strategies for addressing areas of concern.

4.1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION

The heart of an organization is its overall organization and management. The health of the organization can be ascertained in a number of ways, including reviewing the organizational structure and its management. An organization functioning at a best practices level has these characteristics:

• defines itself as a system and the organization’s stakeholders include its owners and staff, its suppliers, intermediate customers, the ultimate customers of the product or service, and the communities in which the organization operates;

• has a strong sensing system for receiving current information on all parts of the system and their interactions (system dynamics thinking);

• possesses a strong sense of purpose;

• operates in a “form follows function” mode—work determines the structures and mechanisms to do it and consequently it uses multiple structures, including formal pyramidal structures, horizontal structures and teams, project structures, and temporary structures as necessary;

• respects customer service both to outside customers and to others within the organization;

• is information driven and shares information across functions and organizational levels;

• has communication systems which are relatively open throughout the organization;

Review of Non-Financial Management and Operations Burke County Public Schools


• encourages and allows decisions to be made at the level closest to the customer, where all the necessary information is available;

• has reward systems that support team and individual development—managers, supervisors, and teams are appraised against both performance and improvement goals;

• operates in a learning mode and identifies learning points as part of the process of all decision making;

• makes explicit recognition for innovation and creativity, and has a high tolerance for different styles of thinking and for ambiguity;

• has policies which reflect respect for the tensions between work and family demands;

• keeps an explicit social agenda;

• gives sufficient attention to efficient work, quality, and safety awareness in operations, and identifies and manages change; and

• is generally guided by a strong manager employing a variety of work groups composed of individuals possessing appropriate skills and complementary traits.

FINDING

Burke County Public Schools did not have any organizational charts when Dr. Stellar recently took over as Superintendent. As a consequence, BCPS staffing has grown without any annual review of district priorities or needs. Prior to his development of these organizational charts to show Evergreen consultants “what is,” the most recent depiction of the district’s organizational structure is contained in the Board Policy Manual and dated July 2004.

Exhibit 4-1 shows the current high-level organizational structure for the BCPS central office that Dr. Stellar developed. Support positions under the Associate and Assistant Superintendents, Chief Technology Officer, and Directors are not shown for simplicity.

Interviews with Dr. Stellar and other central office administrators revealed an awareness of the need to reorganize central administrative staffing to streamline operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness, and to focus on core activities in each functional area. Senior managers demonstrated a desire for input from the Evergreen Team to assist in that process.

COMMENDATION

Central office administrators recognize the need for better organizing the central office structure for improving efficiency, effectiveness, and customer-service orientation to schools in Burke County Public Schools.



Exhibit 4-1 Current Executive Organizational Structure in


Source: Superintendent’s Office, Burke County Public Schools, 2010.

FINDING

As shown in Exhibit 4-1, the Superintendent currently has 12 direct reports. This span of control is too large for him to be able to focus on key district responsibilities as well as on Board and community relations.

Additional concerns related to the current organizational structure are:

• Some positions that report to the Superintendent are directors which should more logically report to intermediate positions such as an Assistant or Associate Superintendent who are better positioned to focus on day-to-day departmental activities.

• The Grant Writer reports directly to the Superintendent rather than to a position more directly related to programs for which grants should be written and monitored.

• Under the current organizational structure, there is no structurally coordinated effort centered on curriculum and instruction.

• The Associate Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent appear to have similar spans of control, suggesting that there is only a minimal difference between the two levels of positions. Typically, when there is an Associate Superintendent, the position serves as the conduit between other executive positions and the Superintendent, instead of playing a minor role. This is not the case organizationally in Burke County Public Schools.

Exhibit 4-2 proposes a revised organizational structure for the executive management. The direct reports for each senior manager are discussed later in the chapter.



Exhibit 4-2 Proposed Executive Organizational Structure


Superintendent

Administrative Assistant

School Community Engagement Officer

Assistant Superintendent for Support Services

Assistant Superintendent Curriculum and

Instruction

Chief Technology Officer

Executive Director for Accountability

and Planning

Executive Director Human Resources

Chief Finance Officer

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-1:

Adopt the proposed executive organizational structure to decrease the Superintendent’s span of control and enable him to focus on broader districtwide responsibilities.

The proposed positions of Executive Director of Accountability and Planning, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Director of Human Resources, and School Community Engagement Officer should be advertised. The benefits of this structure are:

• Only senior positions and the School Community Engagement Officer report directly to the Superintendent. This action reduces the Superintendent’s span of control from 12 direct reports to eight direct reports.

• Creating an Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction enables BCPS to focus on its core functions of teaching and learning.

• Directors will report to one of those positions most closely related to their job function.

• The School Community Engagement Officer, when maximized, will serve as a critical conduit of information to and from the community and should be closely associated with the Superintendent’s Office. Once this is done, the person in that position can work with the Superintendent to develop a comprehensive public relations program for BCPS.

• The accountability role would be expanded beyond just student achievement to include overall accountability within the district, strategic planning, assessment, and the use of



data supporting those functions. Broadening this position to encompass strategic planning as well as accountability, and placing it as a direct report to the Superintendent, will elevate responsibility to the central role it must play in the district.

• Elevating the financial and human resources roles to more senior-level positions as executive directors also recognizes their central role in district operations.

• The Superintendent’s time can be better leveraged to lead BCPS initiatives and reach out to the community for input and dissemination of district communications, rather than having such a broad span of control for direct staff supervision.

FISCAL IMPACT

Eliminating the Associate Superintendent’s salary would save the district $135,454 including benefits. In a later recommendation, the position will actually be reclassified to an Executive Director, and accounted for in a subsequent section. Adding an Assistant Superintendent position at the pay level of the existing Assistant Superintendent would cost the district $116,756, including benefits. Elevating the Human Resources, Planning/Accountability and Finance Officer positions is estimated to cost the district an additional $6,550 + $17,790 (the difference between the current Finance Officer’s salary and the proposed increase) + $104,800 for the new Executive Director for Planning/Accountability including benefits. The proposed salary is calculated by adding $5,000 to the current salary of the Personnel Administrator (plus $1,500 benefits). No salary change is recommended for the School Community Engagement Officer.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminate an Associate Superintendent $135,454 $135,454 $135,454 $135,454 $135,454

Add an Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction

($116,756) ($116,756) ($116,756) ($116,756) ($116,756)

Create a Chief Financial Officer ($101,782) ($101,782) ($101,782) ($101,782) ($101,782)

Eliminate the Finance Officer $83,992 $83,992 $83,992 $83,992 $83,992

Create an Executive Director of Human Resources

($108,730) ($108,730) ($108,730) ($108,730) ($108,730)

Eliminate the Personnel Administrator $102,180 $102,180 $102,180 $102,180 $102,180

Add an Executive Director for Planning and Accountability

($104,800) ($104,800) ($104,800) ($104,800) ($104,800)

Total ($110,442) ($110,442) ($110,442) ($110,442) ($110,442)



FINDING

Currently, BCPS has instructional coaches at both the elementary and secondary levels. Although these individuals are lauded for the professional development and mentoring they offer teachers, they are inequitably allocated and do not have a balanced knowledge of content areas needed by the schools they serve.

Documentation provided by the district shows that the ratio of instructional coaches to students ranges from 1:493 at Walter Johnson to 1:2,175 at Forest Hill.* At this point, each secondary school has its own instructional coach while at the elementary level, each serves approximately three schools. The number of days elementary instructional coaches are assigned depends on the school’s need, with those schools performing at lower levels being assigned more days per week.

Several staff interviewed noted that there is variability in the quality of services they provide. Again, this is an area in which BCPS has few written expectations or accountability procedures other than a job description that was provided to Evergreen. Several interviewees also noted a need for content specialists at the central office level to serve the entire district.

BCPS instructional leaders emphasized that there is no time for vertical alignment of curriculum or to develop curriculum maps. One teacher stated that there had been attempts in the past, but they had been sporadic. Another expressed concern that the organizational structure does not lend itself to a focus on curriculum. Without a structure that focuses on teaching and learning, and experienced educators assigned curricular and instructional responsibility, student performance cannot improve at levels that BCPS students and teachers are both capable of achieving, and a goal which the Superintendent has prioritized to achieve.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-2:

Eliminate the Instructional Coaches and add Content Coordinators to work under the Office of the proposed Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction.

Burke County Public Schools needs instructional leaders to:

• have the time and authority to examine student performance at the district as well as school levels;

• identify strengths to build on and gaps that point out needs relative to instructional materials, professional development, and curricular needs as well as together across content areas to integrate professional development and curriculum standards; and

• work together to address identified needs.

*Calculated at 20 percent of five days for the school’s 435 x 5= 2,175 students since the coach is only there one day a week.



There are staff who analyze data and even train and work with school staff to understand it, but do not take the data beyond that level to change teaching and learning in a cohesive, seamless way through the K-12 sequence. Creating Content Coordinators to work closely with other instructional leaders in the district will achieve this goal. The positions should be advertised with current talented instructional coaches encouraged to apply. Specific content areas that should be created include Mathematics, Reading, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Arts, Physical Education/Athletics, and Career Technical Education/Workforce Development.

BCPS could also capitalize on the knowledge and expertise of the instructional coaches who do not become Content Coordinators and other strong teachers by creating Curriculum Instructional Teams (CIT) in each content area. They should have representation from each level of schools and grades, and meet monthly with the new Content Coordinators to perform some of the above-mentioned tasks, develop curriculum maps, and align curricula. The trainers of trainers model could be used to develop CIT members at each school as content experts and resources for their colleagues.

FISCAL IMPACT

The elimination of the 15 instructional coaches who work 11 months would save BCPS about $890,184 annually (salaries of $45,302 for 11 months x 15=$679,530) plus benefits of 31 percent ($679,530 x .31=$210,654). Replacing those positions with seven new Content Coordinators at a proposed salary of $52,033, based on the average Coordinator’s salary, plus benefits of 31 percent ($16,130) would cost an annual $68,163 for each position.

The Content Coordinator responsible for PE/Athletics should become the Athletic Director for the entire district, eliminating the need for the current four part-time athletic directors who receive supplements of $2,340 each per district records. The current position of Director of Career Technical Education should become a Coordinator, and also have sole responsibility for Workforce Development, rather than partial responsibility for it. Any grant amendment that may be necessary for that change should be filed. Deducting the average salary and benefits of a Coordinator ($68,163) from the average of a Director ($71,229), results in a difference of $3,066.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminate 15 Instructional Coach Positions

$809,266 $809,266 $809,266 $809,266 $809,266

Add Seven Content Coordinator Positions ($477,141) ($477,141) ($477,141) ($477,141) ($477,141)

Convert Director of CTE to Coordinator $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066

Eliminate Supplements for Four Athletic Directors

$9,360 $9,360 $9,360 $9,360 $9,360

Total Savings $344,551 $344,551 $344,551 $344,551 $344,551



FINDING

Many of the supervisory responsibilities assigned to central office administrators are not logically located within areas related to each office’s core functions. This impedes their ability to coordinate, communicate, and plan so that programs and activities are interwoven, non-duplicative, and place staff in proximity to those with related roles for the district to take full advantage of their individual and collective expertise. Specifically:

• Day Care Co-Directors/Site Directors for programs at each school report to the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services who supervises such activities as Facilities Management and Maintenance. They were placed there because they were considered an enterprise fund and, in that respect, it has been a profitable decision for the district and program. However, to strengthen the instructional foundation that students receive, communications and coordination would be facilitated by placing them under the proposed Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction.

• Other activities related to early childhood including Even Start, mobile Pre-School, and Early Childhood specialists are located in a completely separate department under the Director of Elementary Education/Title I with each of these positions reporting to her. These operations should be combined.

• Two Directors oversee career-tech tasks and are supported by additional positions. The Director of Relations/Workforce Development and Career and Technical Education Director both supervise activities related to student understanding and benefiting from the link between school and careers. Both positions also work with community industry and businesses to further employment within the local area. Both also have employees, for a total of six full-time and two part-time positions in those offices.

• The Director of Relations/Workforce Development has two sets of responsibilities that are completely unrelated: performing public relations/communications and coordinating workforce development activities. The dual nature of responsibilities possibly contributes to feedback from principals that the communications aspect of the job is delegated to schools, rather than serving as a channel from schools to the community for school-related news. These responsibilities should be separated.

• Similarly, the Director of Child Nutrition is also responsible for Purchasing. These roles should also be separated.

Under the current organizational structure, the Associate Superintendent for Student Services not only oversees functions typically related to that area, but also district athletics, JROTC and Drivers’ Education, all of which would more appropriately fall under the umbrella of the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction that is proposed in Recommendation 4-1.



There are three positions under the Associate Superintendent of Student Services with responsibilities relating to school safety and/or student health:

• the Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Schools; • a Healthy Schools Coordinator; and • a Safe Schools Coordinator.

The Project Director and the Safe Schools Coordinator were written into the Safe Schools/ Healthy Schools Grant. Additionally, the Associate Superintendent works with DARE and Resource Officers. Those responsibilities should be assumed by the position responsible for Safe and Healthy Schools. Those positions should be merged under the grant with all responsibilities being assigned to the position which is responsible for Safe Schools/Healthy Schools. Any necessary grant amendment should be filed to enact this merger.

The Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Schools currently houses two additional grant-funded positions with responsibilities that typically do not require separate positions, but are administered by people with other responsibilities.

• The Crisis Coordinator’s responsibilities are to assist students, school personnel, and families when death occurs to a student, a teacher, or a parent by assembling a team of school counselors to go to a school and provide assistance/grief counseling. The creation of a position for this purpose is inefficient in that fulfillment of the intended role of the position is an anticipatory one waiting for a crisis. In most districts that have crisis teams, guidance counselors as a group or with a designated leader take the lead in organizing teams to respond to a crisis, whatever it may be. The administrator who assists and supports counselors as a whole then is responsible for working with them to secure and update crisis training.

• A part-time Enrichment Coordinator coordinates after-school clubs and activities for students not engaged in traditional after-school activities. Generally, when a school has after-school activities, the sponsor, a school administrator, or someone receiving a stipend oversees and coordinates those activities.

Keeping in line with other recommendations in this report, the Director of School Nurses should be converted to a coordinator-level position. The head of 11 nurses does not justify a position at the director’s level.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-3:

Reorganize the Department of Curriculum and Instruction to better align staff with similar roles and responsibilities, and consolidate grant-funded positions.

Exhibit 4-3 shows the proposed organizational structure for the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and the details of the reporting structures beneath each executive position.



Exhibit 4-3

Proposed Organizational Structure for the Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2010. *not a position **to serve all curriculum coordinators



Implementing these changes will enable the Executive Director of Student Services to better focus on the support nature of that role. Consolidating all safety-related responsibilities under one position should better assure that all activities and decisions are cohesive.

All responsibilities of the Safe and Healthy Schools Coordinators and the Director should be consolidated under a single Coordinator of Safe Schools/Healthy Schools and Security and the position should be advertised. Evergreen is fully aware that these positions are funded by a very competitive federal grant. However, most grants allow for budget amendments. Evergreen believes that the integrity of the grant can be maintained by consolidating some of the functions of these positions and re-directing grant funds to realize its goals in a more student-centered way, rather than for unnecessary administrative costs. Assigning responsibility for some of the singular functions of these positions is an inefficient use of grant funds.

FISCAL IMPACT

The implementation of this recommendation would require the reassignment of an administrative assistant from the current Associate Superintendent to the proposed Assistant Superintendent. A Coordinator of Early Childhood should be created to oversee all early childhood programs under the direction of the Elementary Education Director. The cost of this position is calculated at the average coordinator salary of $68,163, including benefits. The Even Start Coordinator should be changed to a Specialist. The savings from that change is based on the average specialist’s salary, including benefits, of $34,923.

The consolidation of the responsibilities of the Safe Schools Coordinator and the Healthy Schools Coordinator, under a reclassified Coordinator of Safe Schools/Healthy Schools, will save the district grant funds amounting to $139,392, including benefits. The Director’s position should be classified as a 12-month Coordinator’s position, and readvertised with a potential savings of at least $10,000.

Reclassifying the Director of Nurses to a Coordinator will save the district the difference between the average salaries of a coordinator and director or $3,066. This figure is based on the average salaries and not on actual salaries of existing staff.

There should be only one FTE position in the Grants Office. Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Add a Coordinator of Early Childhood ($68,163) ($68,163) ($68,163) ($68,163) ($68,163)

Change the Even Start Coordinator to a Specialist $33,240 $33,240 $33,240 $33,240 $33,240

Eliminate the Safe Schools Coordinator Position $68,163 $68,163 $68,163 $68,163 $68,163

Eliminate the Healthy Schools Coordinator Position

$68,163 $68,163 $68,163 $68,163 $68,163



Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Re-classify the Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Schools to a Coordinator

$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000

Re-classify the Director of Nurses to a Coordinator $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066

Eliminate the Administrative Assistant Position for CTE

$39,983 $39,983 $39,983 $39,983 $39,983

Eliminate the Two Part-time Administrative Assistant Positions Under the Director of Relations/Workforce Development

$39,983 $39,983 $39,983 $39,983 $39,983

Re-classify the Two Coordinators for Special Populations, Career Development and Instructional Management to Specialists

$66,480 $66,480 $66,480 $66,480 $66,480

Total $260,915 $260,915 $260,915 $260,915 $260,915

FINDING

The district’s organization for financial-related functions is also fragmented and not centralized. Only a portion of financial functions is under the direction of the Finance Officer limiting coordination and potential cost-effective revisions of processes.

The Finance Department’s responsibility include general accounting and reporting, budgeting, accounts payable, payroll, and internal auditing of school funds. The Finance Officer is assisted by an Assistant Finance Officer/Internal Auditor, a Payroll Manager, and an Accounts Payable Manager.

Some financial functions are assigned to other departments where the assignment of the financial functions is not a core item of their programs. For example, purchasing responsibilities are assigned to the Child Nutrition/Purchasing Department, and the management of the district’s warehouse is assigned to the Director of Transportation and Logistics.

Management of the district’s purchasing program is handled by the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing who reports to the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services. The Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing’s time is split between the dual responsibilities of managing the Child Nutrition and managing district purchasing activities. The Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing is assisted in performing purchasing functions by a staff of three who also



share purchasing and child nutrition duties. The staff includes a Purchasing Assistant and two Purchasing Clerks.

As stated in Chapter 3, Evergreen estimates that purchasing duties require approximately 2.8 FTEs. The estimate of FTEs assumes a 50-50 split of the director’s position between purchasing and child nutrition duties, and is calculated as follows:

• Director .50 FTE • Purchasing Assistant .90 FTE • Purchasing Clerk .90 FTE • Purchasing Clerk .50 FTE Total 2.8 FTE

Warehouse functions are under the direction of a Warehouse Manager who reports to the Director of Transportation and Logistics who in turn reports to the Assistant Superintendent of Support Services. The Warehouse has been assigned to Transportation and Logistics for about one year. Prior to being assigned to Transportation and Logistics it was assigned to the Custodial Department for four years, and prior to that was assigned to the Purchasing Department for many years.

The Warehouse Manager is assisted by three drivers whose duties include:

• one driver is responsible for deliveries to schools and departments for items ordered, but delivered to the warehouse and for items maintained in the Warehouse;

• one driver is responsible for delivery of child nutrition food and other supplies, whose salary is paid from child nutrition program funds; and

• one driver is the designated courier for the district and picks up mail and delivers it to all school and departments.

Consolidating all financial-related functions under a district’s finance department enables interrelated processes to be better coordinated and eliminates duplication. For a consolidation of all financial-related functions to be most effective, the head of the office must be a very experienced and talented professional. The title used by many districts (similar in size to BCPS) for the position that manages a consolidated department or office is Chief Financial Officer. The title reflects that the position has primary responsibility for all financial processes.

The movement of the Day Care Co-Directors and division of responsibilities of the current Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing will also bring about a change in the organizational structure of the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services. His span of control will be reduced somewhat with the re-deployment of the Day Care Co-Directors to supervision by the proposed Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction.



The Assistant Superintendent for Support Services direct reports will now be:

• Director of Facilities Management; • Director of Transportation and Logistics; • Director of Child Nutrition; • Safety/Environment Officer; • Director of Building Operations Support; and • Facility Use Coordinator/Administrative Assistant.

The Warehouse Manager and drivers should remain in this department under the Director of Transportation and Logistics.

The organization of the Department of Support Services is shown in Exhibit 4-4.

Exhibit 4-4 Proposed Organizational Structure

Department of Support Services Burke County Public Schools

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, March 2010.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-4:

Adopt the proposed organizational structure for the Finance Office to consolidate and reorganize all financial related functions under a Chief Financial Officer.

The consolidation of all financial-related functions will provide better coordination of related functions and provide better oversight of financial processes. The relocation of financial functions from departments with program responsibilities will provide management of those programs to have more time for their core functions. Transferring the purchasing functions from the Child Nutrition/Purchasing Department will allow management of that department to concentrate on actions needed to improve its financial position as discussed later in this chapter.



Relocating the purchasing functions will entail moving the three employees who assist the Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing. Moving the three staff is close to the 2.8 FTEs that are currently assigned purchasing duties. The purchasing assistant should be provided the title of purchasing manager to correspond to the other classifications within the finance office.

Reorganizing the Finance Department and replacing the Finance Officer with a Chief Financial Officer and recruiting for the most qualified individual will help ensure that the district has the opportunity to employ the most experienced and qualified individual for this critical position.

Exhibit 4-5 shows the proposed structure for the Financial Department.

Exhibit 4-5 Proposed Organizational Structure

Department of Finance Burke County Public Schools


FISCAL IMPACT

Upgrading the Purchasing Assistant to a Purchasing Manager from a salary of $27,316 to $31,899 results in a salary and benefit cost of $4,583. With benefits, it will be a total of $6,004. Paying the 10 percent of the Purchasing Clerk’s salary currently paid with Child Nutrition funds from local funds will cost $3,341, including salary and benefits. Paying the 50 percent of the Purchasing Clerk’s salary currently paid with Child Nutrition funds from Local funds will cost $15,774 including salary and benefits. The Director of Child Nutrition/Purchasing salary is currently split between the local fund and the Child Nutrition fund (50% & 50%). Each pays $46,430 including benefits. Although there will be a cost to the Child Nutrition fund, there will be a reduction in cost of $46,430 to the local fund.



Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Re-classify the .90 Purchasing Assistant to a 1.0 Manager

($6,004) ($6,004) ($6,004) ($6,004) ($6,004)

Pay the 10 Percent of Purchasing Clerk salary from Local Funds

($3,341) ($3,341) ($3,341) ($3,341) ($3,341)

Pay the 50 Percent of Purchasing Clerk salary from Local Funds

($15,774) ($15,774) ($15,774) ($15,774) ($15,774)

Reduce Local Fund Use for the Director of Child Nutrition

$46,430 $46,430 $46,430 $46,430 $46,430

Net Savings $21,311 $21,311 $21,311 $21,311 $21,311

FINDING

The Superintendent recognizes the key role that planning and accountability play in school districts today. In recognition of that fact, Evergreen proposes in Recommendation 4-1 that the existing student accountability function be expanded to encompass overall accountability within the district as well as strategic planning using the data resources of the current office of Student Accountability, but placing it under a new Executive Director for Accountability and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-5:

Create an Office of Accountability and Planning.

Testimony in several interviews noted that there is a lack of clarity regarding the data functions in the Offices of Technology and Student Accountability. Additionally, the Office of Student Accountability is one of the only two that has an Assistant Director. With the addition of the position of Executive Director for Accountability and Planning, the Assistant Director should be eliminated. The part-time Administrative Assistant for Textbooks should be converted into a full-time position serving as the Administrative Assistant to the Executive Director as well as having responsibility for textbooks.

Exhibit 4-6 shows the organizational structure of the proposed Office of Accountability and Planning.



Exhibit 4-6 Proposed Organizational Structure for the

Office of Accountability and Planning in Burke County Public Schools


FISCAL IMPACT

Eliminating the Assistant Director will save the district $108,594, including benefits. Converting the part-time administrative assistant to full-time will cost an additional $19,992, calculated at half of the average administrative assistant’s salary of $39,983. Note: The costs for the Executive Director were included in the fiscal impact for Recommendation 4-1.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminate the Assistant Director $108,594 $108,594 $108,594 $108,594 $108,594

Convert the Part-Time Administrative Assistant to Full-Time

($19,992) ($19,992) ($19,992) ($19,992) ($19,992)

Total Savings $88,602 $88,602 $88,602 $88,602 $88,602

FINDING

An effective way of viewing the efficiency of a school system is by benchmarking total staffing ratios. The intent of an efficient school system is to provide as much direct classroom instruction to students as possible, while keeping the overall ratios of total staff to students within an acceptable range. The level of effectiveness in reaching this goal can be determined, in large part, by comparing the percentages of total staff and instructional staff in the school district of



interest to other peer school districts. A school district compares favorably by exhibiting a higher percentage of instructional staff and a lower percentage of overall staff.

Exhibit 4-7 compares the number of administrator positions, including school-based, within BCPS and the peer districts. This exhibit shows that, for 2007-08 (the latest data available from the state), BCPS had fewer district administrative personnel than any of its peers. BCPS also had 1.22 fewer district administrators per 1,000 students than the peer average. Even more notable is the fact that BCPS has the lowest number of administrators paid with local funds and 16.8 fewer than the peer average number of locally-funded positions.

Exhibit 4-7

Administrators in Comparison Districts 2007-08 School Year

School System

Total Student

Population

Total Number of District

Administrators

District Administrators

per 1,000 Students

Locally- Funded

Positions Burke County 14,032 54 3.8 8 Buncombe County 25,467 108 4.2 25 Catawba County 17,332 83 4.8 20 Cleveland County 16,580 103 6.2 39 Henderson County 12,887 70 5.4 48 Iredell-Statesville 21,236 96 4.5 17 Peer School System Average 18,700.4 91.2 5.02 24.8 Source: Part II, North Carolina Statistical Profiles 2007, 2008, and 2009.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools pays fewer administrative positions out of local funds than any of the peer school districts, and has a lower administrator per 1,000 student ratio than its peers.

FINDING

Differences in principal philosophies and priorities as well as differences in socio-economic neighborhoods of schools have contributed to program disparities among BCPS schools. In the past, principals received school budgets and had much flexibility in how they spent the funds. Also, schools whose parents have greater economic resources have had technology donated, but others have not been so fortunate. This practice has led to some schools having up-to-date technology and lab experiences available for their students while others did not.

The Superintendent has already recognized the disparity not only in resources, but in the differences in educational experiences for students depending upon the schools they attend in the district. To begin to level the playing field for teachers and students, Dr. Steller has committed resources to adding 45 computer labs at locations throughout the district with the input and advice of principals.



COMMENDATION

The BCPS Superintendent is commended for recognizing and aggressively addressing inequities in educational opportunities through technology for its students.

FINDING

As with technology, some schools have parents with the ability to supplement school needs by adding art programs. In fact, some schools have had the benefit of an art teacher funded by their PTO. Others, without similar resources, have only had art through a grant-funded art bus that offers art experiences for all elementary students once per nine weeks. The grant will not be funded again after this school year, so those schools without PTO-funded art teachers will not have equitable art experiences for their children.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-6:

Equalize art experiences for all elementary students when the Art Bus Grant ends at the end of this school year.

In its 2009-2012 Strategic Plan, BCPS states as one goal, to have globally competitive students. Providing equitable opportunities for all students has to be an underlying premise for this goal to be accomplished. Allowing schools with a higher socio-economic basis to provide enhanced programs and learning opportunities for their students undermines this goal and must be balanced with BCPS resources so that all students are able to have the same learning experiences.

As a first step, BCPS should plan to hire an art teacher to rotate among its elementary schools as the art bus teacher funded through the grant. BCPS should discuss and plan to equalize art class time for all students.

FISCAL IMPACT

The annual cost of implementing this recommendation would be the average salary and benefits of a BCPS teacher of $53,951.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Hire an Elementary Art Teacher ($53,951) ($53,951) ($53,951) ($53,951) ($53,951)



FINDING

BCPS is making strides to address the challenges that site-based decision making has presented to the district’s diminishing resources⎯both fiscal and human—and lost economies of scale by not using bulk purchasing. Principals used to be able to adopt whatever textbook their school selected without having to adhere to any guidelines from the central office. This resulted in as many as five textbooks for the same content area at the elementary level, and seven current phonics programs. In recent years, principals were told that they could either adopt, or not, one textbook series that was chosen for the district. Last year math was up for adoption. Twelve of 17 high schools chose to use the one text selected by the district. The other principals continued to use former textbooks.

This is a step in the right direction in terms of reducing the professional development that must be supported by district staff. Currently, Instructional Coaches have to support three different core textbooks for reading adoptions with training, model lessons, and resources. Having fewer multiple textbook series to support enables the district to focus the training it offers teachers, and build on this training rather than having a fragmented approach caused by supporting many adoptions.

Unifying textbook adoptions benefits students who transfer from one school in the district to another. For instance, instead of having to learn new terms used by one textbook company or a different vocabulary in a reading text, using the same textbook will prevent them from lost time learning foundational knowledge from a new series when they change schools.

BCPS also maintains a centralized book inventory system so that, instead of purchasing additional books when school enrollments fluctuate, surplus books are transferred from one school to another. A document provided by the district shows that the process has contributed to a current carryover of $290,375.

Formerly, school principals had almost complete autonomy to spend their funds to purchase textbooks, software, and other school budget items. When he arrived, Dr. Stellar had staff examine software programs that were used in schools to determine the ones most commonly used. Then, instead of each individual school purchasing a site license as had been done in the past, BCPS purchased a countywide license. Costs for Study Island in 2008-09 were $213,563 before consolidating the purchase. In 2009-10, with the centralized license, the costs were $128,138, netting the district a savings of $85,425. This will be an ongoing annual savings from which the district will benefit. With its consolidation of identified technology needs, BCPS also purchased 1,000 computers and received 320 additional computers free as a result of a bulk purchase rather than individual school purchases.

Supplementary savings will also be achieved in terms of dollars, staff time, and additional resources because technology support personnel, instructional coaches, and central office staff will be able to focus resources on a few specific programs instead of having to support multiple academic and software programs and platforms. This will, in turn, result in greater focus and improvement in quality of teaching and learning.



COMMENDATION

The BCPS Superintendent has examined areas in which the district can capitalize on economies of scale for purchases made in schools. These actions save dollars and focus teaching and learning across the district for the benefit of students.

FINDING

The Superintendent is now focusing on identifying and better standardizing key decisions and processes that will provide uniformity of programs and curricula for all BCPS students. He is removing responsibilities principals used to have, such as scheduling field trips that detracted from their instructional leadership roles. He also plans to work towards a team management model with the BCPS principals.

COMMENDATION

The Superintendent plans to tap the knowledge and experience of principals as partners in leading Burke County Public Schools.

FINDING

Burke County Public Schools has adopted processes to begin systematically communicating with the public. When central office staff meet to discuss or decide on issues that will affect school staffs, minutes and products of these meetings are posted on the BCPS Web site for access by all stakeholders. Although the district already had a relatively new Strategic Plan, once Dr. Stellar reviewed it, he identified some additional issues that he felt should be addressed. He is also planning on seeking the Baldrige Quality Award. This award is based on validated, leading-edge management practices against which organizations can measure themselves. It is recognized both nationally and internationally as a model for performance excellence and a common means of sharing best practices. Going through the process, whether receiving the award or not, provides organizations, including school districts, feedback from an objective evaluation and assists in aiming towards becoming a high-performing school system focused on student excellence.

Rather than revising the strategic plan internally, BCPS has begun the process of holding stakeholder meetings in the community to garner input and perspectives from multiple audiences. The district has hired a skilled facilitator to ensure that views coalesce into a clearly articulated vision with specific goals, objectives, strategies, and action plans that include activities, accountability for completion, timelines, and evaluation processes.

While the strategic plan (dated 2009-2012) had similar components, there was no clear relationship to which specific staff member was responsible for explicit strategies, professional development, or evaluation analysis nor how needed resources would be allocated. Data the district have shared with participants in recent meetings compare a number of metrics relating to student performance and gives participants a sound understanding of where BCPS students stand relative to other North Carolina districts.



COMMENDATION

BCPS is commended for its high goals for strategic planning, its outreach to the community, and the transparency of its processes that are guiding change.

FINDING

Dr. Stellar plans to create an education foundation in BCPS. Among other things, he anticipates that it will provide a means of positive public relations, serve as a basis for Adopt-A-School programs, and lead to the development and communication for an alumni organization to connect graduates and offer them opportunities to contribute to BCPS schools and the community.

Foundations offer many advantages to education within communities, large and small, across the nation. They, of course, offer ancillary funds and resources to schools, a benefit of particular importance in current tight economic times. Beyond the obvious concrete advantages a foundation offers to schools and communities, foundations also serve as forums for soliciting and communicating educational perspectives and accurate information to community leaders, thus, improving communications within the community and decreasing misunderstanding. Foundations provide a means of involving a broad cross-section of the community in their schools, giving people in all walks of life a chance to learn about their local schools and make a difference through their actions.

COMMENDATION

The Superintendent recognizes the merits of a Foundation for BCPS schools and for the community as a whole.

FINDING

The administrative assistant to the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services currently coordinates community school programs, but the Relations/Workforce Development Director is also responsible for them. With initiatives put in place within the past year and a half, revenues have increased from about $1,600 per year to close to $58,000 this year—an increase of 173 percent projected for the end of the year.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-7:

Remove responsibility for community schools/facilities rental from the Relations/ Workforce Development Director.

The actions the administrative assistant has taken under the leadership of the Assistant Superintendent she reports to have reaped fiscal benefits to BCPS and related benefits to the community in use of school facilities. Location of this responsibility should remain where it is. Procedures should be developed in writing so that, should the need to review that decision arise in the future, another person could assume those responsibilities with clear cut guidance for continuing its success.



FISCAL IMPACT

The implementation of this recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources.

FINDING

The BCPS Day Care Program has implemented a number of cost controls in the program. A conservative estimate of savings, accrued from consolidation of day care centers last summer, is contained in Exhibit 4-8.

Exhibit 4-8 Savings from Consolidation of Summer Day Care Programs

Expenditure Category Savings AccruedDirector Mileage $882Bus Mileage 4,468Summer Feeding 4,050Staff Payroll 49,150Utilities 4,548Total $63,098

Source: Office of the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, 2010. Besides operating the site educational programs, the Day Care Program also operates a summer food service program that prepares breakfast and snack menus for students at all sites. As a part of those operations, they must comply with program requirements, including food components, verify weekly claims, submit claims to the state, and undergo an annual audit. Summer food service records show a net gain for both the breakfast and snack programs, as illustrated in Exhibit 4-9.

Exhibit 4-9 Profits and Expenses

Summer Day Care Food Programs 2008 and 2009

Year Month Spent Reimbursed* Gain/Loss

2008 June 13,429.33 16,592.84 3,163.51 July 11,262.68 25,329.85 14,067.17 August 1,620.00 31,436.89 11,816.89

2009 June 13,885.48 23,691.13 9,805.65 July 18,233.48 23,691.13 5,457.65 August 4,502.24 10,190.36 5,688.12

Source: Office of Associate Superintendent for Support Services, 2010. *Reimbursement Rate 2009: Breakfast snack, $1.8150; Afternoon snack, $.07525.

Besides operating before- and after-school and summer programs, the Day Care Program also operates Supplemental Education Service (SES) Programs for students at schools not meeting specific performance standards under No Child Left Behind. Most often such programs are privately run. The Day Care Directors and Assistant Superintendent for Support Services report



that they are in the process of examining the metrics related to the district’s SES programs in terms of costs and student achievement as a comparison with other SES Programs serving BCPS students. This may be the basis for a decision to expand SES Programs in Burke County Public Schools.

COMMENDATION

The Day Care Program and Assistant Superintendent for Support Services have created an effective enterprise program with before-, after- and summer BCPS programs to generate revenues despite economic challenges.

FINDING

Tuition for the BCPS Day Care Programs has not been increased since January 2001. While student enrollment is declining and there has been no increase in the past nine years, there has been a 30 percent increase in staffing salaries at the same time. Entry-level pay in 2001 for a staff member with a high school diploma was $6.15; it is now $9.05 per hour.

Last year the state mandated a raise of either 2.5 percent of salary or $1,100 for some non-certified staff, which included BCPS day care. This action resulted in an increase of approximately 10 percent of their wages. Those increases were not funded and added to program expenses. Losses and fluctuations in enrollment in Day Care Programs have occurred with a drop in ADM and local unemployment increases. These, of course, have led to decreased revenues for the program. Parents have been polled and appear willing to pay for an increase that will enable them to have child care so that they can work. Currently, at church programs in the county, charges are $45 per week compared to the BCPS cost of $28. Church summer programs charge $95 per week compared to $60 per week in BCPS.

District staff conducted a comparison study of four-week rates charged for registration, before and/or after school care, additional workdays, summer programs, and registration in neighboring districts. The results of this study are shown in Exhibit 4-10. Using current BCPS rates and other district rates in 2008, BCPS charges lower rates for all services except before-school programs than all districts surveyed:

• between $10 and $25 lower rates for program and summer registration;

• from $38 to $196 less for both before- and after-school programs;

• from $24 to $58 lower for after-school programs;

• for before-school programs, BCPS charges $12 more than Catawba and Caldwell Counties, $82 less than Granite Falls, and $38 less than Hickory Quality Child Care;

• between $1 and $18 less per day for additional workdays; and

• from $15 to $55 lower weekly rates for the summer program.



Exhibit 4-10 Comparison of Day Care Rates

Registration and Monthly (4-Week) Costs in Burke County Public Schools and Comparison School Districts

Site Registration

Before- and After-

School After-School

Before-School

Workdays (In Addition) Registration

Summer (Weekly Rates)

Burke County $25 $112 $96 $72 $12 $25 $60 Creative Beginnings $50 $150 $150 N/A $30 $50 $115 Country Side (Granite Falls)

No $308 $154 $154 $13 No $100

Hickory City (Catawba)

$25 $180 $120 $60 $19 $25 $95

Caldwell County Schools

$15 $180 $120 $60 $13 $15 $75

Hickory Quality Child Care

$25 $180 $120 $100 $30 $25 $105

Source: Burke County Day Care Office, 2010.

However, no rate increase has yet occurred. A document provided Evergreen shows that the district could be reimbursed between $346 and $435 per month. Consideration is being given to an increase of $4/month for all before- and after-school programs and $5/week for the summer program. This would in no way bring costs close to state reimbursement rates, but could be taken as a first step in recovering lost revenues.

BCPS does not charge different rates for different levels of star ratings despite the fact that programs with more stars are more costly because they have reduced student: teacher ratios. BCPS has five 5-star programs and seven 4-star of its 17 programs. The district has intentionally not done this in consideration of the financial challenges families are facing in the current economy.

The programs could and should be generating more funds to be used to cover program costs and at the participating schools to strengthen programs, teacher professional development, and provide additional instructional resources or technology—all of which would benefit the students at those schools and in these programs.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-8:

Immediately increase day care rates for before-school, after-school, and summer programs to proposed rates at a minimum, monitor comparative costs annually, and continue to raise rates incrementally toward state reimbursement rates.

BCPS is not competitive with other regional programs or local private providers. Costs have increased considerably in the past nine years, but revenues have not. Reimbursement by the state



is capped by the rates that the district charges for its programs. Thus, by not increasing rates at least to those at the mid-range of surveyed districts, BCPS is limiting its income for the program and its reimbursement rate from the State. The goal should be for rates to be comparable to peer districts and BCPS should more closely approach state reimbursement rates.

FISCAL IMPACT

Costs are calculated at an increased weekly fee of $5 for a nine-week summer program and an enrollment of 700 students. This would increase summer revenues to $31,500. Additionally, increasing monthly rates for nine months for today’s 970 currently enrolled students for all other programs by $4 would generate annual additional revenues of $34,920. If the district were to increase rates for students participating in both before- and after-school programs to $8 per month, revenues would be even further enhanced. A doubling of the rate is shown in starting in 2012-13.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Increase Before- and After- School Program Rates by $4

$34,920 $34,920 $69,840 $69,840 $69,840

Increase Summer Rates by $5 Per Week $31,500 $31,500 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000

Total Revenues $66,420 $66,420 $132,840 $132,840 $132,840

FINDING

As with any dually supervised program, before- and after-school programs create some ambiguity of responsibility, decision making, and authority. Both principals and district staff referenced the challenges. Although the programs are district-run programs, revenues remain in the schools where the programs are housed. The lack of clear policy and procedures has led to variance from school to school in program activity, expenditures, and likely their impact on student achievement.

Principals are allowed to maintain the revenues from school year and summer day care programs at their schools rather than reverting to the district⎯even though the district bears the majority of related costs. Although principals are reportedly required to maintain a fund balance the equivalent of three months expenses in their school accounts, a document provided by BCPS shows that only nine of the 17 programs maintain those fund balances. One school actually had no fund balance at all. Fund balances by school are shown in Exhibit 4-11.

A required fund balance is meant to retain funds at each school to create an escrow to pay for the indirect costs. Each program is assessed to cover central office personnel overhead as well as to have funds available to make payroll for the program in subsequent months. When funds are not available, payroll must come from somewhere else. Some other ways that day care funds have been used include enhancement of playgrounds and facilities.



Exhibit 4-11 BCPS Daycare Programs

Average Operating Expenses 2009-10 School Year

School 2009-10 Required

Fund Balance Actual Fund Balance

in School Funds

Difference Between Requirement and

Balance Chesterfield $11,432.00 $2,295.49 ($9,136.51) Drexel $36,910.00 $36,319.00 ($591.00) East Burke Middle $20,084.00 $6,872.91 ($13,211.09) Forest Hill $16,459.00 $14,125.91 ($2,333.09) George Hildebrand $29,532.00 $36,214.00 $6,682.00 Glen Alpine $21,732.00 $25,164.00 $3,432.00 Hallyburton $19,817.00 $19,817.00 0 Hildebran $18,887.00 $22,616.18 $3,729.18 Icard $21,695.00 $23,068.32 $1,373.32 Liberty $15,736.00 $18,208.00 $2,472.00 Mull $24,933.00 $0.00 ($24,933.00) Oak Hill $31,633.00 $21,000.00 ($10,633.00) Ray Childers $34,127.00 $32,955.59 ($1,171.41) Rutherford College $22,643.00 $21,276.00 ($1,367.00) Salem $33,687.00 $35,416.00 $1,729.00 Valdese $24,341.00 $24,789.00 $448.00 W. A. Young $19,588.00 $22,000.00 $2,412.00 Totals $403,236.00 $362,137.40 ($41,098.60)

Source: Burke County Public Schools, Day Care Office, 2010.

Although they are district programs, principals have historically had operational control, with the Assistant Superintendent and Day Care Co-Directors having administrative control. This has included each principal’s ability to determine both expenditures of funds as well as use of the facility. While many principals understand the educational benefits of the programs to their day-time student achievement, in some instances, Site Directors have been told (sometimes with no notice) that they will not be allowed to use particular rooms or computer labs. This action impairs the ability of before- and after-school staff to provide planned activities for the students and to offer the enhanced educational opportunities they deem beneficial to students shared by both programs. In some cases, too, Site Directors have had some of their day care-related hours usurped by principals for non-day care activities.

Importantly, Hillcrest Elementary School improved its student performance dramatically last year. They had received a grant for a tutoring after-school program. With similar coordination and teamwork between daytime programs and before- and after-school programs, it is just as likely that student achievement at after-schools would increase concomitantly. That level of camaraderie between school programs and day care programs is currently impeded by a lack of clear expectations and consequences.



RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 4-9:

Centralize budget controls for all day care programs and create an incentive program that offers principals benefits for increasing day care student enrollment and achievement.

There is a clear need for more specific lines of authority for day care activities to be determined and shared with all staff. Additionally, the central office needs to consolidate more control over these programs with regard to budget and to communicate clarity and consistency of the program’s intent and potential relative to student achievement.

Creating a positive agreement that maintains consistency and accountability for day care programs across the district, while at the same time developing an attitude of partnership and mutual benefit between principals and day care administrators, will lead ultimately to student enrichment and improved achievement.

Principals and central office administrators should develop an incentive program that enables schools to earn a percentage above the three-month reserve for their schools. The incentive funds should benefit students in both the school and before- and after-school programs. For instance, if funds are used for additional computers for a lab or reading books or software, before- and after-school students should have the same access as is available to students during the school day.

BCPS should create a review committee composed of representation from principals, teachers, and district administrators to develop and present parameters to the Superintendent and his Cabinet for earning the incentives. The committee should also review applications for approval. Higher percentages could be set with increased student performance at the schools. The basic idea is for funds generated to be used for the joint benefit of students in programs throughout the day, and to help improve day care programs with respect to student learning.

FISCAL IMPACT

The cost of implementing this recommendation would depend upon committee decisions made after a review of finances for the Day Care Program.

FINDING

Several BCPS employees noted a concern over the costs to the district of salaries for the two Co-Directors of the Day Care Program. Eight years ago, the full-time Day Care Director and secretary both left the district. The two current Co-Directors assumed responsibilities for both positions with additional extra duty pay. Currently that pay is $5/hour for each of them for their co-director responsibilities on top of their individual hourly rates as Site Coordinators for the school that each is also responsible for. Their salaries are $18 and $19 per hour for 37.5 hours per week for their site director responsibilities plus the additional $5 for co-director responsibilities for a total of $23/hour and $24/hour each. Other Site Directors receive from $11-17 per hour depending on their years of experience, education, accreditation, and other variables.



Co-Director responsibilities include:

• management of their own school site;

• oversight of two district Supplemental Education Services (SES) Programs (down from five last year);

• hiring, staffing, and licensing all sites and programs;

• development and maintenance of staff, parent, and student handbooks and job descriptions (which are current and BCPS specific);

• determination of consolidation locations;

• compliance with sanitation requirements and related cleaning at their school sites;

• monthly meetings with Site Directors;

• oversight and management of two snack programs;

• all responsibilities related to the operation of the district’s summer programs; and

• working with principals relating to decisions about budget fund balances and program operations.

RECOMMENDATION


Retain the combined Co-Director/Site Coordinator system, as it currently exists.

The combined salaries of the two Day Care Co-Directors do appear, on the surface, high compared to most director positions in the district, although combined, they are still less than that of the Chief Technology Officer. However, the majority of their salaries is for their responsibilities as Site Coordinators for the two schools they serve and not for their co-director responsibilities. All schools with Day Care programs have Site Coordinators, which is the additional role each director also has.

For $5/hour or $19,500 combined, BCPS is purchasing director responsibilities for its 17 Day Care sites. If they were to continue the Site Coordinator responsibilities, but hire a single full-time Director, the district would spend more than it currently does for the current dual responsibilities of the two for Site Coordinators and Day Care Directors. With responsibility for before- and after-school programs, it would be impossible for anyone to share oversight of a school’s programs, especially when the programs begin at six o’clock in the morning and end, officially, at six o’clock at night.



Although other Site Coordinators have the ability to split their shifts and perform personal tasks between the morning and afternoon sessions, the Day Care Directors have responsibility for planning, purchasing, communicating with parents, staff, and the state, record-keeping, and compliance with state regulations, so, for all practical purposes, they have 12-hour work days. Additionally, during school breaks when other staff are off, they must be at their sites to supervise program staff and children. Besides the traditional day care programs, they also administer SES and food service programs.

FISCAL IMPACT

The implementation of this recommendation can be achieved with existing resources.

FINDING

BCPS maintains two alternative education centers, one at each end of the county. Each is staffed with a principal, administrative assistant, and either a social worker or a counselor. One has nine and one 10 teachers. Each serves between 90 and 110 students throughout the year. Exhibit 4-12 shows the staffing at each alternative school.

Exhibit 4-12 Staffing of BCPS Alternative Schools

2009-10 School Year

Position

School

East ALPS College Street

Academy Principal 1 1Administrative Assistant 1 1Counselor/Social Worker 1 1Teacher Assistant 1 0Vocational Teacher 2 2Social Studies Teacher 1 2Science Teacher 1 1Math Teacher 2 2Language Arts Teacher 2 2Exceptional Children Teacher 1 1Total Staff 13 13

Source: Created by Evergreen from data provided by the Associate Superintendent for Student Services, 2010.

Student enrollments fluctuate throughout the year as students are staffed, graduate, or return to their home schools at the end of each semester. Students may also remain at the centers if they choose. If all students were to be enrolled throughout the year, the teacher: student ratio would be 1:12, or 8.4 students per staff member. However, with an everchanging student enrollment, it is likely no student would be enrolled in each class at any one time. The additional costs of one administrator, one administrative assistant, and one counselor or social worker per facility add considerably to program costs in addition to utilities and maintenance of the facilities.



Exhibit 4-13 shows student enrollment and graduation information for each alternative school.

Exhibit 4-13 Student Enrollment and Graduation Data for

BCPS Alternative Schools 2008-09 School Year

Data Source East ALPS College Street Academy

Average Student Enrollment 90-110 90-110 Graduates

East ALPS College Street Academy Time Period Number *Percentage Range Number *Percentage Range 2008-09 67 61%-74% 45 41%-50% 1st Semester 2009-10 41 37%-46% 30 27%-33%

Source: Created by Evergreen from data provided by the Associate Superintendent for Student Services, 2010. *depending on actual number enrolled

RECOMMENDATION


Combine alternative schools and consolidate the faculty to maintain a teacher: student ratio of no more than 1:15.

By closing one school and reducing teaching staff by five, class sizes for 180-220 students with the combined enrollment would range from 1:12 to 1:15. This would reduce transportation and operating costs for an entire facility (addressed later in this report) and program, and eliminate the staff costs of operating two separate programs. Staffing should be examined annually. FISCAL IMPACT

Savings are determined at an average salary and benefits of teachers, administrators, and administrative assistants.

The elimination of four teaching positions and a counselor/social worker would save the district an estimated $269,755 ($53,951 salary and benefits x 5). Reduction of one principal would save an additional estimated $88,022 including benefits. Reducing staff further by one administrative assistant would save an additional $39,983, including benefits. Total annual savings would be $397,760 in staff alone.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminate Four Teachers $215,804 $215,804 $215,804 $215,804 $215,804 Eliminate One Social Worker $53,951 $53,951 $53,951 $53,951 $53,951

Eliminate One Principal $88,022 $88,022 $88,022 $88,022 $88,022 Eliminate One Administrative Assistant $39,983 $39,983 $39,983 $39,983 $39,983

Total Savings $397,760 $397,760 $397,760 $397,760 $397,760



FINDING

Many items included in the BCPS Policy Manual are not policies at all, but are merely reiterations of state law or state board regulations. These are unnecessary inclusions, as they already require North Carolina school districts, including BCPS, to comply with these rules and regulations. An examination of a random selection of content in the BCPS Policy Manual ranged in dates from 1978 to 2006 with the majority of policies having been adopted without apparent revision between the late 1980s and mid 1990s⎯between 15 and 30 years ago. In fact, the copyright policy was written in 1985, prior to the advent of today’s technology.

BCPS has no policy on day care programs at all. Consequently, there is no way for principals and other staff to understand the need to comply with safety, sanitation, and summer feeding program rules. The Co-Directors have developed a handbook that could serve as a foundation for administrative procedures to accompany policies that should be developed. Although there is a written mandate for principals to maintain three months operating expenses in their Day Care accounts, there are no provisions for consequences should they not comply. In this case, this failure to have specifics in policy has led to some schools not having the funds to make payroll, and even to repay the district’s assessed indirect costs a year after they should have been settled.

The Superintendent and staff have diligently applied themselves to reviewing and updating the contents of the policy manual. In that, they are progressing to ensure that what is contained in policy is current and relevant to BCPS needs as well as compliant with current state and federal laws. Some current and newly-adopted policies are available on the BCPS Web site for review.

RECOMMENDATION


Continue reviewing and revising Board policies, eliminating those that reiterate state laws and regulations, eliminate hard copies, and post policies on the BCPS Web site.

A revision of the Board Policy Manual is long overdue. Once it is completed, annual reviews and updates should be conducted. Containing redundant state requirements unnecessarily adds length to the policy manual, which is approximately four inches thick. Once the policies are reviewed and streamlined, the manual will be more user friendly and likely accessed more frequently by staff and the public. The entire policy book should be accessible online. Hard copies should be eliminated.

FISCAL IMPACT

An estimated 40 hard copies of the BCPS Policy Manual are distributed to schools and central offices. Based on an estimated 1,000 pages in the manual, using a conservative cost of $.10/page, the cost for each manual is $100, or $4,000 for existing copies. By maintaining the updated manual online rather than distributing hard copies, and if the review process reduces the manual size by half, BCPS can save an estimated $2,000 initially (500 pages x 40 copies x $.10/page).



Additional savings will be reaped each year as policies are revised and updated. Estimating a maximum of 20 policies reviewed and revised annually, savings would be $80 (20 pages x 40 copies x $.10/page).

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Eliminate Hard Copies of the BCPS Policy Manual $4,000 $80 $80 $80 $80

FINDING

The State of North Carolina provides funding for exceptional children based on the lesser of the December 1 handicapped child count or 12.5 percent of the allotted average daily membership (ADM). Exhibit 4-14 shows a comparison of BCPS exceptional children enrollment with peer districts and demonstrates that BCPS has a higher percentage of students in its exceptional children programs than all of them. The district has five percent more exceptional children students than the average of the five peers (12.5%) and the state-funded percentage (12.5%), and 4.4 percent more than the district with the closest percentage (Buncombe County at 13.1%).

Exhibit 4-14 Comparison of BCPS Exceptional Children

with Peer Districts

School District Total Student Population*

Number of Exceptional Children**

Percent of Exceptional

Children Burke County 13,941 2,441 17.5% Buncombe County 25,724 3,361 13.1% Catawba County 17,560 2,208 12.6% Cleveland County 16,496 2,073 12.6% Henderson County 13,282 1,590 12.0% Iredell-Statesville 21,291 2,596 12.2% Peer District Average 18,871 2,366 12.5%

Source: North Carolina Department of Public Information Web site, 2010 *First Month: 2008-09 school year. **Unduplicated - a child who has more than one category of disability is counted only in the category of his/her primary disability.

Therefore, the district must pay for the education of those additional five percent of its students who are in exceptional children programs with resources other than state funds. Staff interviewed stated that there were several possible contributing factors to the apparent overidentification: the quality of the BCPS program and the presence of the School for the Deaf and the West Carolina Center in BCPS. Additionally, there may be students who should have 504 plans who have been identified and served as exceptional children students. Interviewees noted that BCPS has identified a particularly high number of students for its speech/language program as well.

Regardless of possible contributing factors, program specialists are in the process of auditing all exceptional children folders to ensure that all students in the program actually qualify and are properly placed. They are also reviewing IEPs and 504 plans to ensure that students are



appropriately placed with two having been identified before the site visit who were changed to 504s from IEPs. BCPS is also participating in North Carolina’s State Improvement Project (NC SIP). The program is based on research evidence that the vast majority of students with disabilities can read and write, as well as demonstrate math skills on grade level when appropriate. Staff is receiving training through a regional center in reading foundations and math.

BCPS staff are developing procedures for use districtwide that will ensure that students are being placed in the Least Restrictive Environment. Comments in principal focus groups showed that BCPS uses the national Response to Intervention [in North Carolina known as Response to Instruction (RTI) initiative] that is part of the reauthorization of the IDEA national legislation in 2004, but apparently does not use a team approach as many other districts do to support children with special learning needs in the regular classroom environment. RTI stresses the importance of providing high quality, scientifically-based instruction and interventions, and holding schools accountable for the progress of all students in terms of meeting grade-level standards.

The essential elements of an RTI approach are:

• the provision of scientific, research-based instruction and interventions in general education;

• monitoring and measurement of student progress in response to the instruction and interventions; and

• use of these measures of student progress to shape instruction and make educational decisions.

Many BCPS interviews conducted by Evergreen consultants revealed that RTI implementation for students depends largely on the psychologists who are charged with leading the initiative. Consensus seemed to unveil a need for training and written consistent procedures to ensure that all students in all schools benefit from the intent of RTI to support students in general education classes before referral for testing for exceptional children services.

RECOMMENDATION


Expand efforts to correctly identify and place students, and develop procedures and training for teams in all schools to offer a continuum of interventions in general education classes.

Consistent implementation of processes for support and identification before students are referred for placement in exceptional children programs has been proven to:

• serve students in general education classes and often prevent their need for exceptional children placement;

• benefit other students in those classes beyond those with special needs; and



• reduce the numbers of students requiring more intensive interventions in exceptional children programs.

One possible resource for Burke County to tap for addressing its overidentification of students is Duplin County. The Duplin County Director of Exceptional Children has initiated practices that allow students to be identified early and served within their regular classrooms rather than being identified for exceptional children classes. This action has reduced the percentage of its students being identified for exceptional children programs below state funding levels.

FISCAL IMPACT

State funds for each school-aged exceptional children student are approximately $3,501. At that same rate, the additional five percent of students [13,992 (1/13/10 count) x .05=700 students] that must be funded from sources other than state dollars cost the district $2,450,700 ($3,501 x 700=$2,450,700).* Anticipating that it will take time for procedures to be developed, uniformly applied, and new students appropriately placed as well as current students being reviewed for proper placement, estimates are based on a reduction of 70 students the first year, an additional 100 the second, an additional 200 the third, an additional 300 in Years 4 and 5.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Reduce Exceptional Children Enrollment to State-Funded Levels

$245,070 $595,170 $1,295,370 $2,345,670 $2,345,670

FINDING

BCPS has staffed its schools with more assistant principal (AP) months than is allocated by the state. This year the state funded 533 months for principals and assistant principals. A document BCPS provided to Evergreen shows that this year, BCPS has employed both groups of employees for 583 months, 50 months over the state allotment at a cost of $317,050 based on average assistant principal salaries and benefits. This year BCPS had reduced all assistant principals to ten-month contracts, but had then added time on each.

This same document demonstrates the district’s commitment to reducing school administrators months closer to the state allotment. The document reveals a proposal to reduce principals from 12 months to 11.8 months. Implementing that proposed change would reduce the number of months allotted to principals in BCPS from this year’s 348 to 341.9 next year. Similarly, it redistributes assistant principal allotments among schools and reduces the number of months from this year’s 235 months to a proposed 194 next year. However, that change still results in an overage of school administrator months of 5.9. It is a very positive step in the right direction, but does not completely bring principal and assistant principal allotments to the state-funded level.

*Calculations are based on 670 students as an estimated potential savings and would be more if the district targeted the actual 700 over the number of students that state funds.



RECOMMENDATION


Continue to reduce the number of assistant principal months in BCPS to the number of months funded by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI).

Reducing school administration to equal DPI allocations will allow BCPS to redirect those additional funds toward classroom instruction.

FISCAL IMPACT

The average salary and benefits of an assistant principal in BCPS is $63,408. Dividing this amount by ten yields a monthly cost of $6,341. Decreasing the number of assistant principal months by 5.9 would save the district $37,412 annually.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Reduce Assistant Principal Expenses $37,412 $37,412 $37,412 $37,412 $37,412

FINDING

When administrators were asked what the BCPS process was for them to have access to the board’s attorney, all interviewees stated that they would request guidance from the Superintendent or the Associate Superintendent. A formal uniform process has been established. Having a clearly delineated process, that is universally communicated, helps the School Board to control its legal costs.

A review of invoices for legal services revealed that the attorney provides a breakdown of expenses charged by portion of hour or by hourly rate. As a consequence, costs were well-validated leaving BCPS district certain of compliance with contractual hourly rates. It should continue to ensure that it is paying fair market value for legal services, closely monitor rates and billing, work performed, and the individuals performing the services.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools have developed internal processes to ensure containment of legal fees originating from staff and contractual compliance.

FINDING

Generally, when a school district enters into a lawsuit, the potential costs versus gains are weighed and discussed as the School Board considers the merits of a lawsuit. Often a district sets limits of expenditures for the pursuit of a legal solution. BCPS has spent a large sum in pursuing additional funding from Burke County in 2009. Interviewees indicated that no ceiling



had been set. Schwartz and Shaw was initially hired to represent the Board with the Superintendent buy-out/resignation. The firm’s duties were expanded to include representation for several citizen lawsuits, a lawsuit filed by the County Commissioners, the budget dispute with the County Commissioners, and the Superintendent’s search. Although both School Board members and the acting Superintendent identified escalating costs numerous times, there was no curtailment of these costs.

On June 15, 2009, the Commissioners met with the former Superintendent Burleson and the Finance Officer, and agreed to fund BCPS in the amount of $14,134,160 for 2009-10. Two weeks later, when the former Superintendent resigned, this was changed to $13,770,360 in the County Ordinance. An additional $363,800 was to be held in a 6900 contingency fund by the Commissioners. The contingency funds would have to be requested by BCPS with justification.

The final lawsuit ruling by Judge Bridges was for $14,154,127. If you use the agreement with Mr. Burleson on June 15, 2009, BCPS received an additional $19,967 as the result of legal action. If you use the budget ordinance, BCPS received an additional $383,767. In either case, BCPS spent $335,893 for a net gain of far less.

Exhibit 4-15 details the district’s legal expenditures for the past three and a half years and shows a commendable annual decrease of expenses until the 2009-10 school year. For 2006-07, the district spent an average of $5.22 per student (ADM basis); in 2007, that amount decreased to $4.40 per student. Costs continued to decrease the next year to $4.02 per student. However, with the lawsuit with Burke County regarding funding, costs for May through October 2009 increased to an average of $27.49 per student. Excluding costs related to the lawsuit, so far for the 2009-10 school year, costs would average about $2.71 per student.

Exhibit 4-15 BCPS Legal Expenditures

2006-07 through 2009-10 (partial)

Firm 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

2009-10 (Partial May

through October)

Total Expenses Per

Firm

Simpson, Kuehnert, Vinay, & Jones - - $35,105.21 $36,667.04 $71,722.25 Roberts & Stevens $8,658.75 $16,097.23 $11,532.99 $36,288.97 Groome, Tuttle, Pike & Blair - $2,016.00 $6,282.50 $8,298.50 Schwartz & Shaw, PLLC - - - $335,893.64 $335,893.64 Starnes, Aycock, Haire, Hogan, Saunders, & Rigsbee $63,883.00 $43,159.52 $2,237.00

$109,279.52

*Total Expenses $72,542 $61,273 $55,158 $372,561 $561,483 Student Enrollment 13,894 13,910 13,735 13,555 Annual Costs Per Student $5.22 $4.40 $4.02 $27.49

Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, 2010. *rounded to nearest dollar



Before the current expenditures related to the lawsuit, legal expenditures had decreased in the past few years. In contrast, costs for legal work in all school districts have increased over the last three decades due to a number of circumstances. These include due process activity associated with disciplinary proceedings, complicated issues related to special education students, personnel and student harassment allegations, risk management matters, and a variety of other issues. Areas of special education and student disciplinary activity are particularly troublesome and often require special legal expertise. These areas are typically complicated by the complexities of federal requirements and the relationship to local and state regulations. However, as in all areas that support the effective and efficient operations of the organization, school districts need to seek to minimize legal expenses, in particular, as they consider the potential cost effectiveness of originating lawsuits.

RECOMMENDATION


Implement a process that ensures a cost-benefit analysis of legal costs originating with the district before undertaking legal actions.

BCPS should discuss and determine how much money it is willing to support in legal expenses with the Burke County over increased funding as well as future lawsuits. The implementation of this recommendation should result in an organized, ongoing process designed to control legal expenses. Once legal action has begun, the Board should monitor expenditures and regularly discuss the merits of its continuation versus costs to the district in terms of dollars, public good will, and distraction from its core educational mission.

As one example, the Vancouver, Washington School District has enacted numerous cost-saving measures to minimize its legal expenses and serves as an exemplary model for the district. Examples include:

• the requirement of two signatures on all legal bills with the staff person who has been working with them signing off regarding reasonability of time and billing;

• a criminal history background check for anyone enacting a contract in the schools; and

• assurance of breach and termination provisions for all contracts.

FISCAL IMPACT

Conservatively, BCPS should be able to reduce legal fees in a typical year far below today’s expenditures. The impact of determining a ceiling for legal expenditures related to the current lawsuit cannot be estimated, but should certainly be a part of future legal considerations.

FINDING

Feedback provided during focus groups with school administrators reflects a disconnect between expectations and job performance for two district-level positions: the Grant Writer and the Relations/Workforce Development Director. Generally, in school districts, the functions



performed by staff in both positions support and provide enhancement to school leaders. Concerns expressed by BCPS school leaders, however, revealed the sense that both positions serve more as conduits of information about opportunities for school leaders to act on, rather than the Grant Writer and Relations/Workforce Development Director themselves to perform grantwriting and communications tasks. One person described it as an attitude of “we frame the problem and give you the work to do.”

The Relations/Workforce Development Director is supposed to work with internships and coordinate community schools and facilities rental. In fact, the administrative assistant to the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services performs the community schools and facilities rental role. Thus far, BCPS does not have a unified message (brand image) and has not yet developed a comprehensive communications campaign that details market segments and how to communicate with each, or a speaker’s bureau to convey “the” message. These components should be an integral part of a public relations role. Additionally, the office should be the point contact for parental engagement and volunteer programs to enlist parents and other community members in supporting and assisting in the schools. It is the logical office to develop a comprehensive public relations program for BCPS, and coordinate and encourage business partnerships and an Adopt-A-School program. The Relations/Workforce Development Director also has two part-time administrative assistants and a facilitator who work in the office.

Specifically, many interviews stated that information about grants was channeled to them rather than the Grant Writer meeting with them to confirm the need for a grant opportunity, solicit input regarding strategies, and writing the grant reflecting their thoughts about school needs. Similarly, rather than being the district representative to arrange for media coverage of positive things and/or events in schools, principals said communications with the Relations Director indicated the need for them to take action to contact media. As with other district issues, this lack of congruence in expectations for those positions could partially be the result of no clear expectations set forth in job descriptions for these two positions.

RECOMMENDATION


Develop job descriptions and clear expectations for working relationships between the Grant Writer and proposed School Community Engagement Officer and principals.

The Superintendent should direct the Personnel Administrator to request copies of job descriptions for similar positions in other North Carolina districts. The Superintendent should agenda discussion at a meeting with principals and district administrators concerning the job roles and expectations of these two positions. Consensus should be provided in writing for two reasons: to clarify expectations among all parties, and to serve as the foundation for subsequent written job descriptions The proposed School Community Engagement Officer should be housed in the central office in proximity to the Superintendent and other Cabinet members.



FISCAL IMPACT

The implementation of this recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources. However, clearer expectations for the role of the Grant Writer should lead to better communications among schools and district staff regarding grant opportunities which should also result in procurement of grant funds more closely tied to school and district needs.

FINDING

There is some documentation that hiring the two retired staff members as Co-Directors of the Exceptional Children Program, without paying their benefits, since they are both retired*, has saved the district approximately $4,500. These two individuals divide 20 calendar days between themselves, with each working 10 days. This schedule leaves some months without coverage by exceptional children managers.

These co-directors are both experienced administrators familiar with exceptional children programs and have instituted a number of efficiencies into the Exceptional Children Program. They have also begun developing written procedures to increase consistency among schools. They are both extremely committed and talented educators who have brought value to the shared role.

The dual responsibility for leading the Exceptional Children Department was meant to be temporary. When Dr. Stellar started, he asked the two retirees to stay on for a while. These individuals have laid a strong foundation for the program to move forward. Principals, in a focus group, expressed some concern about the responsiveness of the office.

RECOMMENDATION


Advertise for the position of Exceptional Children Director and fill the position as soon as possible.

Only under unique circumstances is the dual leadership for a program effective over the long-term. This shared responsibility was meant to be temporary, and it would be better for the program and continuity for the district to advertise for a single Director of Exceptional Children to assume leadership of the program as the single point of contact.

FISCAL IMPACT

The current costs for the shared salaries for this position are $84,378 with no cost for benefits. Even at a lower rate of pay, any new staff hired for it will incur an additional cost for benefits. At the average director’s salary and benefits of $93,310 including benefits, filling the vacancy with an individual will cost $8,932 in additional funds for BCPS.

*One from BCPS; one from another district.



Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Hire One Person as the Exceptional Children Director

$8,932 $8,932 $8,932 $8,932 $8,932

4.2 HUMAN RESOURCES

Personnel management is a critical function in school districts. The employees of a school district’s human resources department must ensure that complex personnel policies are followed. In many cases, this department provides the first impression of district quality to potential employees.

The BCPS Human Resources Department consists of the personnel administrator, a pre-employment specialist, a human resource management specialist, a retirement/workers’ compensation specialist, a credit renewal specialist, and a health benefits specialist. The department has lost four positions in the past few years and an additional one since Evergreen’s on-site visit.

FINDING

Staffing in the Personnel Office has decreased despite increasing responsibilities. Although responsibility for student records is located under the Associate Superintendent for Student Services on the organizational chart, two staff members were formerly allotted to the Personnel Office for student records because some student records were being retained on microfilm. The Personnel Department has imaged all personnel records, some of which were deteriorating because they were being stored in an attic, they can be indexed and accessible electronically. Consequently, the Personnel Office has also been tasked to do the same with student records. As a result, there is estimated to be a two- to six-week turnaround for requests for student records for former students.

Since then, those two student records positions as well as three additional positions have been lost from the department, one since the on-site visit. The four original lost positions reportedly saved the district approximately $200,000, but resulted in the loss of one particularly key position, the individual who was a full-time licensure specialist. This position’s responsibilities were assurance with highly qualified requirements, assurance that teachers had a clear status, monitoring that staff with lateral entry licenses were being nurtured and developing into quality teachers, management of the tenure process, and contractual agreements with teachers under contract and non-instructional staff that needed contracts. The latest staff member who left BCPS had the role the benefits coordinator, human resources home page coordinator and designer, EBenefits Facilitator, online registration for health-related human resources issues, was responsible for the School Board Index Report, a monthly supplement to the BOE Report that catalogs all personnel action throughout the year, and she served as the receptionist for the office. She transferred within the district to a position with the same salary but fewer responsibilities.



In focus groups, principals expressed concern about the lack of timeliness of responses they receive from the Personnel Office. With the reduced staff the office has experienced, that is to be expected, but should not be an ongoing issue. Additional staff will help improve responsiveness.

RECOMMENDATION


Adopt the proposed organizational structure for the Department of Human Resources, and replace two vacancies in the Human Resources/Personnel Office.

The responsibilities for maintaining accurate licensure records, highly qualified data for compliance with No Child Left Behind, and other personnel processes that relate to staff qualifications, benefits, and salaries as well as responsiveness to staff needs are very essential. These critical roles must be maintained for the welfare of BCPS employees and responsiveness of the Personnel Office to staff and school needs. All staff should be cross-trained so that they are familiar with licensure, benefits, and records management.

Exhibit 4-16 shows the proposed reorganization of the Department of Human Resources under an Executive Director (also see Recommendation 4-1).

Exhibit 4-16 Proposed Organizational Structure Department of Human Resources


Executive Director for Human Resources

Administrative Assistant

Pre-Employment Specialist

Human Resource Management Specialist

Retirement/Workers’ Compensation Specialist

Credit Renewal Specialist

Health Benefit Specialist

Certification Specialist


FISCAL IMPACT

Average salaries for administrative assistants are $39,983 including benefits. Adding two positions would cost the district $79,966 annually. The district should carefully examine the salary level for these positions to ensure that the level of pay is commensurate with the level of responsibility.



Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Replace Two Personnel Administrative Assistants

($79,966) ($79,966) ($79,966) ($79,966) ($79,966)

FINDING

Prior to the on-site visit, Evergreen requested BCPS job descriptions. Job descriptions that were provided were merely printouts of generic state job descriptions. State documents are meant to serve as models for North Carolina school districts to use to tailor to their own unique needs and job parameters, not to be used verbatim. Only a few BCPS-developed job descriptions were provided to Evergreen—one for Instructional Coaches and some related to the Day Care Program.

Job descriptions in BCPS do not serve either to guide employee actions nor as a basis for evaluations. Having no job description prevents staff from having a clear understanding of expectations and responsibilities, and from knowing on what criteria they will be evaluated.

Having clear job descriptions with specific job tasks and responsibilities helps the district in a number of ways. Job descriptions:

• reduce duplication of effort; • improve staff morale because they know what is expected of them; • strengthen accountability for work production; and • provide the district a means of tying annual evaluation to the duties outlined.

RECOMMENDATION


Develop BCPS job descriptions for each position, and tie them directly to performance evaluations.

The Executive Director of Human Resources should work with district staff to update BCPS job descriptions. Job descriptions are an essential management tool for specifying minimum qualifications, knowledge, skills and ability requirements, and essential job functions.

Comprehensive job descriptions should include:

• general description of duties; • specific duties and responsibilities, including examples of specific functions; • other duties and responsibilities; • overtime status; • minimum training and experience; • performance aptitudes;



• physical demands, work environment, and ADA compliance; • evaluation criteria; • employee’s supervisor; • pay grade or salary line; • terms of employment; and • the date developed or revised.

The School Board should approve all job descriptions. All BCPS staff and new hires should each receive copies. Administrators should review and update job descriptions annually. District leaders should incorporate job descriptions into the staff evaluation process.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources, but should increase efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. The development of job descriptions could also be included as a part of the contract called for in Recommendation 4-21.

FINDING

The Personnel Administrator has determined the need to discontinue grant-related practices that create duplication and contribute to potential lower morale among district staff. Grant applications have previously been written in a lack of compliance with district hiring compensation practices.

Grant-related positions have been written for specific individuals instead of advertising new positions through conventional district practices. Salaries have been written into grants breaching district salary schedules. Specific examples include:

• The salary of the Relations/Workforce Development Director is only exceeded by that of the Superintendent, Assistant and Associate Superintendents, Chief Technology Officer and Secondary Director.

• The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator’s salary is $58,550, higher than one Director’s salary and at a total of $76,701, including benefits.

This salary-setting practice for grant-funded positions has contributed to a disparity in salaries among BCPS staff. This practice ignores employees already in the district by eliminating them from consideration for newly-created positions, and by setting salaries for new employees above those of long-term employees with potentially similar job responsibilities.

Additionally, positions have been added to the district as grant funds have been procured rather than merging responsibilities with like tasks. Often new positions also have additional staff supporting them. This duplicates responsibilities and staffing, and can cause conflict between positions with similar or related authority. Moreover, it is not a cost-effective management practice.



RECOMMENDATION


Use the BCPS salary schedule for the determination of salary and benefits for positions funded by grants, assess the need for additional personnel for grant responsibilities, and advertise all positions created by grants.

The implementation of this recommendation will provide equity among staff. Using the district’s salary schedule will ensure equitable compensation among all staff and help all staff to understand and accept salary determinations. Examining the need for additional staffing before creating new positions into grants will also ensure equitable job responsibilities among staff with similar responsibilities, rather than grant-funded individuals having a narrow range of responsibilities that are usually assumed by other staff with broader job functions. These actions will also help to target grant funds toward more student-centered activities instead of adding staff to the district. This, too, prevents the district from either having to let grant-funded staff go or finding ways to keep them when the job they were hired for no longer exists. Finally, advertising all new grant-funded positions instead of writing specific individuals into grant applications will assure an equitable playing field for all staff and others interested in applying for grant-funded positions. These actions will prevent a perception of favoritism.

FISCAL IMPACT

Savings that would have been experienced by the district in the case of the Relations/Workforce Director (salary and benefits $105,355) if the position had been funded at the average of other director’s salaries ($93,310 including benefits) would have been $12,045.

Savings that would have been experienced by setting the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator’s salary of $76,701 at the average coordinator’s salary of $68,163 would have been $8,538.

These are just two examples where savings could have been achieved.

FINDING

There is no apparent systematized approach to determination of employee reporting structures nor delineation of differences in responsibility among job categories. Common practice in most school districts is for there to be a line-staff reporting order with, for instance, directors supervising coordinators who may, in turn, supervise specialists. This is not the case in BCPS with directors and coordinators and/or coordinators and specialists reporting to the same supervisor. Coordinators sometimes report to Coordinators. Having essentially no job descriptions likely contributes to this dilemma.

BCPS has:

• a total of 13 full-time directors;



• two director positions shared by four staff members; • one part-time Director of Drivers’ Education; • four part-time Athletic Directors; • one Assistant Director for Technology; • one Assistant Director for Accountability; • six coordinators; • one part-time Drivers Education Coordinator; and • many specialists, facilitators, and managers.

The Technology and Accountability offices have assistant directors, rather than others related to teaching and learning.

Similarly, decisions about salaries have historically been made without a system to guide them. For example, when both the Title I and Middle School Directors had expanded responsibilities added to their roles, they were both given raises to compensate for their broadened roles. Merging two positions into one does save the district dollars, but there needs to be a system for determining whether the decision and the compensation for increased responsibilities are valid.

A document entitled “Base Gross Salaries” provided to Evergreen shows that, excluding the Superintendent, salaries for central office administrators range from almost $58,000 to $103,000. The salary of the assistant directors ranges between $52,896 and $72,624. The higher assistant director salary exceeds that of four directors and the Finance Officer.

Burke County Public Schools has not historically conducted regular reviews of the competitiveness of central office administrator, teacher or classified employee salaries with peer districts. Public sector organizations typically hire external consultants to conduct comprehensive compensation and classification studies every three to five years to gauge overall market competitiveness and adjust salary schedules to be more competitive, and to judge internal equity and correct any inequities identified. External consultants are hired to provide an objective, third-party review and to use their expertise and proven methodologies to make unbiased recommendations.

BCPS has never conducted an internal comprehensive compensation and classification study nor hired an external consultant to conduct such a study. While market reviews can be conducted internally, a group or individual from outside the district typically conducts the classification review component, since it involves a detailed review of individual job duties and requires objectivity in making individual classification and pay recommendations.

The internal equity or classification review portion of the study should include a detailed analysis of individual position duties as they relate to other positions in the district. The external equity or compensation review component of the study should include a detailed comparison of district pay ranges to market peer pay ranges. Often, as part of a compensation and classification study, school districts across the country request the selected consultant to develop updated electronic job descriptions, review Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and review Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) determinations for all job titles. The information needed to develop



these items is collected as part of the study, and the district could save time and ensure quality end products by hiring an expert to produce them.

RECOMMENDATION


Conduct a comprehensive compensation and classification study to ensure internal equity and market competitiveness.

The Executive Director of Human Resources should work with the Chief Finance Officer to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an external human resources consultant to conduct a comprehensive compensation and classification study and oversee the competitive bid process. The pay and classification study should be comprehensive and address both internal and external equity issues.

The RFP should include all components of a full compensation and classification study, as well as development of electronic, updated job descriptions, including ADA-related physical requirements and FLSA determinations, for all jobs in Burke County Public Schools.

Once a firm is selected and work begins, the Executive Director of Human Resources should act as the project manager for the study.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented at a one-time cost to BCPS of approximately $45,000 to $50,000 (without including teachers). The costs shown below represent the median of the likely range of competitive bids. The cost for implementing this recommendation would be related to hiring an external consultant. While there is a one-time cost to hire a consultant, BCPS can expect to strategically position itself as a market competitor in the future by implementing a sound and equitable compensation and classification system, and reap intangible benefits, such as increased employee morale.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Conduct Compensation and Classification Study ($47,500) $0 $0 $0 $0

FINDING

When district administrators discovered that a neighboring district was advertising for a teacher of visually impaired students, the two districts collaborated on interviewing and hiring one person to be shared by both school systems. Examining such opportunities for shared services provides adequate levels of service to students while, at the same time, saves both districts funds through cost-effective practices.



COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for implementing cost-effective hiring processes for instructional staff in the Exceptional Children Program.

FINDING

Exhibit 4-17 shows BCPS data for gifted students in comparison to peer districts. Supporting those students in BCPS are one director, one administrative assistant and three gifted teachers. In most districts across the nation and in North Carolina districts with similar student enrollments, coordination of the program for gifted and talented students is undertaken by a director with other responsibilities rather than one dedicated to that program, or a lead teacher who may answer to the Exceptional Child Director or a Curriculum Director.

Exhibit 4-17 Burke County Academically or Intellectually Gifted Enrollments

and Percentages Compared to Peer Districts 2008-09 School Year

School District Total Student Population*

Number of Academically or

Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Students**

Percent Academically or

Intellectually Gifted Students

Burke County 13,941 1,988 14.3% Buncombe County 25,724 3,837 14.9% Catawba County 17,560 1,900 10.8% Cleveland County 16,496 2,785 16.9% Henderson County 13,282 706 5.3% Iredell-Statesville 21,291 2,135 10.0% Peer District Average 18,871 2,273 11.6% Source: North Carolina Department of Public Information Web site, 2010. *First Month: 2008-09 school year. ** Count from April 2008. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/academicservices/gifted/student-data/childcount/2008.pdf

RECOMMENDATION


Reclassify the position of Director of Academically or Intellectually Gifted (AIG) students to Coordinator of Academically or Intellectually Gifted (AIG); reassign the administrative assistant position to support the curriculum coordinators; and re-examine the FTE in the department relative to BCPS AIG enrollment.

The Curriculum Coordinators will need support for phone, copying, and clerical tasks as they co-lead the district’s curriculum, instruction, and professional development with the Elementary and Secondary Directors and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction. Since



most districts do not have a position solely responsible for AIG, the district certainly does not need a director-level position for that responsibility.

FISCAL IMPACT

The difference between a Director’s salary and a Coordinator’s is $3,066 including benefits. A re-examination of AIG enrollment may save additional dollars with elimination of at least one additional position in the department.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Reclassify the AIG Director $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066

FINDING

In recognition of the need to bring the cost for substitute teachers down as well as to provide instructional continuity for BCPS students, this year the district has enacted limitations on substitutes. BCPS calculated the three-year average of what each school had spent for substitutes. The district excluded the two highest and lowest schools to “smooth the bell curve” and allocated the resulting average to each school for substitute expenditures.

If a school overspends those dollars, except in extenuating circumstances, they must fund substitute teachers with school resources instead of having the expense be paid by the district as in the past. BCPS also stopped the practice of providing substitutes for positions the State does not pay for. As of the dates of Evergreen’s on-site visit, past the mid-point in the school year, only about $300,000 had been spent. BCPS anticipates a savings of around $400,000. They have set aside a reserve of $100,000 at the central office to help principals who have extraordinary circumstances⎯such as an inordinate number of pregnant teachers or a flu epidemic that affects teachers.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools has enacted cost-effective measures that should be continued to reduce its costs for substitute teachers.

FINDING

Burke County Public Schools spent close to a million dollars last year on substitute teachers. The actual figure was $918,808. That represents 3,113 days that teachers were not in their classes teaching. That means that, on average, every instructional day, there were 17.3 teachers absent. There are over 1,000 teachers in the district who are eligible for state reimbursement for substitutes.

Comments in principal focus groups reflected discontent with the district’s decision to try to control substitute costs. An action that other districts have implemented to minimize substitute costs is the development of an incentive program to encourage employee attendance and



discourage absenteeism. Rather than being perceived as a negative approach to control of substitute teacher costs, this action is often viewed as a positive, pro-active measure.

As one example, Fort Bend ISD in Texas instituted such a program of attendance bonuses and included teacher attendance as a part of principal evaluations. They saved $116,000 in substitute costs the first year and reduced absences by 7,000 days.

RECOMMENDATION


Create an employee attendance incentive program.

Developing an incentive program that awards employees at six-week, semester, or at the end of year with bonuses for perfect attendance has helped other districts reduce their substitute costs. In so doing, too, they have kept teachers in the classes and helped focus more concertedly on improving student achievement. BCPS should create a committee of administrators and teachers to examine other programs and develop one tailored to BCPS needs and resources.

FISCAL IMPACT

Without knowing the details of the proposal that BCPS staff develop, it is not possible to determine the fiscal impact either in terms of costs or savings.

4.3 TRANSPORTATION

The BCPS Transportation and Logistics Department is responsible for the safe and efficient transportation of BCPS students on a daily basis. The Transportation Department is also responsible for training bus drivers, investigating accidents and complaints, routing, purchasing, and providing inspections and preventive maintenance on school buses.

According to Exhibit 4-18, the BCPS transportation budget for the 2007-08 school year was $3,273,321. The BCPS Transportation Department operates 107 school buses (down from 109 a year ago) to transport students to area schools. BCPS transported approximately 6,758 students for a total of approximately 1,255,320 miles, at a cost per student of about $487 annually. As can be seen, BCPS transportation costs per student at $487 are lower than for all other peer school systems, and $75 less than the peer school system average.

BCPS has run a top-rated operation in terms of efficiency for the past three school years⎯2006-07 through 2008-09. One hundred percent efficiency has meant that all funding for transportation comes from state and federal sources, and none from local funds.

Thus, the biggest challenge facing the BCPS Transportation Department is to maintain its consistent, top-level performance.



Exhibit 4-18 Student Transportation Overview

in Comparison Districts 2007-08 School Year*

School District Buses Pupils** Miles Cost*** Cost Per Bus Cost Per

Pupil Cost Per

Mile Burke County 109 6,728 1,255,320 $3,273,321 $30,030.47 $486.52 $2.61 Buncombe County 260 14,471 2,580,419 $9,745,569 $37,482.96 $673.46 $3.78 Catawba County 182 10,238 1,674,629 $5,255,807 $28,878.06 $513.36 $3.14 Cleveland County 173 8,245 1,614,982 $4,623,791 $26,727.12 $560.80 $2.86 Henderson County 104 5,897 1,082,966 $3,591,368 $34,532.38 $609.02 $3.32 Iredell-Statesville 203 12,451 2,395,771 $6,559,151 $32,311.09 $526.80 $2.74 Peer Average 172 9,672 1,767,348 $5,508,168 $31,660.35 $561.66 $3.08 State Total 14,063 777,484 73**** $420,711,139 $29,916.17 $517.00 NA

Data obtained from Table 31 of NC Statistical Profile 2009. State data obtained from NC Facts and Figures 2008-09. * Includes contract transportation. Mileage includes to and from school only. ** Number of pupils transported daily. *** Includes contract transportation and bus replacement. **** State average mileage per day.

FINDING

As shown in state calculations, the BCPS Transportation Department is operating at the highest level of cost efficiency. During the past three school years, BCPS has achieved a 100 percent budget rating in transportation funding in both Budget Rating 1 and Budget Rating 2. The only alternatives are to maintain the perfect level achieved or to fall below.

Exhibit 4-19 shows the most recent notice BCPS received from NCDPI for the 2009-10 school year. With one exception, 2005-06, BCPS has received identical notices since the 2004-05 school year. BCPS was able to recover its 100 percent status quickly after dropping below in that one year.

NCDPI administers an allotment each year to the school systems in the State of North Carolina for the operation of student transportation programs. NCDPI also pays for replacement buses when route school buses reach age (20 years) or mileage limits (200,000). The funding process used by NCDPI assigns each school system an efficiency rating. This rating is then translated to a budget formula used to determine the transportation allotment.

Derek Graham’s Pupil Transportation Funding in North Carolina explains the funding formula in this way:

The first step is to plot each county as an (X, Y) coordinate on a graph. The X-axis is the ratio of the number of buses operated per one hundred students. The Y-axis is annual total expenditures per student.

Consider the “southern most” point on the graph. This point (A) represents an LEA (Local Education Agency) which spends fewer dollars per student than any other LEA in the state.




100 Percent Transportation Efficiency Notice

Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2010. NOTE: The information contained on this sheet was furnished to DPI’s School Business Division for Allotment Revision 13.



Therefore, it can be said that no other LEA is more efficient with respect to dollars per student than this LEA.

Consider the “western most” point on the graph (B). This LEA operates fewer buses per one hundred students than any other LEA. It can be said of this LEA that no other LEA in the state is more efficient with respect to buses operated per one hundred students than this LEA. These two points—A and B—become part of the “efficiency frontier.” There may be one or more additional points (e.g., C and D) between these two that become part of the frontier as well.

All other points on the graph are less efficient with respect to expenditures AND number of buses than some point on the frontier. Graphically, every other point on the graph is to the “northeast” of some frontier point.

NCDPI compares each school system’s performance with standardized performance criteria comprised of the population of North Carolina school systems. Contextual and demographic factors are also calculated and used to distribute transportation funds equitably.

NCDPI produces an annual report that details each school system’s performance ratings on two separate measures:

• Budget Rating 1 – Simulator Rating: This rating is based on transportation expenditures and buses operated, as well as students transported. These data are calculated for each North Carolina school system using the NCDPI operational simulation formula.

• Budget Rating 2 – Model Run: NCDPI determines this measure by comparing each county with all other counties in terms of cost and buses per adjusted student. This factor focuses on the efficiency of transportation operations in relation to all other school systems in the State.



To determine each school system’s cost efficiency and bus efficiency ratings, each system is compared to the minimum statewide cost per student and the minimum statewide buses per 100 students. Ratings are developed with adjustments for differences in environmental characteristics including:

• student population density; • median family income; • average distance to school; • average number of seats per bus; • percent of special education students transported; • roadway density; and • circuitry⎯which is a measure of how well streets are connected.

Once each school system has been assigned its efficiency ratings, a buffer amount of 10 percent is added, not to exceed 100 percent. This buffer is designed to account for any undetected flaws in the system. Achieving anything less than a 100 percent budget rating is essentially “leaving money on the table,” because state transportation funding is reduced for efficiency scores of less than 100 percent.

The allotment for a school system is determined by multiplying the budget rating by total eligible expenditures for the previous year. This figure is then adjusted upward for growth in student population size, if appropriate, and any salary increases implemented by the General Assembly.

An analysis of BCPS Transportation Department budget rating data revealed that the department has been above the state average in the measures of operational efficiency and effectiveness since the 2004-05 school year, with the sole exception of the 2005-06 school year.

To assist in understanding how their efficiency score is determined, NCDPI provides each school system with a simulator program (TIMS). In the program, school systems can perform “what if” analyses to determine how proposed changes will affect their efficiency score, and thus, their level of state funding. Many other factors can be manipulated in the budget simulator to assess their effect on the overall budget rating. The BCPS Transportation Director is thoroughly familiar with the simulator program and credits its use with contributing to the department’s success in achieving the consistent 100 percent ratings.

COMMENDATION

The BCPS Transportation Department has achieved a complete and consistent high level of efficiency, as evidenced by its 2006-10 NCDPI budget ratings at 100 percent, resulting in complete reimbursement from the State of North Carolina for all regular school transportation expenses.

FINDING

The BCPS operates a bus inspection and preventive maintenance program that has recently been ranked high among North Carolina counties. In a letter from NCDPI to Superintendent Stellar of



February 19, 2010, Burke County Public Schools received a score of 19.80 for its inspection and preventive maintenance program. This was significantly better than the previous year’s score of 32.40. Last year, the average evaluation score was 26.83, and BCPS was below that average. Once computations have been made official for the current year, it is likely that the present score of 19.80 will be above average.

The district employs DPI Vehicle Fleet Management OP-1 software furnished by NCDPI. This is a highly comprehensive system that, if followed and used to its fullest extent, tracks all maintenance items and preventive maintenance work orders and schedules within a 30-day time period.

As a consequence, the Compliance Report for preventative maintenance work for 2009-10 shows all inspection and maintenance orders to have been completed on time. In addition, selective compliance audits were all labeled “satisfactory” for these items:

• open orders; • completed orders; • mechanic labor; • bus inventory; • new vehicle service; • monthly inspections; • maintenance; • inventory received; • physical inventory (10 of 10 correct); • fuel issues; • service call log; • driver sign-in sheet; and • refund reports.

COMMENDATION

The BCPS Transportation Department is commended for its diligent preventive maintenance and bus inspection program, indicating a high level of care in keeping the bus fleet both safe and reliable.

FINDING

All BCPS bus drivers are classified as part-time and only qualify for benefits if they are employed in a dual role within the school system. This employment option helps reduce employee turnover which is typically a problem among part-time positions.

In many school systems, bus drivers are classified as part-time positions and do not qualify for benefits. Often, these school systems have significant problems with turnover, as part-time employees leave for full-time employment that offers benefits. Other school systems, in their efforts to retain quality employees, have had to lower the threshold requirements for bus drivers



to earn benefits. Those school systems provide the benefits of full-time employment to part-time employees which increase costs.

In BCPS, drivers who wish additional employment, both to earn additional wages and to qualify for benefits, can seek dual employment within the school system. Many bus drivers who desire this option also work in school cafeterias, as teacher aides, or in other part-time capacities. The school system benefits from a more stable workforce for positions that are typically hard to retain and saves the cost of providing benefits to part-time workers. Dual employment, whereby the school system develops a full-time work schedule by combining part-time jobs, is often considered a model employment practice. In addition, BCPS has been able to control overtime demands more effectively because of this practice.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools engages in a model employment practice by offering bus drivers the opportunity to work in multiple capacities in order to achieve full-time status and obtain benefits.

FINDING

BCPS operates mobile fueling trucks for its bus fleet, to avoid having buses drive significant distances to a central fueling station in the course of daily routes. In addition, the BCPS maintenance garage services all BCPS vehicles, including trucks, vans, and activity buses.

The Burke County Government also operates a variety of vehicles (such as ambulances, law enforcement vehicles, and maintenance trucks). The potential synergistic value to Burke County of using the BCPS mobile fueling fleet to help fuel some or all of the County’s vehicles should be explored. As an alternative, BCPS could use Burke County’s fueling sites.

Conversely, Burke County also has a need for a vehicle maintenance facility. Likewise, the potential synergistic value to Burke County of a joint maintenance facility should be explored.

RECOMMENDATION


Conduct a careful analysis of the potential benefits of joint operations in transportation between Burke County and the Burke County Public Schools.

Since Burke County has a responsibility for fulfilling the local funding needs of the school system, including transportation’s local share for activity buses, it appears possible that Burke County might benefit from operating some common activities jointly with the public schools. The potential economy-of-scale savings may be an incentive for cooperation.

FISCAL IMPACT

The actual savings due to economies of scale cannot be provided at this time. However, the savings can be assumed to be about 10 percent of the County’s and the BCPS transportation



maintenance costs. This amounts to about $40,000 per year. This amount is shown to begin in 2010-11 to allow time for study of such a cooperative arrangement. Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Conduct Joint Activities In Transportation $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000

FINDING

Although the BCPS Transportation Department has achieved a 100 percent efficiency rating for all but one year in the past five in both rating categories, and tracks several measures of performance informally, the department can actually improve its performance measurement.

To meet state requirements, BCPS Transportation Department staff complete an annual report which contains some data that would be useful in analyzing performance locally. However, these data fall short of those needed to produce a comprehensive understanding of transportation effectiveness and efficiency in BCPS. Indicators of effectiveness and efficiency can assist the Transportation Department in consistently tracking and monitoring districtwide performance. The Transportation Department can then compare these statistics to those of peer school systems and its own history. Ideally, the Transportation Department would annually select a target goal for each indicator and track progress towards that goal.

While it is evident that BCPS Transportation Department staff are successful in maximizing the effectiveness of the transportation function and regularly track performance in many areas, the department does not track, compile, or publish its findings on a full spectrum of performance indicators. The department does collect a portion of these statistics, as required by the state for funding reasons, but does not report them in an open forum, such as at a School Board meeting. Such reporting would promote the department’s current efficiency and provide data from which to assess the potential for further efficiencies.

Many high-performing school systems use effectiveness and efficiency indicators to assess ongoing performance in key management areas. Performance indicators are especially needed in costly areas such as transportation. Performance indicators allow departments of transportation to track service quality and make adjustments where required, with resulting improvements in performance being documented to demonstrate progress. Accurate and timely reporting on performance indicators help management allocated funds to the most critical needs, and provide evidence to stakeholders that the Transportation Department is using its resources effectively.

Examples of performance measures related to school district transportation are provided in Exhibit 4-20.



Exhibit 4-20 Potential Transportation Effectiveness Indicators

Sample Transportation Indicators

Operational Performance Number of Student Riders Percentage of BCPS Students Transported Number of Buses Operated Miles Traveled per Day Safe Transportation of Students Reported Accidents per 100,000 miles Student Injuries per 100,000 miles Disciplinary Referrals per 100,000 miles Percentage of Buses Passing External Safety Inspections (if appropriate) Operational Efficiency Operational Costs per Mile Driven Operational Costs per Student Operational Costs per Regular Student Route Operational Costs per Exceptional Student Route Salaries and Benefits as Percentage of Total Operating Costs Maintenance Costs per Bus Ratio of Student Riders to Bus Capacity Operational Quality Percentage of Bus Routes On-Time Average Student Riders per Bus Duration of Average Bus Route (for both regular and exceptional routes) Results of Transportation Quality Surveys Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, 2010.

RECOMMENDATION


Identify and evaluate performance indicators, and issue an annual report card for the BCPS Transportation Department.

Currently, only some data are available to support the perception of effectiveness for the BCPS Transportation Department, other than the recent 100 percent efficiency ratings from the State. Other data should be systematically collected and reported to monitor all key aspects of effectiveness. The BCPS Transportation Department should implement the collection, analysis, and reporting of additional vital performance statistics to illustrate the current status of operations.



Such an annual review of its operations should provide assurances that the department has met performance standards, both in comparison to its past and in comparison to its peers. The report card should serve to highlight solid performance and areas in need of improvement.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. While no specifics can be cited at this time, it is likely that the BCPS Transportation Department will achieve some cost savings in its local share and the cost reimbursed by the State, as it works to achieve the standards identified in its report card.

4.4 CHILD NUTRITION

School meal programs began when the Child Nutrition Act of 1946 authorized the National School Lunch Program to “safeguard the health and well-being of the nation’s children.” The program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is open to all public and nonprofit private schools and all residential childcare institutions.

Burke County Public Schools participates in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). School systems that participate in these federal programs receive cash subsidies and donated commodities from USDA for each eligible meal they serve. In return, the school system must serve its students meals that meet federal guidelines for nutritional value and offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible students.

In 2008-09, the USDA reimbursed over $8 billion for the National School Lunch Program. This federal support comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each meal served, depending on the economic status of the student. The poorest students qualify for free lunches, while others qualify for reduced price lunches. All meals served according to federal guidelines receive some level of reimbursement, including those served to students who pay full price.

Child Nutrition is one of the functions of any school system that is most publicly recognized and is often assessed informally by many external stakeholders. This level of visibility, along with the potential for financial profit and loss, makes Child Nutrition an area that must be guided with clear expectations and monitored with precision.

The BCPS Child Nutrition Department operates 26 school kitchens. According to the BCPS Web site, the kitchens serve an average of 11,441 meals per day or over 2,059,386 meals per year. The annual budget is just under $8 million.

The BCPS food services staff consists of the Child Nutrition Director (who also serves in the capacity of Purchasing Director for BCPS), a child nutrition bookkeeper, two supervisors of cafeteria managers, 26 cafeteria managers, and 126 cafeteria workers.



FINDING

The BCPS Child Nutrition Department has recently found itself operating with increasingly narrowing profit margins, until it has most recently become unprofitable.

Exhibit 4-21 provides data obtained from BCPS, showing profits and losses of Child Nutrition from 2002-03 to 2008-09. As can be seen, the exhibit shows a decline in profitability until the first loss in 2008-09.

Exhibit 4-21 BCPS Child Nutrition Department

Profit and Loss Statements 2002-03 through 2008-09 School Years

School Year Profit or (Loss)

2002-03 $775,969 2003-04 $448,692 2004-05 $391,990 2005-06 $365,428 2006-07 $276,114 2007-08 $34,389 2008-09 ($337,478)

Source: BCPS Incentive Program Analysis, 2010.

USDA defines the indirect cost a school district incurs due to meal production and service as follows:

Indirect costs are also incurred. Indirect costs are those costs which are incurred to the benefit of school food service as well as other school functions, but are not readily identifiable to the school food account. Since these costs do contribute to the cost of producing a meal, Federal policy allows that they may be claimed for reimbursement. It is to the advantage of the child nutrition operation to include these costs in their claim for reimbursement so that each program may bear its fair share of the total cost.

NCDPI calculates from the BCPS Child Nutrition Department reports the allowable indirect cost for the year, based on formulas that apply uniformly to all school districts in North Carolina. This indirect cost amount is to be paid into the school district’s general fund from the child nutrition department’s account. At its discretion, a school district may require its child nutrition department to pay 100 percent of the calculated indirect cost, or a portion thereof, or nothing. This discretion is usually applied when the child nutrition program’s reserve dips below one operating month. Payments of indirect cost are then either reduced or eliminated. Despite the less than ideal financial conditions under which it operates, the BCPS Child Nutrition Department has consistently paid 100 percent of its indirect cost allotment to the BCPS General Fund. Indirect costs include prorating custodians, utility costs, waste management, human resources administration, and maintenance/repair needs (see Recommendation 3-7 in Chapter 3).



Clearly, action is necessary to increase revenues and decrease expenses in order to eliminate the pattern of financial losses year after year. In fact, the pattern should be reversed to establish a consistent, positive cash flow. This action should also allow the operating reserve to be funded at a minimum of one month and a maximum of three. Furthermore, it should allow funds to be accumulated toward the purchase of new food service equipment when existing equipment must be replaced, or when new school facilities are constructed.

It is important to note that a Child Nutrition Program must break even from a budget standpoint. Therefore, funds not available from federal sources must be paid annually out of the general fund, thus requiring additional Burke County local dollars to reach a break-even budgetary status.

RECOMMENDATION


Prepare and implement a detailed and well-considered, long-term strategy to operate the BCPS Child Nutrition Department consistently in a fiscally sound manner.

Future operations of the BCPS Child Nutrition Department should show a positive cash flow at the end of each school year, after all legitimate revenues and expenses have been accounted for. It is important that funds are accumulated as a result of the department’s operations. Such funds can be used legitimately to pay all indirect costs to the BCPS general fund, maintain a maximum three-month operating reserve, and purchase new food preparation and serving equipment for renovations and new construction.

The strategy should aim to increase revenues and decrease expenses. This chapter contains specific recommendations for revenue enhancements and cost reductions. Recommendation 4-25 establishes the strategic framework for the implementation of the subsequent recommendations, and for other future ideas not yet articulated.

The Superintendent should assemble a task force of BCPS internal managers (e.g., auxiliary services, child nutrition, finance, safety, purchasing) and meet on a periodic, perhaps monthly, basis. The task force agenda should be the profitability of Child Nutrition. This chapter contains some recommendations aimed at course-corrections toward profitability:

• meals per labor hour productivity improvements; • increase severe breakfast and lunch eligibility; and • maintain meal prices based on cost-of-living indicators.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources. The recommendations that follow in this section are intended for consideration as components of the department’s child nutrition profitability strategy. Each of these recommendations has direct, quantifiable fiscal implications.



FINDING

BCPS kitchen productivity, as measured by meal per labor hour (MPLH) varies from site to site. Meals are prepared at each school according to the conventional system model, whereby some foods are prepared from raw ingredients on the premises (using some bakery breads and prepared pizza and washing dishes). MPLH is calculated by determining the number of meals or meal equivalents served, and dividing by the number of labor hours required to produce and serve those meals.

Exhibit 4-22 shows the MPLH guidelines for conventional food preparation by daily lunch equivalents.

Exhibit 4-22 MPLH Guidelines for Conventional and Convenience

Meal Preparation Systems

Number of Meal Equivalents

Conventional System**

Convenience System***

Up to 100 10 12 101-150 11 13 151-200 12 14 202-250 14 15 251-300 15 * 16 301-400 16 * 18 401-500 17 * 19 501-600 17 * 19 601-700 18 * 20 701-800 19 * 22 801-900 20 23 901 up 21 23

Source: Staffing Guidelines for On-Site Meal Base Kitchens – InTeam Cost Control Manual, 2006. *NCDPI guidelines limit MPLH to 15-19 range. ** Conventional system is preparation of some foods from raw ingredients on premises (using some bakery breads and prepared pizza and washing dishes). *** Convenience system is using maximum amount of processed foods (for example, using all bakery breads, prefried chicken, and preportioned condiments and washing only trays or using disposable dinnerware).

Using these guidelines, BCPS achieved a districtwide MLPH figure of 17.03 in its most recent calculations. Exhibit 4-23 shows the average daily lunch equivalents for each BCPS site, the MPLH achieved at each site, the NCDPI recommended MPLH, and the resultant shortfall or surplus.



Exhibit 4-23 also shows the following campus-specific results:

• Performing on target (within +/- .5) MPLH: Chesterfield Elementary School, Drexel Primary, Forest Hill Elementary School, George Hildebrand Elementary School, Glen Alpine Elementary School, Heritage Middle School, Rutherford College Elementary School, Table Rock Middle School, Valdese Elementary School, Walter Johnson Middle School.

• Exceeding target (above .5) MPLH: Hallyburton Elementary School, Hillcrest Elementary School, Icard Elementary School, Mountain View Elementary School, Mull Elementary School, Oak Hill Elementary School, Rutherford College Elementary School, Salem Elementary School.

• Performing below target (within -.5 and -1.0) MPLH: Ray Childers Elementary School.

• Performing significantly below target (below -1.0) MPLH: East Burke High School, East Burke Middle School, Freedom High School, Hildebran Elementary School, J C Draughn High School, Liberty Middle School, W A Young Elementary School.

RECOMMENDATION


Develop and implement a labor productivity improvement program for the BCPS Child Nutrition Department.

Although many campuses meet or exceed MPLH guidelines, there is room for improvement in labor productivity in the BCPS Child Nutrition Department. Initially, the Child Nutrition Department should set quarterly productivity improvement goals for the seven schools with a MPLH deficit of 1.0 or greater, based on the productivity guidelines using the Conventional System. Specific steps to improve productivity at each site should be discussed by the Child Nutrition Director and the Supervisor with all affected Cafeteria Managers. Productivity improvement steps should be agreed upon by all parties.

Low-performing cafeteria sites should be observed, and potentially negative work routines identified and corrected. Cafeteria managers and cafeteria workers should be given opportunities to suggest potential productivity improvements.

After this initial step has been completed, productivity improvements at other schools below MPLH goals can be addressed.

FISCAL IMPACT

Based on the data in Exhibit 4-23, the total daily labor hours amount to 793.9. For a 180-day school year, this amounts to 142,902 hours. The potential hours to be saved by productivity improvements to within a target of +/- .5 MPLH at the seven sites are shown in Exhibit 4-24.



Exhibit 4-23 MPLH Productivity at BCPS School Sites

December 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009

Site

Average Daily Lunch

Equivalents

Daily Labor Hours Meals per

Labor Hour Recommended

MPLH*

(Shortfall) or

Surplus Chesterfield Elementary School 264.14 17.0 15.42 15 .42 Drexel Primary School 298.64 20.5 14.57 15 (.43) East Burke High School 836.00 50.3 16.62 19 (2.38) East Burke Middle School 861.21 52.0 16.56 19 (2.44) Forest Hill Elementary School 436.07 26.0 16.77 17 (.23) Freedom High School 998.35 56.8 17.58 19 (1.42) George Hildebrand Elementary School 455.57 27.0 16.87 17 (.13) Glen Alpine Elementary School 535.64 31.0 17.28 17 .28 Hallyburton Elementary School 276.92 17.5 15.82 15 .82 Heritage Middle School 658.71 35.8 18.40 18 .40 Hildebran Elementary School 524.92 33.5 15.66 17 (1.34) Hillcrest Elementary School 296.14 17.0 17.42 15 2.42 Icard Elementary School 369.00 20.5 18.00 16 2.00 J C Draughn High School 651.35 40.0 16.28 18 (1.72) Liberty Middle School 709.35 39.5 17.96 19 (1.04) Mountain View Elementary School 280.71 14.0 20.05 15 5.05 Mull Elementary School 347.71 20.5 16.96 16 .96 Oak Hill Elementary School 478.42 27.3 17.52 17 .52 Ray Childers Elementary School 496.50 30.3 16.39 17 (.61) R L Patton High School 866.78 50.0 17.34 17 .34 Rutherford College Elementary School 237.28 14.0 16.95 15 1.95 Salem Elementary School 595.71 32.5 18.33 17 1.33 Table Rock Middle School 675.92 37.3 18.12 18 .12 Valdese Elementary School 439.85 26.0 16.92 17 (.08) W A Young Elementary School 427.00 26.8 15.93 17 (1.07) Walter Johnson Middle School 524.42 30.8 17.03 17 .03 UNIT TOTAL 13,540.31 793.9 17.03

Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from the following sources: (1) BCPS Child Nutrition Department; (2) Staffing Guidelines for On-Site Meal Base Kitchens – InTeam Cost Control Manual, 2006. *NCDPI Guidelines limit MPLH ranges to 15-19.; see Exhibit 4-21.

Exhibit 4-24 Daily Labor Hours Saved from Productivity Improvements

to Target MPLH Levels at the Seven Poorest Performing Sites

Site

Average Daily Lunch

Equivalents

Daily Labor Hours

Meals per Labor Hour

Recommended MPLH*

(Shortfall) or

Surplus

Hours Saved if Target Reached

East Burke High School 836.00 50.3 16.62 19 (2.38) 6East Burke Middle School 861.21 52.0 16.56 19 (2.44) 7Freedom High School 998.35 56.8 17.58 19 (1.42) 5Hildebran Elementary School 524.92 33.5 15.66 17 (1.34) 2J C Draughn High School 651.35 40.0 16.28 18 (1.72) 4Liberty Middle School 709.35 39.5 17.96 19 (1.04) 2.5W A Young Elementary School 427.00 26.8 15.93 17 (1.07) 2TOTAL 28.5

Source: Prepared by Evergreen Solutions from the following sources: (1) BCPS Child Nutrition Department; (2) Staffing Guidelines for On-Site Meal Base Kitchens – InTeam Cost Control Manual, 2006. *NCDPI Guidelines limit MPLH ranges to 15-19.



Thus, the daily hours saved by merely improving the seven poorest performing sites to target MPLH levels are 28.5. The annual labor hours saved would thus be 5130, based on 180 days worked. At an average annual salary per cafeteria worker of $15,940 including benefits, the average hourly wage computes to $22.14 (180 days 4 hours per day). Thus the annual savings of 5,130 hours would amount to $113,578.

This amount is shown in the time line below. However, additional savings are possible eventually by bringing all sites performing below the MPLH target to the desired performance level.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Improve Seven Worst Cafeterias to MPLH Target $113,578 $113,578 $113,578 $113,578 $113,578

FINDING

The 2009-10 basic federal reimbursement rates for breakfast and lunch are shown in Exhibit 4-25. Because BCPS has, in many of its schools, a 60 percent or higher eligibility for free and reduced breakfast and lunch (see Exhibit 4-26), those campuses qualify for the severe need reimbursement rate.

Exhibit 4-25 National School Breakfast and Lunch Reimbursement Rates

2009 – 2010 School Year

Program

Non-Severe Need

Breakfast

Severe Need

Breakfast

Non-Severe Need

Lunch

Severe Need

Lunch Free Meal $1.46 $1.74 $2.68 $2.85 Reduced Price Meal $1.16 $1.44 $2.28 $2.45 Paid Meal $0.26 $.26 $0.25 $.33

Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov, 2009.

To qualify for reimbursement of lunch and breakfast costs, the following thresholds must be met:

• Severe Need Lunch Reimbursement: For those school district programs serving more than 60 percent free and reduced-price lunches in the second preceding year (currently 2007-08).

• Severe Need Breakfast Reimbursement (applies separately to each site): Severe need eligibility is limited to those schools in which 40 percent or more of the lunches served in those schools were served free or at a reduced price during the second preceding school year (currently 2007-08).



According to BCPS officials, all schools are currently qualified for severe need breakfast reimbursement, but not for severe lunch reimbursement. In Exhibit 4-26 the severe need lunch reimbursement eligibility is just a fraction of a percent below 60 percent districtwide—at 59.25 percent.


Free and Reduced Eligibility (Pre-K included) January 15, 2010

School

Average Daily

Membership

Free and Reduce Eligible

Percent Free and Reduced

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Chesterfield 234 198 84.62% Drexel 288 197 68.40% Forest Hill 441 238 53.97% George Hildebrand 425 255 60.00% Glen Alpine 504 327 64.88% Hallyburton 288 182 63.19% Hildebran 437 263 60.18% Hillcrest 209 209 100.00% Icard 316 235 74.37% Mt. View 249 208 83.53% Mull 338 191 56.51% Oak Hill 470 275 58.51% Ray Childers 492 324 65.85% Rutherford College 232 137 59.05% Salem 612 329 53.76% Valdese 463 207 44.71% W. A. Young 398 289 72.61% TOTAL 6396 4064 63.54% SECONDARY SCHOOLS EBHS 987 511 51.77% EBMS 758 458 60.42% Draughn 773 405 52.39% Freedom 1191 770 64.65% Heritage 659 361 54.78% Liberty 679 325 47.86% N. Liberty 82 58 70.73% Patton 1043 447 42.86% TRMS 618 396 64.08% W. Johnson 501 325 64.87% BAS/West 111 74 66.67% BAS/East 94 67 71.28% BMC 121 42 34.71% TOTAL 7,617 4,239 55.65% TOTAL ALL SCHOOLS 14,013 8,303 59.25%

Source: Burke County Public Schools Children Nutrition Office, 2010.



Consequently, BCPS should be able to expand its severe need reimbursement eligibility for lunch, and retain its eligibility for the severe need breakfast reimbursement.

RECOMMENDATION


Obtain severe need lunch reimbursement eligibility, and maintain severe need breakfast reimbursement eligibility for students in Burke County Public Schools.

Severe need lunch reimbursement eligibility may require a few years to accomplish, since the “second preceding school year” is the qualifying measure.

Because reimbursement at severe need levels is higher than regular reimbursements, it is highly desirable to have BCPS qualify for the maximum possible reimbursement. BCPS appears to be within a fraction of a percentage point of qualifying for severe need lunch reimbursement across all schools. Severe need breakfast reimbursements are currently in force for all BCPS schools.

FISCAL IMPACT

Based on a labor study performed by BCPS from December 1 to December 31, 2009, 147,721 lunches and 47,598 breakfasts were produced during that time period. This is a percentage split of approximately 75 percent for lunch and 25 percent for breakfast. Thus, of the total annual production of over two million meals in BCPS, approximately 1.5 million lunches are produced. Assuming that 60 percent of all lunches districtwide can be qualified for severe need reimbursement, the additional amount received would be 900,000 lunches times the increment of 17 cents (see Exhibit 4-24) for reduced and free lunch, and the same categories of severe need lunch.

This amounts to an annual increase in income of $153,000. The total of $153,000 is therefore shown in the timeline below. However, due to the “second year prior” qualification requirement, this extra income is shown to start in 2011-12.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Obtain Severe Need Lunch Reimbursements $0 $153,000 $153,000 $153,000 $153,000

FINDING

One of the reasons often cited by BCPS officials as a major contributor to the decline in profitability of its Child Nutrition Program is that “meal prices were not increased for ten years.” While the action of keeping meal prices level may have been an act of kindness toward families with children in BCPS, it was not necessarily an example of prudent fiscal management of the breakfast and lunch programs in the school district. Moreover, when meal prices were finally increased last year, the change was hard for many families to accept. While many families complained and vowed to send their children to school with bagged lunches, many soon realized



that they could not produce equally healthy and nourishing meals matching even the new, higher prices.

Exhibit 4-27 shows the most current meal prices posted on the NCDPI Web site for the peer school systems used in this study. Also shown are highest and lowest-priced districts in North Carolina.

Exhibit 4-27 Meal Prices at BCPS and Comparison Districts

Number of Lunch Meal Prices 2007-08 School Year

School District # Schools Elem Middle High Adult Burke County Schools 28 $1.40 $1.60 $1.60 $2.25 Buncombe County Schools 41 $1.75 $1.75 $2.00 $2.50 Catawba County Schools 27 $1.80 $1.95 $1.95 $0.00 Cleveland County Schools 28 $1.20 $1.30 $1.30 $0.00 Henderson County Schools 21 $1.90 $2.15 $2.15 $2.75 Iredell-Statesville Schools 34 $1.95 $2.10 $2.10 $0.00 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools (highest-priced district) 16 $2.50 $2.75 $2.75 $3.35

Hertford County Schools (lowest-priced district) 5 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.00

Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2010.

For 2009-10, BCPS raised the above prices an average of about 30 percent for middle and high schools to $2.10, and adult lunches to $3.00. The $1.40 price for elementary schools remains as shown in Exhibit 4-27.

RECOMMENDATION


Set a meal price policy indexed to the USDA reimbursement rates.

BCPS should arrive at a benchmark price for its meals for 2010-11, and then set an index against which future price increases will be set. BCPS should consider a new benchmark paid price profile for 2010-11 as follows:

Breakfast K-5 $1.25 Paid $0.30 Reduced 6-12 $1.50 Paid $0.30 Reduced Adults $2.00 Lunch K-5 $1.75 Paid $0.40 Reduced 6-12 $2.50 Paid $0.40 Reduced Adults $3.45



The above meal price structure should be tested for profitability, as it will be the benchmark from which future price increases will be put into effect. If it proves to be in need of up or down adjustment, such action should be taken before making it the official benchmark. By indexing this benchmark price structure to changes in the reimbursement rate for free or reduced meals from USDA, a logical and fair pricing process can be implemented by BCPS. FISCAL IMPACT

Beginning in 2010-11, BCPS will see an average increase of approximately 20 percent in its meal charges. This should be the last major price increase to make up for years of keeping prices level, despite increases in the cost of living. Thereafter, the increases should be as incremental as the increases in reimbursement rates from USDA.

This initial increase obtained is calculated as follows: paid lunch and paid breakfast actual income for 2008-09 was $1,489,495. Assuming conservatively an 18 percent increase due to initial lower demand because of increased prices, the total added income would be $297,900. This figure is shown in the timeline below beginning in 2011-12. Indexed increases will in fact cause these numbers to change with changes in the USDA reimbursement rate, but this change is not shown.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Index Meal Prices to USDA Reimbursement Increases

$0 $297,900 $297,900 $297,900 $297,900

FINDING

The added income from productivity improvements, maximized severe need reimbursements, and indexed meal price increases, will contribute to a more positive balance in the Child Nutrition Fund during the years ahead. It is anticipated that, by the 2013-14 school year, sufficient funds will be available to renovate six school kitchens, and to construct one new school kitchen as part of new school construction. Six renovations at $75,000 each, and a new kitchen at $100,000 each, would require a fund balance of approximately $550,000.

RECOMMENDATION


Factor into future facilities planning, the use of Child Nutrition Funds to renovate approximately six kitchens and construct two new ones.

Child Nutrition Fund resources can be explicitly used for the purpose of capital programs related to child nutrition. As the Child Nutrition Fund begins to accumulate a positive balance, facilities planners at BCPS should begin to include such funding in their plans for school renovation and for new construction.



FISCAL IMPACT

As more monies accumulate in the Food Services Fund over the next five years, these resources will also be available for capital projects for child nutrition. A first drawdown of Child Nutrition Fund monies for capital projects should begin in 2013-14. That initial drawdown amount is estimated to be approximately $450,000 for six kitchen renovations.

FINDING

The Director of Child Nutrition has the full title of Director of Child Nutrition and Purchasing. While the person currently serving in this position is performing this unusual combination of duties to the satisfaction of management, the duties of this position are not organizationally and functionally compatible. Although Child Nutrition requires significant purchasing actions, this does not necessarily satisfy a requirement that purchasing and child nutrition need to be managed by one and the same person.

RECOMMENDATION


Establish a Director of Child Nutrition position, and a Director of Purchasing position separately from each other (as also recommended in Chapter 3 and Section 4.1 of Chapter 4).

The incumbent in the current “Director of Child Nutrition and Purchasing” position should be retained as a full-time Director of Child Nutrition. Details of the newly created “Director of Purchasing” position are addressed in Chapter 3.

FISCAL IMPACT

The fiscal impact for this recommendation is addressed in Recommendation 4-1.

FINDING

Burke County Public Schools has, for over a decade, operated a “Child Nutrition Incentive Program.” According to official BCPS documents:

The Burke County Public Schools’ Child Nutrition Incentive Program is based on the performance of the cafeteria staff toward meeting the goals of the CNP to operate in an efficient manner while maintaining high standards of quality in meals prepared and served. In order to be eligible for the incentive bonus, each school must complete a minimum of five (5) of seven (7) objectives. The incentive program will award a bonus of 4 percent of annual salary to each CNP employee of the schools that meet the minimum of five objectives. CNP employees of schools meeting all seven objectives will receive an additional 1 percent bonus. Employees will receive the incentive monies only if they have not been absent during the 180



day school term. Any days absent for any reason will be deducted from the totals bonus amount and will be based on the percentage of attendance.

The BCPS seven incentive program objectives for 2009-10 are:

• Use 90 percent of the school’s pro-rated share of commodities received by the unit by the last working day of April 2010.

• Meet the guidelines of a minimum of 15 meals per labor hour.

• Maintain a sanitation grade of 95 percent (without regard to the additional two points received from serve safe certification).

• Maintain the following student participation:

- Elementary Schools 90 percent lunch - Middle Schools 80 percent lunch - High Schools 70 percent meal equivalents

• Schools may not exceed the following reportable CNP – related accident reports:

- Not more than two for schools with an ADM of 300 or less - Not more than three for schools with an ADM of 300 to 600 - Not more than four for schools with an ADM of 600 or more

• Participation in a minimum of two of these three promotional and professional development activities:

- School/Student Involvement, such as Nutrition Advisory Council sponsorship or a survey for input on menu selections

- Promotion and sponsorship of three special events in the cafeteria, such as grandparents day, national school lunch week, national school breakfast week, national nutrition month, or a cafeteria dining room improvement/beautification project

- Participation in, and promotion of, professional and staff development activities during the school work day or as approved by the supervisor, such as training, or CN awards program

• School’s net Child Nutrition Program financial operations must be sound – revenues must exceed expenditures.

Thus the Child Nutrition Incentive Program has for decades provided bonus income to cafeteria workers that met at least five of seven annual program goals. In turn, the incentives have been instrumental in raising the performance level of the Child Nutrition Program in Burke County Public Schools.



COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for the positive contributions of its Child Nutrition Incentive Program.

4.5 FACILITIES

The manner in which a school district manages its facilities can have a significant effect on other school functions. Useful, well-maintained, up-to-date, and cheerful learning environments can help reinforce positive attitudes and performance by students, teachers, and administrators. For example, high indoor air quality and thermal comfort have been shown to improve concentration and learning. Facilities that are neither overcrowded nor underutilized create an educational community where team work, cooperation, and other positive attributes can be practiced and promoted.

The BCPS Maintenance Department is responsible for the operation and maintenance of 28 schools, and several ancillary facilities including the central administration offices, the school bus garage, the maintenance department, the child nutrition department, and daycare. In all, the buildings comprise 2,650,015 gross square feet.

The individual gross square footage of each facility is shown in Exhibit 4-28.

FINDING

The BCPS Maintenance Department maintains a staffing level that is a best practice according to industry standards. In addition to three supervisory staff, the Maintenance Department has a roster of the following 26 tradespersons:

• 3 carpenters • 6 electricians • 1 boiler plant technician • 5 HVAC mechanics • 1 food service equipment technician • 3 painters • 2 plumbers • 2 roofers/masons • 1 locksmith • 1 cabinetmaker • 1 welder

At a total gross square footage of 2,650,015, the ratio of gross square feet per maintenance worker is approximately 101,924. According to the 38th Annual Survey of Operating & Maintenance costs for schools by American School and University Magazine, the recommended benchmark is a national average of 92,074 gross square feet per maintenance worker. BCPS, therefore, has a maintenance staff roster that meets the best practice benchmark most commonly recognized in the industry.



Exhibit 4-28 Burke County School Facilities

Gross Square Footage as of February, 2010

Site Gross Floor Area (s.f.) Chesterfield Elementary School 43,811Drexel Primary School 66,705East Burke High School 247,989East Burke Middle School 130,030Forest Hill Elementary School 52,464Freedom High School 257,041George Hildebrand Elementary School 76,902Glen Alpine Elementary School 115,279Hallyburton Elementary School 46,355Heritage Middle School 119,477Hildebran Elementary School 64,474Hillcrest Elementary School 45,674Icard Elementary School 40,963J C Draughn High School 157,564Liberty Middle School 159,046Mountain View Elementary School 44,248Mull Elementary School 56,311Oak Hill Elementary School 61,743Ray Childers Elementary School 73,500R L Patton High School 157,564Rutherford College Elementary School 37,484Salem Elementary School 92,650Table Rock Middle School 119,477Valdese Elementary School 59,984W A Young Elementary School 73,500Walter Johnson Middle School 118,478Maintenance 37,684Burke Alternative School 37,930Technology Center 14,910Bus Garage 11,950East Alps Special Education 10,510West Concord Staff Development Center 18,138TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET 2,650,015

Source: BCPS Facilities Department, 2010. COMMENDATION

BCPS is commended for staffing its Maintenance Department at a level that is within the recommended best practice range by American School and University Magazine.

FINDING

Burke County and BCPS should explore the potentially synergistic and cost-effective consequences of sharing their respective maintenance staffs. It has been established that BCPS has a best practices staffing of its Maintenance Department. However, it is well known that maintenance staffs are not always uniformly busy. While routine preventive maintenance activities are often the order of the day, emergency work orders can stress staff resources at other times. At times one maintenance worker is overcommitted and staff in another entity is not,



cooperation may be highly useful. It may result in an avoidance of excessive overtime, and reduced reliance on outsourcing.

It appears that a cooperative arrangement should be explored. A merger of the two departments would at this time be premature. Instead, an effort to create a cooperative arrangement should be undertaken.

RECOMMENDATION


Implement a cooperative arrangement between the Maintenance Departments of Burke County and BCPS for the purpose of supplementing each other’s work loads.

While the extent of the effectiveness of a cooperative arrangement cannot be predicted, it has the potential for synergy and cost effectiveness, and should therefore be explored between Burke County and BCPS. The major likely cost savings accruing to Burke County and BCPS would come from a reduction or possible elimination of overtime, and the reduction of outsourcing.

FISCAL IMPACT

Evergreen cannot estimate a specific fiscal impact at this time. In addition to economies of scale that might be achieved, it is clear that cooperative arrangements between Burke County and BCPS could contribute to a strengthening of the relationship of these two local agencies in the years to come.

FINDING

BCPS currently employs 28 head custodians (one for each facility), 69 full-time, and 16 part-time custodians. This translates into a custodial staff FTE of 105.

According to the 38th Annual Survey of Operating & Maintenance costs for schools by American School and University Magazine, the recommended benchmark is a national average of 32,100 gross square feet per custodial worker, based on responses from K-12 schools across the United States. At a total gross square footage of 2,650,015, the ratio of gross square feet per custodial worker at BCPS is approximately 25,238. This floor area is about 20 percent below the average across the United States.

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) has developed a more detailed allocation formula. This formula includes the number of teachers and students as follows:

(# of Teachers / 10) + (# of Students / 260) + (Total Square Footage / 15,000)

The resulting figure is then divided by three to obtain the custodial allotment.

Based on the foregoing the DPI calculation for BCPS is as follows:

1,063/10 + 14,032/260 + 2,650,015/15,000 = 112 3



Based on this DPI formula, the FTE custodian count of 112 is seven positions higher than the count of 105 in BCPS. Consequently, it appears that the custodial staffing at BCPS is appropriate by DPI benchmarking.

This figure can be greatly affected by the overall maintenance and condition of the area to be cleaned. Older buildings are often more difficult to keep satisfactorily clean than newer ones and some building materials are more difficult to keep satisfactorily clean than others. DPI recognizes this and notes that a difficulty factor can be applied to this general formula to adjust for specific conditions.

The BCPS school cleaning program is noticeably above average. In the walk-through of facilities by the Evergreen Team, it was obvious that a high level of cleaning was present consistently in the buildings visited. In documentation provided by BCPS to Evergreen consultants, it has been pointed out that BCPS subscribes to the cleaning standards advocated by APPA (formerly Association of Physical Plant Administrators)⎯considered among the highest and best in the industry.

To quote from the BCPS Custodial Inspection Ratings System:

We are proud to report that there were 21 schools with a “Superior” rating, seven with an “excellent” rating, and no schools with a less than 90 percent rating during the 2008-09 school year.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for its effective staffing of custodial services, and exceptional cleanliness of its facilities.

FINDING

BCPS projects to spend $2,710,000 on energy for its facilities during the current 2009-10 school year. Exhibit 4-29 shows the key energy consumption statistics for BCPS, beginning with the 2004-05 school year. The cost per square foot is shown, and it is compared to the American School and University Magazine (ASUMAG) average cost per square foot for that given year.

Exhibit 4-29 Key Energy Consumption Data 2004-05 to 2009-10 School Years

Category 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

(projected) Energy Cost $2,533,897 $2,787,145 $2,829,934 $3,226,536 $3,551,535 $2,710,000 Gross Floor Area 2,309,467 2,309,467 2,309,467 2,492,451 2,650,015 2,650,015 Cost per Sq. Ft. $1.10 $1.21 $1.23 $1.29 $1.34 $1.02 ASUMAG Avg. $1.10 $1.20 $1.32 $1.25 $1.19 not yet reported

Source: BCPS Maintenance Department, 2010.



BCPS has been well in line with this the ASUMAG benchmarks – with the exception of the recent 2008-09 results. Upon the realization that energy costs were rising without any apparent control, BCPS decided to embark upon an energy education program.

BCPS officials noted the following:

Faced with overwhelming cuts to our budget, we knew that ”just trying harder” and “putting out a memo” wasn’t going to cut it. We needed an arrangement that would push us out of our comfort zone and get results fast. That’s why we recommended Energy Education, Inc. as a “personal energy trainer”… A proposal was presented by the company to the Finance Committee on April 22nd, and the School Board voted unanimously to enter into a contract with the company on May 18th. We took a couple of weeks to finalize the details of the contract, and won some concessions such as a large price reduction, a fast track clause that deferred our first four monthly payments, and a waiver to utilize an existing manager as the Energy Education Specialist instead of hiring a completely new position. These actions saved us an estimated $155,000 in the first five months of the contract. The contract was awarded on June 1st, 2009.

By tracking energy expenditures for the first half of the 2009-10 school year, BCPS projects a total energy expenditure for the year of $2,710,000, resulting in a remarkably low cost per square foot of $1.02. American School and University Magazine (ASUMAG) has not yet released the results of its 39th Annual Operations & Maintenance Cost Study at this time, but the energy cost per square foot average for the United States will be unlikely as low as $1.02.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for its energy consumption profile that has been largely in line with nationally-recognized benchmarks, and for instituting an Energy Education Program to assist with achieving a major reduction in energy use and cost.

FINDING

BCPS has significant deferred maintenance items on record; the district must take all available steps to reduce and cure this maintenance backlog. BCPS currently has a deferred maintenance backlog amounting to over $36 million.

Deferred maintenance is a serious matter that will, if not corrected, cost BCPS increasing amounts of new resources⎯considerably greater than had the items been funded when they needed to be repaired (see School Maintenance & Renovation by Glen I. Earthman and Linda Lemasters, Pro.Active Publications, 2004 and Save a Penny, Lose a School – the Real Cost of Deferred Maintenance by Barbara Kent Lawrence, 2002).

A commonly accepted measure of the state of repair of facilities is the Facilities Condition Index. It measures the ratio, as a percentage, of the value of deferred maintenance over the total replacement value of the school district’s total physical plant. BCPS insurance records show the



plant replacement value as almost $355 million. As a ratio, $36 million divided by $355 million computes to 10.26 percent. The industry standard for FCI is as follows:

• Below 5 percent - acceptable range by industry standard: “good”. • 5 percent to 10 percent - “fair” range • Above 10 percent -“poor” range

Consequently, BCPS is at this point entering the FCI “poor” range. As deferred maintenance reaches higher amounts, this condition will worsen. BCPS is currently spending about 1.2 percent of plant replacement value on maintenance:

• Maintenance labor and equipment: $2,454,243 • Maintenance parts and outsourcing: $645,000 • Minor construction and repair: $1,200,000 Total real property maintenance expenses $4,299,243

The ratio of the real property maintenance expenses over the plant replacement value is the industry standard Asset Protection Index (API). This value is 1.2 percent. The industry acceptable range is between two and four percent. Instead of spending $4,299,243, BCPS should instead be spending at least two percent of $355 million, or $7,100,000 per year on maintenance and repairs.

It is clear that BCPS has spent less than two percent of plant replacement value consistently over the years. It has thereby accumulated more than $36 million in a maintenance backlog.

BCPS do the following:

• spend a minimum of $7.1 million per year on maintenance of its physical plant; and • cure the current $36.3 million on deferred maintenance.

BCPS cannot afford the $36,384,172 currently needed to cure the maintenance backlog that has been permitted to accumulate over the years, nor can it afford not to address this backlog positively and aggressively. In addition, BCPS must increase its current maintenance spending from $4.3 million to $7.1 million.

A tool which can be used to address this dilemma, at least in part, is the mechanism of performance contracting. While performance contracting seeks to finance capital improvements of all types, it relies on a certain amount of energy plant improvements to reduce energy consumption. It is the savings from energy use that are used to serve as collateral for funds borrowed to make needed capital improvements, and thus reduce the deferred maintenance backlog.



RECOMMENDATION


Use the performance contracting method to finance capital improvements, including high-impact energy retrofits, and use other fund proceeds to increase maintenance funding to $7.1 million annually, and reduce the current $36 million deferred maintenance backlog.

There are commonly three parties to a performance contract. In the case of the BCPS:

• the Burke County Board of Education and/or the Board of County Commissioners; • an Energy Services Company (ESCO); and • a bank or other financial institution that provides the financing to the ESCO.

Key contractual provisions include:

• the method for guaranteeing energy savings to BCPS or the Board of County Commissioners;

• the method for verifying the energy savings; and

• how the overall risk is insured and financed.

The method of Building Commissioning is often used to assure all participants that the installed equipment actually performs as intended and as required to obtain the contracted for performance and savings.

The BCPS Assistant Superintendent of Support Services or his designee should serve as the day-to-day liaison with the ESCO during the period of the performance contract, and be responsible for its proper implementation. The liaison should also serve as the designated agency representative, or be authorized to hire an agency representative, to assist with implementing the energy management and conservation plan, including building commissioning, performance contracting, improved insulation, lighting controls, and other energy management measures.

The performance contract will require the school system or Burke County to make monthly payments on money borrowed to upgrade building energy systems and fund maintenance and repair. The critical element is that the monthly payments are either less than or equal to the expected savings from energy consumption. This has the desired net effect of the school system being able to borrow money that it can pay off with savings from improved energy systems installed with the borrowed money.

FISCAL IMPACT

The implementation of a performance contracting initiative can be accomplished with existing staff and resources, and at minimal or no additional cost to BCPS or Burke County. Since financing burdens will not be directly on the records of the School Board nor the Board of County Commissioners (the ESCO is the borrower), borrowing capacity should not be affected



in any manner. Within seven to ten years or earlier, after contract signing, the financed portion will be paid off. At that time, the full energy savings realized will be available for other budgetary priorities, resulting in a positive future fiscal impact. Precise savings cannot be determined at this time, but a conservative HVAC operating cost savings of 30 percent over current expenditures is plausible.

According to the energy consumption data furnished by BCPS, the total consumption in 2009-10 is projected to be $2,710,000. Thus an annual savings of $813,000 is possible. Assuming that the commissioning agent and agency representative are one and the same person, the likely annual fee of the Agency Representative and the Commissioning Agent amount would total about $50,000. This reduces the projected possible savings from $813,000 to $763,000. If a performance contract could be devised whereby it encompasses all Burke County facilities, including those of BCPS, then the funds required to retire the borrowed debt could be paid directly by the County. At a preferred rate of three percent over seven years from the ESCO, the amount BCPS can probably finance is about $7 million, with a monthly amortization cost of about $65,000, or $780,000 per year. Once the debt is paid, the energy savings can be used for purposes other than debt retirement.

The above figures are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to represent the actual figures that will be determined in collaboration with the ESCO, the Agency Representative, and the Commissioning Agent.

In summary, performance contracting has the following fiscal effects: The initial cost of financing the replacement of obsolete energy equipment and other capital projects is zero dollars per year for seven to ten years. This is the case because the annual financing cost is generated from an equal amount of savings in energy cost. The $50,000 in fees are not shown below, as it is assumed that the Burke County will pay this amount in its cooperative effort with BCPS. After a zero cost financing of about $7 million, an annual savings of $780,000 should be reached in the vicinity of 2016-17.

FINDING

Evergreen consultants included a facilities master plan document our data request list; this item was not provided. Therefore, we have concluded that no facilities master plan exits for BCPS.

Various planning efforts are ongoing at Burke County Public Schools, but they are not governed by a current master plan document. Some people may argue that a facilities master plan is only needed during periods of intense construction and renovation in a school system. Such a view sees a school district primarily as a static entity, interrupted only occasionally by brief bursts of change. This view is highly inaccurate. Instead, a school district is constantly undergoing changes in a wide variety of ways at all times.

Therefore, a carefully updated facilities master plan is needed as a guide to assist BCPS officials with decision making on an ongoing basis.



RECOMMENDATION


Prepare a new “Five-Year Facilities Master Plan 2011-2015”, update it annually, use it as the official planning guide for BCPS, and measure progress against the plan.

The Five-Year Facilities Master Plan 2011-2015 should be established as a living document that guides the facilities planning, design and construction activities of BCPS. Its characteristics should be as follows:

• The plan document should be officially monitored, updated and its contents distributed by the district to the School Board and local government agencies.

• Only planning actions compatible with this plan document should be approved and initiated. If plans contrary to the document, or not contained in the document, are seriously contemplated, then the plan should be amended deliberately and decisively.

• The initial document should be completed in time for the 2011-12 budget preparation, should contain an immediate funding request for 2011-12 for such items as new construction, renovation, additions, and similar activities. The funding request should also contain a forecast for the remaining nine-year period to apprise BCPS fiscal planners of needs that will come up in the future.

• Every year, as one year of the plan is implemented, a new year should be added to the plan. (Example: the following year it becomes the Five-Year Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2016.) This type of plan updating activity should become mandatory and routine to keep the Plan up-to-date, and to keep it useful as a guide document. Any statutorily required plans to the State Department of Education or other agencies should be wholly incorporated in, and fully coordinated with, this effort.

Prototype Plan Description

The Five-Year Facilities Master Plan should address the following:

• the strategy required to meet the need for facility improvement and for the capital investments necessary to support existing and projected educational needs;

• the educational goals of BCPS to satisfy the needs of students, parents, educators, administrative staff and the community; and

• realistic plans to help BCPS provide for its short- and long-range facilities needs.

The planning process never ends. As such, when the Five-Year Facilities Master Plan 2011-2015 has been adopted, BCPS should then commence a re-evaluation of the plan in light of current



and future needs. These reviews should occur as often as a new need arises, but not less than annually.

While the process for developing and maintaining a Five-Year Facilities Master Plan can be complex and intricate for very large school districts, an effort should be made to keep the process uncomplicated in the case of BCPS. The following essentials should be included in Plan development and maintenance:

Goal-setting Around Four Priorities

Planners must address four critical factors throughout the planning and design process: quality, educational program, budget and time.

Before the planning process begins, BCPS should decide which of these four priority areas is most important:

• Financial constraints • Time constraints • Educational specifications (facility programs) • Quality

For example, if BCPS is having financial problems, then budget may cause BCPS to follow a certain path to its end. Likewise, if time is a constraint, then BCPS staff must consider that quality and educational specifications may have to take a back seat. It would be advised that key personnel address all four of these factors when considering compromises on the needs of the educational program.

Goal-setting for the Five-Year Facilities Master Plan should include the following actions:

• Recommend priorities and strategies concerning proposed projects, student and faculty stations, and potential financial sources that will meet the facility needs and educational goals of BCPS.

• Conduct a thorough review, analysis, and evaluation of data that relate to facilities. This process will enable understanding of the issues that require resolution.

• Continue gathering data and prepare a Project Plan of Action. The Project Plan of Action should identify projects and their priorities, define the scope, budgets and construction/renovation schedules, and it will help to coordinate the financial and project phase issues.

• Provide a process that includes and involves all stakeholders: community, schools, administrators, the school board, and other agencies of government.

• Develop implementation guidelines for the Five-Year Facilities Master Plan and the Project Plan of Action.



The Capital Facilities Plan Team

The Superintendent should appoint, as soon as possible, a Facilities Master Plan Team.

This Team should include board members, facilities and real estate experts, demographers, educators, the superintendent, representatives of local government, and private stakeholders in the community. The Team would guide the facilities planning, design and construction effort of BCPS, and focus especially on educational philosophy, financing, and facilities needs.

Initially, team meetings should be conducted not less frequently than every two weeks. This will speed the process and focus the membership on those issues that are being researched, developed or contemplated. As the entire process becomes more routine, the meetings may occur monthly and occasionally more or less frequently.

It may be valuable to include members from other local and state government agencies on the team. Other school districts have found that by partnering with non-educational agencies during the planning process, it is often possible to develop school facilities that provide for other needs and activities in the community, thus increasing prospective facilities use revenue.

Community Meetings

Authentic community engagement instills a sense of ownership within a community, which is a key factor in sustaining school improvement efforts. Community input is essential in any Five-Year Facilities Master Planning process. It is advised that the Team conduct a series of “open forum” meetings, around the City, encouraging community participation. Initially, there should be at least three rounds of meetings in strategic locations that maximize the potential for community involvement. For a resource list on community participation in school planning (see http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/ community_participation.cfm).

During the first round of meetings, the planning process should be explained, goals and objectives presented, and community input solicited on the educational needs of the community. Included in this appraisal should be discussions eliciting information about special education needs of students, and whether these needs are currently being met.

During the second round of meetings, the community should be apprised of the data collection efforts to date, the current status of BCPS school facilities, and the demographic data affecting the master plan.

The third round of meetings should present the Five-Year Facilities Master Plan, including the facilities condition assessment, the project plan, the implementation plan, and the financing plan. Any recommendations to construct new facilities, abandon existing facilities, or consolidate two or more facilities should be explained in detail at this meeting. Sufficient time should be allotted to ensure full community awareness of the impact of all plan recommendations.

As there may be considerable community discussion regarding the proposed project plan and financing plan, follow on meetings may be held to address these concerns.



Professional Consultant

The Team should hire, as soon as possible, a professional firm of planners, architects and engineers to prepare the initial Five-Year Facilities Master Plan.

The professional firm should develop a profile of the implications of the BCPS educational goals for its facilities. The firm should propose actions that will help achieve these goals.

The firm should look at the impacts of current and projected enrollment vis-a-vis the capacity of the existing facilities. Data that may be included are demographics, floor plans of school buildings, fire evacuation plans, and enrollment data from the previous school year.

The firm should assess the physical condition of the schools, along with any additional school-related buildings owned by BCPS. The data collected should be building by building, with as much detail as possible. BCPS already has an excellent database showing building condition, and much of this information merely needs to be updated rather than generated from scratch. Whatever data are compiled during the assessment should be used to analyze each facility’s ability to meet the educational goals of BCPS.

The firm should also review historic budgets, major construction costs and costs of renovations. These data should be collected in any convenient form that is available. An analysis of current project budgets, including any shortfalls or overages, should be made as they relate to the ability of BCPS and individual schools to meet educational goals.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are two types of fiscal impact to be considered for Recommendation 4-34.

First, the annual cost of creating and then updating the Plan is estimated as follows:

• Year One: Consulting fees/expenses for plan preparation ($60,000). • Year Two and Beyond: Consulting fees for plan updates ($30,000).

Second, the full implementation of the plan, and its official use as a guide document for decision making about facilities, has the potential of creating a transparent set of actions that can be easily understood and thus supported or opposed by the general public. Savings due to an avoidance of errors, and less need to react rapidly to unanticipated situations, are palpable, but cannot be easily quantified. This is equally the case with savings from an avoidance of unending debates and arguments due to a lack of information and facts.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Prepare and Update a Five-Year Facilities Master Plan ($60,000) ($30,000) ($30,000) ($30,000) ($30,000)



FINDING

The central administration function of BCPS is currently housed in several separate facilities.

• the central office is located within a county-owned complex;

• the West Concord Staff Development Center in Morganton houses the meeting room currently used by the Board of Education;

• the Career and Technical Education Center houses the BCPS Public Relations Office and the Grant Writer’s office; and

• the Technology Center is located in Hildebran.

BCPS needs to consider a consolidation effort, allowing all central administration functions to be located in one building, preferably in a geographically central location, with easy access and ample parking.

RECOMMENDATION


Consolidate all BCPS central office functions into one building.

The advantages of such a move are significant and include:

• better interaction among all BCPS central office employees; • one single destination for all BCPS central office business; • return to Burke County of valuable office space: and • potentially lower utility costs for one central office function.

This recommendation should be included in the Five-Year Facilities Master Plan and consolidation proposals should be made part of the planning process.

FISCAL IMPACT

In a preliminary site consolidation analysis (revised April 6, 2010), Burke County Public Schools estimated the potential annual net savings for operations and maintenance from central office consolidation. This estimate shows an annual savings of $107,000 in operations and maintenance costs, while capital construction costs to accomplish the consolidation are estimated to be about $1,250,000 in the 2011-12 school year. These preliminary cost estimates are reflected in the timeline below The process of further studying and solidifying this issue can be accomplished with existing resources.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Consolidate Central Offices* $0 $0 $107,000 $107,000 $107,000 *Does not include $1,250,000 in anticipated renovation costs in 2011-12.



FINDING

BCPS has gradually lost average daily membership (ADM) for several years. Exhibit 4-30 shows some of this recent ADM decline, along with the situation in the peer school systems.

Exhibit 4-30 Average Daily Membership (ADM)

Change in BCPS and Peer School Districts 2005-06 to 2008-09 School Years

School District

ADM Change from 2005-06 to

2006-07 Percent Change


2007-08Percent Change


2008-09 Percent Change

Burke County -208 -1.5% -23 -0.2% -231 -1.6%Buncombe County 182 0.7% -51 -0.2% 131 0.5%Catawba County 328 1.9% 143 0.8% 471 2.8%Cleveland County -118 -0.7% -180 -1.1% -298 -1.8%Henderson County 214 1.7% 95 0.7% 309 2.5%Iredell-Statesville 591 2.8% 444 2.1% 1,035 5.1%

Average 165 0.8% 71 0.4% 236 1.2% Source: Created by Evergreen Solutions, February 2010. This loss of student enrollment has caused many schools to be underutilized⎯some by over 40 percent. Only four of the 29 BCPS school sites are overcapacity. Exhibit 4-31 shows BCPS data on school utilization (current as of January 14, 2010).

In the case of one pair of geographically close schools – Drexel and Hallyburton Elementary Schools – BCPS has already taken action to appoint one principal for both facilities. This was done because both schools can be consolidated into one facility due to a low utilization rate. Similarly, another pair of schools has been examined at BCPS for possible consolidation—Mountain View and Hillcrest Elementary Schools.

In both cases, a preliminary analysis has been conducted by BCPS for moving Hallyburton into Drexel, and Hillcrest into Mountain View. Detailed studies are still required to determine the best plans of action, and whether or not alternative re-use potentials exist for the schools slated for closure.

Another item under consideration in the preliminary analysis is the possible closure of both BCPS alternative schools (East Alps and College Street Academy) due to low numbers of students, and the move of the alternative school to a new site. The targeted building for this consolidation is the empty Hallyburton Elementary School which would be renamed “Halliburton Academy.” In addition, the thorough examination of undercapacity school sites will lead BCPS to eliminate some portable classrooms. A plan to reduce the number of BCPS portable classrooms is being formulated. Exhibit 4-31 also shows the number of portables at each school location. It would be appropriate at this time to remove some or all of these portables where excess student capacity is in evidence.



Exhibit 4-31 Burke County School Facilities

Capacity and Utilization*

Site Student Capacity

Current ADM

Percent of Capacity

No. of Portables

Chesterfield Elementary School 275 216 78.5 2 Drexel Primary School 473 250 52.9 East Burke High School 1600 986 61.6 East Burke Middle School 800 758 94.8 Forest Hill Elementary School 335 427 127.5 6 Freedom High School 1600 1165 72.8 9 George Hildebrand Elementary School 400 386 96.5 7 Glen Alpine Elementary School 600 472 78.7 Hallyburton Elementary School 360 292 81.1 Heritage Middle School 800 659 82.4 Hildebran Elementary School 605 388 64.1 Hillcrest Elementary School 330 192 58.2 2 Icard Elementary School 237 297 125.3 7 J C Draughn High School 1000 778 77.6 Liberty Middle School 800 677 84.6 Mountain View Elementary School 328 230 70.1 Mull Elementary School 401 323 80.5 Oak Hill Elementary School 400 432 108.0 7 Ray Childers Elementary School 600 456 76.0 R L Patton High School 1000 1044 104.4 Rutherford College Elementary School 237 218 92.0 6 Salem Elementary School 500 568 113.6 6 Table Rock Middle School 800 618 77.3 Valdese Elementary School 475 422 88.8 W A Young Elementary School 600 374 62.3 Walter Johnson Middle School 800 501 62.6 College Street Academy 125 96 76.8 East Alps Special Education 120 99 82.5 North Liberty (at Liberty Middle School) 100 81 81.0 Office of Administrative Services N/A N/A N/A Support Services Compound N/A N/A N/A 5 West Concord Staff Development Center N/A N/A N/A Technology Center N/A N/A N/A Source: Burke County Public Schools, Facilities Office, 2010. *Information current as of January 14, 2010.

RECOMMENDATION


Consolidate at least two pairs of elementary schools, combine both alternative education facilities, and remove portables as appropriate, due to low utilization.

In it preliminary site consolidation analysis, BCPS has recognized that the advantages of such a move are significant and include:

• better utilization of facilities; • reduction in administrative and support staff; and • energy savings.



This topic should be included and treated in detail in the proposed Five-Year Facilities Master Plan and specific consolidation and related proposals should be made as part of the planning process.

The closing of schools is frequently an emotionally-charged issue due to tradition and legacy concerns, and should therefore follow the public participation aspects of facilities master planning delineated under Recommendation 4-34. Only when the general public understands that school closings and other consolidation efforts have been considered carefully and deliberately, can they find broader acceptance and support.

FISCAL IMPACT

In its preliminary site consolidation analysis, Burke County Public Schools estimated the potential annual net savings for operations and maintenance from the school consolidation actions. This estimate shows an annual savings of $1,222,000 in operations and maintenance costs, while capital construction costs to accomplish the consolidations are estimated to be about $2,320,000 in 2011-12. These preliminary cost estimates are reflected in the timeline below The process of further studying and solidifying this issue can be accomplished with existing resources.

Of the total 52 portables located at schools, it is likely that eight can be removed at this time, as they are located on campuses that are occupied below capacity. A search of the Internet for used portable classrooms for sale found an average of $10,000 per unit as the likely average sale price. Thus, eight portables in average to good condition could yield approximately $80,000. This is reflected in 2010-11 in the timeline below.

Additionally, the combining of some kitchens will likely improve meal production efficiency, thus helping Child Nutrition move closer to profitability.

Finally, the disposition of closed facilities can yield additional income, if the buildings are sold or leased on the open market. If they are re-used by Burke County, no income to BCPS is likely. If they are demolished, a demolition cost will be incurred. It is strongly recommended that one year should be allowed to find a buyer, lessor, or other alternative re-use for the vacant structures. Thereafter, if no re-use options are in evidence, the vacant buildings should be demolished. Under no circumstances should any vacant buildings be “mothballed” (i.e. plumbing lines drained, all utilities shut down, and windows boarded). Such action usually results in excessive vandalism, damage from freeze/thaw cycles, and mold and mildew problems.

Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Consolidate Schools* $80,000 $0 $1,222,000 $1,222,000 $1,222,000

*Does not include $2,320,000 in anticipated renovation costs in 2011-12.

FINDING

BCPS has a comprehensive policy for the use of its school facilities. This policy is shown in Exhibit 4-32.



Exhibit 4-32 School Facilities Comprehensive Policy

DESCRIPTOR TERM: Community Schools Programs - Facility Use Policy

DESCRIPTOR CODE 8.9100

ISSUED DATE 9/8/2009

LATEST DATE REVISED 9/8/2009 CROSS REFERENCE

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

115C-206. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare and present to the State Board of Education recommendations for general guidelines for encouraging increased community involvement in the public schools and use of public school facilities. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall consult with the interagency council in preparing the general guidelines. These recommendations shall include, but shall not be limited to provisions for:

1. The use of public school facilities by governmental, charitable or civic organizations for activities within the community 2. The utilization of the talents and abilities of volunteers within the community for the enhancement of public school programs including tutoring,

counseling, and cultural programs/projects 3. Increased communications between the staff and faculty of the public schools, other community institutions and agencies, and citizens in the

community Based on the recommendations of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education shall adopt appropriate policies and guidelines for encouraging increased community involvement in the public schools and use of the public school facilities. The State Board of Education shall establish rules and regulations governing the submission and approval of programs prepared by local boards of education for encouraging increased community involvement in the public schools and use of the public school facilities. The State Board of Education is authorized to allocate funds to the local boards of education for the employment of community schools coordinators and for other appropriate expenses upon approval of a program submitted by a local board of education and subject to the availability of funds. In the event that a local board of education already has sufficient personnel employed performing functions similar to those of a community schools coordinator, the State Board of Education may allocate funds to that local board of education for other purposes consistent with this Article. Funds allocated to a local board of education shall not initially exceed three fourths of the total budget approved in the community schools program submitted by a local board of education. 115C-207. Every local board of education which elects to apply for funding pursuant to this Article shall:

1. Develop programs and plans for increased community involvement in the public schools based upon policies and guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education

2. Develop programs and plans for increased community use of public school facilities based upon policies and guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education

3. Establish rules governing the implementation of such programs and plans in its public schools and submit these rules along with adopted programs and plans to the State Board of Education for approval by the State Board of Education

Programs and plans developed by a local board of education shall provide for the establishment of one or more community schools advisory councils for the public schools under the board’s jurisdiction and for the employment of one or more community schools coordinators. The local board of education shall establish the terms and conditions of employment for the community schools coordinators. Every local board of education which elects to apply for funding pursuant to this Article shall have the authority to enter into agreements with other local boards of education, agencies and institutions for the joint development of plans and programs and the joint expenditure of funds allocated by the State Board of Education. Local funds from every local board of education applying for funds for the community schools program must equal at least one fourth of the total budget for the community schools program of said local board of education. 115C-208. Every participating local board of education shall establish one or more community schools advisory councils which may become involved in matters affecting the educational process in accordance with rules established by the local board of education and approved by the State Board of Education and further shall consider ways of increasing community involvement in the public schools and utilization of public school facilities. Community schools advisory councils may assist local boards of education in the development and preparation of the plans and programs to achieve such goals, may assist in the implementation of such plans and programs and may provide such other assistance as may be requested by the local boards of education. Community schools advisory councils shall work with local school officials and personnel, parent-teacher organizations, and community groups and agencies in providing maximum opportunities for public schools to serve the communities, and shall encourage the maximum use of volunteers in the public schools. At least one half of the members of each community schools advisory council shall be the parents of students in the particular public school system: Provided, that less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the pupils attending a particular school reside outside the immediate community of the school, at least one half of the members shall be parents of students in the particular school for which the advisory council is established. Whenever possible the local board of education is encouraged to include at least one high school student. The size of the councils and the terms of membership on the councils shall be determined by the localboard of education in accordance with the State guidelines. 115C-209. Every participating local board of education shall employ one or more community schools coordinator and shall establish the terms and conditions of their employment. Community schools coordinators shall be responsible for:

1. Providing support to the community schools advisory councils and public school officials. 2. Fostering cooperation between the local board of education and appropriate community agencies. 3. Encouraging maximum use of community volunteers in the public schools. 4. Performing such other duties as may be assigned by the local superintendent and the local board of education, consistent with the purposes of this

Article. Legal References: Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C.A. 4071-4074; Americans With Disabilities Act, 42



Exhibit 4-32 (Continued) School Facilities Comprehensive Policy

U.S.C. 12101 et seq. and -12181, et seq., 28 CFR part 36; Community Schools Act, G.S. 115C art. 13 and 204-209; G.S. 115C-524(b), G.S. 163-99

STATE BOARD POLICY

2F.0403 - GUIDELINES For local boards of education electing to apply for funding from the State Board of Education and provided by the North Carolina General Assembly under the provisions of the Community Schools Act, the following guidelines are established for developing local community schools programs:

1. appoint a community schools advisory council(s); 2. adopt policies, rules, regulations and plans for increased community involvement in public schools and their programs; 3. adopt policies, rules, regulations and plans for increased use of public school facilities by individuals, organizations and agencies.

2F.0404 - FUNDING 2F-0405 - PROCEDURES FOR MAKING APPLICATION Each local education agency shall be expected to submit an application according to the following:

1. Participating local boards of education shall make application on forms provided by the Department of Public Instruction. 2. The application shall contain:

a. plans for establishing and involving local community schools advisory councils; b. local policies and regulations for increased community involvement including volunteers in public schools and increased community

use of public school facilities; c. the procedures by which needs of the community will be assessed and the existing resources available to meet those needs; d. the goals and objectives of the proposed program; e. the methods and techniques of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration with other agencies; f. the plan for evaluating the program; g. a budget showing total proposed state and local funds to be expended; and h. a program description to include:

i. number of school sites to be used, ii. age groups to be served,

iii. types of services to be offered, and i. administrative organization for implementation of the program

2F.0406 - CRITERIA FOR PROPOSAL REVIEW 2F-0407 - ADOPT-A-SCHOOL PROGRAM The purpose of the Adopt-A-School Program is to provide volunteers, supportive services and staff to link private and public resources in greater participation in the teaching-learning process. The program will be administered by the Division of Community Schools, but will be sponsored in cooperation with the Governor’s Office of Citizen Affairs. The following guidelines are established for developing local Adopt-A-School programs:

1. A local board of education may volunteer or be invited to participate in the Adopt-A-School program. The ultimate goal is to establish programs in all school systems.

2. Initially, the selection of participating local boards of education will be made by the Department of Public Instruction and the Governor’s Office of Citizen Affairs.

3. Selection criteria for local school systems shall include readiness and commitment to the program and diversity with respect to the following: a. geographic distribution, b. city and county systems, c. size of systems.

4. The Adopt-A-School program shall be coordinated with community schools activities in those systems where community schools programs are

established. 5. Initially, the program will focus on providing volunteers for grades K-6 with specific emphasis on grades K-3. 6. It is anticipated that each participating school system will receive foundation and/or state support for two years only. After two year’s support, the

program will then become the responsibility of the local school system. State and/or foundation funds will be used to: a. employ volunteer specialists to assist local school systems in the organization and implementation of the Adopt-A-School program:

i. volunteer specialists will be paid on the State Salary Schedule for Teachers; ii. job descriptions and assignments for volunteer specialists will be developed by the State Department of Public Instruction,

and job descriptions for all other personnel will be developed by agencies by whom the employees are employed; b. provide staff development, training for volunteers, and recognition activities for volunteers; c. purchase instructional materials and supplies; d. make provisions for pre-school care and educational experiences for children of volunteers.

7. Foundation funds will be allocated to the State Board of Education and budget transfers from these funds will be made to the Governor’s Office of

Citizen Affairs to carry out the responsibilities assigned to that office including recognition activities, promotion and training/materials for volunteers.

EFF.: November 17, 1980 REF.: NCAC Title 16 Chapter 2 as cited above.




LOCAL BOARD POLICY A. General Principle.

The Burke County Board of Education (“the Board”) endorses the concept that school facilities should be available to Burke County citizens in an orderly and equitable manner. The Board promotes community use of facilities for purposes that contribute to the school program, community affairs, or the goals of the Community Schools Act, article 13 (G.S. 115C-203 through 209). As a service to the community, the Board may allow the use of public school property by organizations, institutions and businesses for such educational, recreational, social, civic, philanthropic, and like purposes as the Board deems in the best interest of the community. Administrative Procedures required for the implementation of this policy shall be as prescribed by the Superintendent and a copy of these procedures will be available in the index of The Burke County Board Of Education Policy Manual.

B. Facilities Available For Use. The Board permits eligible individuals or groups to use the facilities of those schools designated by the Board as “Community Schools”. A list of community schools shall be available to the public in the superintendent’s office and each principal’s office. The following types of facilities are available for use at the community schools: auditoriums, lobbies, media centers, gymnasiums, dining areas, designated classrooms, athletic fields and the driving track at Freedom High School. Permission to use school facilities may be granted by the principal or designee and the assistant superintendent or designee when such use will not interfere in any way with the regular programs, activities and schedule of the schools. All inquiries for the use of school facilities shall be initiated at the desired facility. The final decision for facility utilization will be made by site administration (in most cases, the Principal).

C. Priority Of Use and Fees Required. Priority in the use of school facilities shall be in accordance with the categories listed below. Within a category, specific types of groups will be given priority, as listed. The requirement for fees is listed in each category; collection of fees is required to cover the cost of utilities, custodial and building operations expenses associated with each group’s use of the school facilities. The Superintendent shall submit the amount or method of calculating fees to be charged in accordance with this policy to the Board for approval, as needed. Fees shall be charged uniformly to all groups within a particular user category.

1. Category A – School Affiliated Groups: a. School sponsored groups including teachers and students in the regular K-12 program and extra-curricular educational

activities. Such activities include school athletics program events, school drama and choral productions and meetings of school student organizations, clubs and other organizations permitted to meet under the Equal Access Act.

a. School related groups that conduct educational activities that enhance the school’s programs directly, such as PTA, PTO, adult education offerings within the school, NCAE, NCSBSA, other teachers’, principals’, and administrators’ organization meetings, academic, music and athletic booster clubs.

b. Local government agency recreation department programs, where such local tax-funded programs are conducted to promote general physical education, health and wellness and teamwork for Burke County Public Schools students as the prime program objective.

c. Non-profit community and civic groups, supervised non-profit youth athletic and character-building groups, church and non-profit faith-based groups and other non-profit groups conducting a non-income generating activity (i.e., no admission charge, other sales or donations are collected) exclusively and expressly for the entertainment, recreation or development of students within the school used.

d. Local Board of Elections Category A Fees: No fees are charged, and no facility use agreement is required, unless such groups are using facilities for a profit-making endeavor where the total profits are not devoted to the improvement of the group’s educational programs.

2. Category B – Local, Community and Civic Groups: a. Special events for various branches and units of the Armed Forces and their allied reserve groups. b. Local and state government units, other educational institutions and chartered community service agencies including

but not limited to fire departments, law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, rescue squads, Western Piedmont Community College, other community colleges, Broughton State Hospital, The NC Forest Service and Burke County Agriculture Extension.

c. Organized non-profit community and civic groups, supervised non-profit youth and adult athletic and character-building groups, church and non-profit faith-based groups and other non-profit groups including, but not limited to churches; Special Olympics, The American Red Cross, March Of Dimes, and The United Way Fund; Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and 4-H Clubs: Pee Wee, Traveling Sports Clubs/Associations, Athletic Foundations, AAU, YBOA, and YAO affiliated clubs; Optimists, Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions Clubs; veterans organizations; fraternities, sororities and alumni associations not directly related to the school.

d. Category B Fees: An appropriate Facility Use Agreement will be executed at least 7 days but not more than 60 days prior to the event or first use of the facilities requested. Fees will be charged for these groups based on a fee schedule approved by the Board to recover costs of rent, utilities and custodial services required by this policy or agreed between the group and the school.

3. Category C – For-Profit Groups, Private Groups and Individuals of the General Public: a. Persons, organizations or associations that request use of school facilities for a commercial enterprise or to engage in a

business for profit, including but not limited to business and industry, auction sales, pageants, public plays, dance competitions and activities by Category B organizations whose sole purpose is fund-raising.

Category C Fees: An appropriate Facility Use Agreement will be executed at least 7 days but not more than 60 days prior to the event or first use of the facilities requested. Fees will be charged for these groups based on a fee schedule approved by the Board to recover costs of rent, utilities and custodial services required by this policy or agreed between the group and the school.




B. The fee schedule shall be made an attachment to and a part of this policy. The group executing a Facility Use Agreement will be billed additionally for necessary cleanup or extended time of use not covered in the initial agreement terms.

C. Damages and Liability Insurance. User groups executing a Facility Use Agreement are responsible for all damages to school facilities, property or equipment that occurs while the facility is being used by the group, regardless of who caused the damage. All user groups, except category A groups, must furnish a certificate of insurance for general liability coverage of $1,000,000 for each claim made. Alternatively, the superintendent or designee may require the group to execute a waiver of liability that states that no liability shall attach to the Board of Education, individually or collectively, for personal injury or personal property damage by reason of use of the school property.

D. Terms and Acceptance of Agreements. The Superintendent or his designee is authorized to enter into agreements with community groups for the use of school property for terms up to one year. An agreement for a specific “one time” period of use or special event shall be considered a basic rental/use agreement. Such use may occur during a single day or over a period of several days within a given month. Category B and C users granted this agreement will be charged fees according to the fee schedule for special and specific events, based on the area(s) of the school to be used, duration of the event and category of the user. All charges for all hours used will be due and payable in advance of the beginning time of the event period. An agreement with a single community group for a recurring use over a period of longer than one month but less than one year shall be considered as a facility use license. Such use is generally expected to be the same amount of hours each month. Category B and C users granted this license will be charged fees according to the fee schedule for licenses less than one year, based on the area(s) of the school to be used, duration of the event and category of the user. All charges for hours licensed will be due and payable by the fourth day of each month for that month of use. Variations of greater than 10 percent in the agreed hours to be used each month will be handled as a supplemental basic use agreement for special events. Failure to remit payment by the 15th day of the month for that month’s use shall be grounds to terminate the license in whole. An agreement for one year or more shall be deemed a long term lease and must be approved in advance by the Board. Terms, conditions and fee charges shall be as negotiated with the Superintendent or designee.

E. Rules Governing Use of School Facilities The Superintendent shall develop administrative procedures consistent with this policy. Such procedures shall address the application process, supervision of groups using facilities, care of facilities, prohibited conduct and other issues deemed appropriate by the Superintendent. A copy of the administrative procedures shall be furnished to all applicants at the time they receive the facilities use application form. In addition to any administrative procedures established by the Superintendent, all users of school facilities must comply with the following rules:

1. Groups and individuals that use school facilities must comply with all federal, state and local laws and any additional rules required by the Board, Superintendent or designee, or the Principal.

2. No organization shall be eligible to use school facilities if such organization advocates governmental change by violence, or advocates any doctrine or theories subversive to the law or constitutions of the State of North Carolina or the United States of America.

3. Users must comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), particularly with Sub-Chapter III, Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities, and the federal regulations adopted consistent with the ADA.

4. All school campuses and properties are tobacco free. Users must comply with Board policy and legal requirements regarding the use of tobacco products in school facilities and grounds.

5. Users shall not consume or possess alcohol or controlled substances on school campuses or property. 6. Users shall not possess weapons or explosives while on school campuses or property. The use of open flame on school campuses or

property is also prohibited. The Principal or designee reserves the right to use metal detectors with any group using the facility. 7. Users and individuals attending the users’ events shall not engage in gambling or like games of chance on school campuses and

property. 8. Any violation by a user group or associated individual of the provisions of this policy or any applicable administrative procedures

will be deemed grounds for the suspension of the user group’s privilege to use school facilities for such period of time considered appropriate by the Principal, subject to the review of the Superintendent and the Board.

9. The Burke County Board of Education through the Superintendent or designee reserves the right to cancel a permit to use school property and refund payment whenever it deems such action advisable and in the best interest of the school system; or to modify or change its rules at any time with or without cause. In the event of such revocation or cancellation, there shall be no claim or right whatsoever to damages or reimbursement on account of loss, damage or expenses.

F. Review of Decisions Concerning Use of School Facilities Any person or organization may request a review of any decision made by staff pursuant to this policy in accordance with established policy on Parent and Student Grievance Procedure.

G. Implementation of Policy All existing agreements in force as of the date of adoption of this policy shall remain in effect for the duration of the current term of the agreement. No existing agreement shall remain in effect for more than one year from the date of the agreement without approval from the board. Subsequent renewals shall be subject to the terms of this policy and fee schedules and administrative procedures.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Fee Schedule for Facility Use – Special and Specific Events 2. Fee Schedule for Facility Use – Licenses Less Than One Year

Fee Schedule for Facility Use – Equipment and Furniture Source: BCPS Policy Manual, 2010.



COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for the development and implementation of a policy to regulate and facilitate the use of school facilities by various groups and organizations in the community.

FINDING

BCPS uses SchoolDude software for facilities maintenance and work order processing. The SchoolDude software also provides a facilities use scheduling, invoicing and tracking system.

The SchoolDude organization is capable of analyzing the track record of facilities rental and income from facilities use, and making recommendations for how BCPS can optimize its income from community use of facilities.

RECOMMENDATION


Review the facilities use policy and rental income each year, using SchoolDude’s knowledge and assistance.

The BCPS School Board should review its facilities use policy once a year in order to make any changes reflecting use charges, facilities available for use, use rules, or any other aspects of the policy. While it is not expected or necessary that changes to the policy are made every year, an annual examination of the policy’s provisions will help assure that it reflects the most current situation in the school system. BCPS should take advantage of SchoolDude’s availability for analyzing optimum income strategies for facilities use, and for making strategic recommendations. Most importantly, the Board and administration must be consistent in its implementation of this policy.

FISCAL IMPACT

Annual income from facilities use has been typically in the range of $15,000 to $30,000 at BCPS. SchoolDude analyses can show how such income could be doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled. In one recent example, a school district’s typical income from facilities use fees was $76,000 annually. The School Dude analysis showed that peer districts were earning $300,000 per year, and that a maximum potential of earnings amounted to $473,000 annually. In the case of Burke County Public Schools, with 26 schools (17 elementary schools, five middle schools, and four high schools) it appears that earnings from outside use have averaged about $1,000 per school per year. Based on Evergreen’s experience with other school districts, it is likely that the SchoolDude analysis will show at least a potential for $3,000 on average per school facility, or $78,000 per year. Given the BCPS typical income of $30,000 per year for facilities use by outside groups, the timeline below shows an additional income of $48,000 per year at minimum.



Recommendation 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Increase Income from Facilities Use by Outside Organizations $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000

4.6 SECURITY AND SAFETY

FINDING

Today, school districts are expected more than ever to provide a safe and secure environment for their students and staff. While districts are largely insulated from violent crime, it is incidents of violence at schools that draw national attention. School districts must take proactive measures in safety and security even in incident free schools. Students, teachers, and other district employees deserve a safe school environment in which to work and learn.

In 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (HSPD-5) initiated the development of a National Incident Management System (NIMS) and requires its use by public sector agencies, including school districts. The intent of this system is to provide a common template and language for responding organizations to work together in preventing, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from incidents. As noted by FEMA, “NIMS represents a core set of doctrines, concepts, principles, terminology, and organizational processes that enables effective, efficient, and collaborative incident management.”

NIMS emphasizes that true preparedness requires a commitment to continuous review and improvement. Most districts understand the continuous nature of emergency management, as well as the four phases that comprise the process circle (shown in Exhibit 4-33).

Exhibit 4-33 Continuous Process of Emergency Management

Source: The Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools’ Practical information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities, January 2007.



FINDING

The district has in place well-prepared and thoughtfully considered policies and procedures in most areas of security and safety. The following procedures and documents are in the BCPS Policy Manual:

4210 - Release of Students from School 4230 - Communicable Diseases and Head Lice 4240 - Child Abuse 4260 - Student Sex Offenders 4600 - Student Fees 4705 - Confidentiality of Personal Identifying and Address 5022 - Registered Sex Offenders 5026 - Smoke Alcoholic Weapon Free Environments 5050 - Emergency Closing of Schools 5059 - Equal Treatment in Dealing with Persons Who Comprise the School Community 5060 - Public Complaints and Concerns 5120 - Relationship with Law Enforcement 6125 - Administration of Drugs 6540 - Hazardous Materials 7240 - Drug Free Workplace 9200 - Care Maintenance and Security of Facilities

Noticeably absent from the BCPS Policy Manual are policies or procedures related to:

• student discipline; • use of visual monitoring and surveillance; • use of security wanding or screening devices.

COMMENDATION

With very few exceptions, BCPS has a substantive, timely and useful array of policies and procedures in the area of security and safety.

FINDING

As noted under the previous commendation, BCPS needs to add at least three policies to its policy manual related to school safety and security: student discipline; use of visual monitoring and surveillance; and use of security wanding and screening devices.

RECOMMENDATION


Create additional school security and safety policies in student discipline, surveillance, and screening.



A search of the Internet has yielded numerous Web sites offering sample policies regarding school security and safety. Here is the list of the first group:

• InstantSecurityPolicy.com/Policies • AboutSecuritySchool.com • www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/zero_tolerance.html - Cached • www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/cell_phones.html - Cached • www2.lhric.org/security/index.html - Cached • www.a-better-child.org/page/876675 - 58k - Cached • www.rmlibrary.com/lib/security/schoolsecurity.php - 88k - Cached • www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/bfmpbrevardch15.pdf • www.mde.k12.ms.us/lead/osos/SchoolSafetyManualppendices2.pdf - 1107k - Cached

Under the leadership of the Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services should conduct a review of sample security and safety policies, and recommend to the Superintendent the formulation of new policies, and the revision of existing ones. The selection of additional policies, as well as the revision of existing policy statements, should be accomplished on the basis of appropriateness for the current situation in BCPS.

The periodic review of security and safety policies, as well as of all other policies related to the purview of Support Services, should be a routine activity initiated and directed by the Assistant Superintendent for Support Services.

FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

Although the BCPS Policy Manual contains an impressive array of emergency policies and procedures, the district needs have a crisis management plan aligned with recent Federal guidelines. Without a written document agreed upon and practiced prior to an emergency, procedures are often passed along verbally, which could slow response times and result in lack of coordination and chaos during an actual emergency.

RECOMMENDATION


Create an up-to-date BCPS Crisis Management Plan.

The Superintendent and principals should review the US DOE publication, Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities, available at this Web site: www.ed.gov/emergencyplan. It provides checklists and suggests topics that should be contained in a crisis management plan, including:



• Mitigation and Prevention: decrease the need for response as opposed to simply increasing response capability.

• Preparedness: facilitate a rapid, coordinated, effective response when a crisis occurs.

• Response: the time to follow the crisis plan and make use of your preparations.

• Recovery: return to learning and restore the infrastructure as quickly as possible.

The Superintendent, selected other central administrators, and principals, should also complete at least two online courses offered by FEMA and recommended for all public entity leaders:

• ICS-100 An Introduction to Incident Command System (ICS) (the 100SC version was developed specifically for school districts), and

• ICS-700 NIMS: An Introduction.

Both are available through http://training.fema.gov/IS/ and can be completed online for free of charge.

The Superintendent should then lead development of a comprehensive crisis management plan, and should coordinate with the Burke County Sheriff’s Office for assistance and support. The plan should be reviewed and approved by the board and then shared with staff. Because it will contain sensitive information (such as likely student evacuation routes, which could be used in a negative manner by an insightful evildoer), the plan should not be widely disseminated, but all staff should know its contents and understand their role in all possible types of crisis. The district should review and practice key elements of its crisis management plan at least annually.

FISCAL IMPACT


FINDING

Cameras are installed in BCPS high schools. BCPS officials expressed a desire to Evergreen consultants that they would like to see additional cameras installed, especially in outdoor areas that are not easily monitored by staff. The desire was further expressed that such camera systems should have their observations recorded, thus permitting a review of any incidents the cameras may have observed.

RECOMMENDATION


Investigate the availability of grant funds from the U.S. Department of Justice/U.S. Department of Education under the “Safe Schools/Healthy Students” Program.



These grants include funding for the purchase and installation of camera systems. Upon obtaining such funds, BCPS should combine it with local funds to purchase and install a useful camera system (see http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov/apply/default.aspx).

Such grants often require matching funds from the community. In some cases, funds from private donors, and from state and local government sources were used to structure the successful funding.

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation can be implemented with resources from public and private sources.

FINDING

BCPS is in the process of installing cameras on its school buses. School bus cameras that have a high resolution to identify trouble-makers and fighters or rule-breakers are useful in pinpointing and pursuing students that are unruly and aggressive.

While the time required to install cameras on all regular fleet buses will take considerable time, BCPS appears committed to a policy whereby this policy will be determinedly carried out.

COMMENDATION

Burke County Public Schools is commended for its commitment to installing surveillance cameras on its entire fleet of school buses.


CHAPTER 5: FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS


5.0 FISCAL IMPACT OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Evergreen Team has developed 56 recommendations in this report. Twenty-six (26) of the recommendations have fiscal implications. Exhibit 5-1 shows the total costs and savings for study recommendations that have a fiscal impact. As can be seen, the total net savings is over $21.8 million over five years for efficiencies in financial management and non-financial management areas as well as operations of the Burke County School System. It is important to keep in mind that the identified savings and costs are incremental and cumulative.

Exhibit 5-1 Summary of Annual Costs and Savings by Year

Over Five Years Recommendations

Cost Savings

Years Total 5-Year (Costs) or Savings

One-Time (Costs) or Savings

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

TOTAL SAVINGS $2,394,575 $3,151,655 $5,247,275 $6,297,575 $6,297,575 $23,388,655 $0

TOTAL COSTS ($304,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($1,401,795) ($127,500)

TOTAL NET SAVINGS $2,090,216 $2,877,296 $4,972,916 $6,023,216 $6,023,216 $21,986,860 ($127,500)

TOTAL FIVE-YEAR NET SAVINGS MINUS ONE-TIME SAVINGS $21,859,360

Exhibit 5-2 shows costs and savings by chapter for recommendations in Chapters 3 and 4.

There are about 30 additional recommendations in this report that do not have a fiscal impact. These recommendations are included in Chapters 3 and 4 of the full report.

Fiscal Impact of Recommendations Burke County School System


Exhibit 5-2 Summary of Annual Costs and Savings by Year

Chapter/Recommendation Estimated (Cost)/Savings

Total 5-Year (Costs) or Savings


CHAPTER 3: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3-1 Eliminate One Specialist in Finance Office $34,923 $34,923 $34,923 $34,923 $34,923 $174,615

3-7 Reimburse the Local Fund for all Support and Indirect Costs $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,000,000

3-16 Transfer Fund Balances $240,035 $240,035 $240,035 $240,035 $240,035 $1,200,175 Chapter 3 Subtotal (Cost)/Savings $674,958 $674,958 $674,958 $674,958 $674,958 $3,374,790 CHAPTER 4: NON-FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

4-1 Adopt Proposed Executive Organizational Structure ($110,442) ($110,442) ($110,442) ($110,442) ($110,442) ($552,210)

4-2 Eliminate Instructional Coaches/add Content Coordinators $344,551 $344,551 $344,551 $344,551 $344,551 $1,722,755

4-3 Reorganize the Department of Curriculum and Instruction $260,915 $260,915 $260,915 $260,915 $260,915 $1,304,575

4-4 Adopt the Proposed Organizational Structure for the Finance Office $21,311 $21,311 $21,311 $21,311 $21,311 $106,555

4-5 Create Office of Accountability and Planning $88,602 $88,602 $88,602 $88,602 $88,602 $443,010 4-6 Hire Elementary Art Teacher ($53,951) ($53,951) ($53,951) ($53,951) ($53,951) ($269,755) 4-8 Increase Day Care Rates $66,420 $66,420 $132,840 $132,840 $132,840 $531,360 4-11 Close one Alternative School $397,760 $397,760 $397,760 $397,760 $397,760 $1,988,800 4-12 Eliminate Hard Copies of Board Policy Manual $4,000 $80 $80 $80 $80 $4,320

4-13 Reduce Exceptional Children Enrollment to State-Funded Levels $245,070 $595,170 $1,295,370 $2,345,670 $2,345,670 $6,826,950

4-14 Reduce Assistant Principal Expenses $37,412 $37,412 $37,412 $37,412 $37,412 $187,060

4-17 Hire One Person as the Exceptional Children Director $8,932 $8,932 $8,932 $8,932 $8,932 $44,660

Fiscal Impact of Recommendations Burke County School System


Exhibit 5-2 (Continued)

Summary of Annual Costs and Savings by Year

Chapter/Recommendation Estimated (Cost)/Savings

Total 5-Year

(Costs) or Savings


4-18 Adopt the Proposed Organizational Structure for the Department of Human Resources ($79,966) ($79,966) ($79,966) ($79,966) ($79,966) ($399,830)

4-21 Conduct a Comprehensive Compensation and Classification Study $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($47,500)

4-22 Reclassify the AIG Director $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $3,066 $15,330

4-24 Conduct Joint Activities in Transportation $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $160,000

4-27 Improve Seven Worst Cafeteria/ Kitchen Locations to MPLH Target $113,578 $113,578 $113,578 $113,578 $113,578 $567,890

4-28 Obtain Severe Need Lunch Reimbursements $0 $153,000 $153,000 $153,000 $153,000 $612,000

4-29 Index Meal Prices to USDA Reimbursement Increases $0 $297,900 $297,900 $297,900 $297,900 $1,191,600

4-34 Prepare and Update a Five-Year Facilities Master Plan ($60,000) ($30,000) ($30,000) ($30,000) ($30,000) ($180,000)

4-35 Consolidate Central Office* $0 $0 $107,000 $107,000 $107,000 $321,000 4-36 Consolidate Schools* $80,000 $0 $1,222,000 $1,222,000 $1,222,000 $3,746,000 ($80,000)

4-37 Increase Income from Facilities Use by Outside Organizations $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $240,000

Chapter 4 Subtotal (Cost)/Savings $1,415,258 $2,202,338 $4,297,958 $5,348,258 $5,348,258 $18,612,070 ($127,500) TOTAL SAVINGS $2,394,575 $3,151,655 $5,247,275 $6,297,575 $6,297,575 $23,388,655 $0 TOTAL COSTS ($304,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($274,359) ($1,401,795) ($127,500) TOTAL NET SAVINGS $2,090,216 $2,877,296 $4,972,916 $6,023,216 $6,023,216 $21,986,860 ($127,500) TOTAL FIVE-YEAR NET SAVINGS MINUS ONE-TIME SAVINGS $21,859,360

*Does not include $1,250,000 and $1,018,000 in anticipated renovation costs in 2011-12 for Recommendations 4-35 and 4-36, respectively.

Evergreen Solutions Financial and Performance Review of the BCPS - Final Report - April 12 2010

Documents

Transcript of Evergreen Solutions Financial and Performance Review of the BCPS - Final Report - April 12 2010