Shared School District & Municipal Services: Let’s find some data!

John W. Sipple (jsipple@cornell.edu, @jsipple)Mildred E Warner (mew15@cornell.edu) George Homsy (ghomsy@Binghamton.edu)

Cornell University Sept. 2013

Central Questions/Themes

• Schools Communities?• Communities Schools?• Information is better than guessing. • Short- vs. Long Term planning/decisions• Regional Planning and Action

Available Data Tools

• Achievement Comparison & Benchmarking• Fiscal Analysis – Historical and Scenario Building• Mapping• Demographic Trends and Projections (District & County)

New Tool – Ach Illustrator

Cornell University• Department of Development Sociology• Department of City and Regional Planning

New York Conference of Mayors

New York State Association of Towns

New York State Association of Counties

New York State Council of School SuperintendentsAmerican Planning Association, New York Upstate Chapter

Key Partners for Study

Cities

Counties

Towns Villages Supts

Total

Total – NYS

62 57 932 556 697 2260

Number of responses

49 44 494 359 245 1191

Response rate

79% 77% 53% 65% 35% 53%

Response Rate

Total of 29 services measured following areas:

• Public works and transportation (5 services)

• Administrative / support services (10 services)

• Recreation and social services (5 services)

• Public safety (6 services)

• Economic and development planning (3 services)

Services measured for Municipalities

• Instructional staff• Curriculum materials• Cafeteria services• Transportation services

(garage, maintenance)• Tax collection• Security/SRO/police• Health insurance• Joint purchasing

• Library/computer lab• Gymnasium/indoor space• Field/outdoor space• Youth recreation• Childcare/Even start/Pre-

school• Community transportation• Adult education (ESL/GED)• Facilities

Services measured for School Districts

22%

39%7%

26%

6%Informal understanding

MOU / Inter-Municipal Agreement

Joint ownership, production, or purchase

Contracting with another government

Creation of a special district / au-thority

How Formal is the Arrangement ?

More Informal

Muni. engaged

Avg. length of arrangement

Most common arrangement

Elderly services 36.8% 19.5 MOU

Youth social services 44.5% 19.8 MOU

Parks 17.2% 19.3 MOU

Youth recreation 48.6% 22.2 MOU

Library 52.2% 24.9 MOU

Recreation and Social Services

Category has highest amount of reported sharing.

Muni. engaged

Avg. length of arrangement

Most common arrangement

Professional staff 8.0% 11.0 Informal

Building maintenance 7.9% 18.1 MOU

Energy 24.7% 9.6 MOU

Purchase of supplies 17.3% 13.6 MOU

Health insurance 11.7% 10.2 MOULiability Insurance 6.2% 12.1 Joint Ownership

Administrative and Support Services

Economic development 54.5%

Library 50.0%

Building maintenance 46.0%

Liability Insurance 45.4%

Public or paratransit 45.2%

When Share with Non-Profits…

Payroll/bookkeeping 30.7%

Refuse, garbage, landfill 15.5%

Liability Insurance 6.8%

Health insurance 6.0%

Public / paratransit 5.2%

When Share with For-Profits…

Personality conflictsRestrictive labor aggreements/unionization

Elected official opposition/politicsJob loss/local employment impact

Loss of flexibility in provision optionsLocal control/ community identity

State rules/ legal regulationsAccountability concerns in sharing arrangements

Liability/risk concerns

55.3%64.5%65.6%69.8%

75.5%80.8%82.8%84.8%85.5%

Obstacles

Significant Moderate Weak and None

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

cities(N=37)counties(N=36)towns(N=412)Villages(N=283)

Fiscal Stress Faced by Municipalities

Consider declaring bankruptcy/insolvency

Sell assets

Eliminate service(s)

Deliver services with citizen volunteers

Consolidate departments

Explore consolidation with another government

Reduce service(s)

Personnel cuts/reductions

Explore additional shared service arrangements

Increase user fees

0.4%7.1%

9.9%10.6%

14.9%17.9%

22.1%34.1%34.3%

41.0%

Responses to Fiscal Stress

School District Data

Importance of Motivators Cost Savings

Local leadership/

trust

Gaining bargaining power in market

Staff transitions

State programs to incentivize

sharing

Regional equality in

service delivery

Small City 4.8 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.4 4.2HN Rural 4.8 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.6 4.1Ave Need 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.4 3.8Low Need 4.7 4.2 4.4 2.5 3.0 3.3

Community expectations

Maintaining service quality

Past experience

with sharing

Business community

support

Unable to provide without sharing

Enriching educational opportunity

Small City 3.5 4.3 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.7HN Rural 3.2 4.5 3.6 3.1 4.3 4.6Ave Need 3.2 4.4 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.6Low Need 3.3 4.4 3.8 3.0 3.5 4.4

Outcome of sharing Instructional Staff?

Informal Agreement Cost Savings Improved

QualityImproved Student

Performance

Small City 13% 100% 50% 50%High Need Rural 15% 79% 54% 33%Average Need 11% 68% 58% 25%Low Need 8% 83% 75% 42%

Curricular Materials?

Small City 0% 100% 100% 67%High Need Rural 17% 81% 61% 56%Average Need 26% 70% 64% 52%Low Need 39% 92% 77% 54%

Not Provide Share No-Share

Small City 50% 14% 36%

High Need Rural 56% 23% 21%

Average Need 58% 18% 24%Low Need 65% 10% 26%

Total 58% 18% 24%

Medical Care Beyond Nurse

HN Rural Districts

Medical care beyond the

school nurse

After school programs/act

ivitiesSummer school

Distance learning/

onlineStudent

internships

Yes: no Share 21% 39% 14% 8% 11%

Yes: Share 23% 39% 64% 62% 30%A District(s) 6% 13% 26% 22% 0%BOCES 6% 13% 69% 76% 50%University/CC 3% 3% 2% 19% 13%Community/Non-profit

21% 32% 7% 0% 7%

Private sector 24% 3% 2% 2% 10%

Importance of Obstacles

Planning & design of sharing

agreement

Availability of willing

partners

Similarity among

partners

Compatible data and budget systems

Combining multiple funding sources

State rules/ legal

regulations

Small City 4.2 4.6 3.3 3.4 3.6 4.0HN Rural 3.8 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.9Ave Need 4.0 4.4 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9Low Need 4.0 4.4 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.7

Elected official opposition/po

liticsLiability

concernsPersonality

conflictsRestrictive

labor aggreements

Job loss/local employment

impact

Local control/ community

identity

Small City 2.5 3.4 2.8 4.4 3.4 3.2HN Rural 2.7 3.5 2.5 3.9 3.5 3.7Ave Need 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.5 3.7Low Need 2.5 3.4 2.1 3.3 2.9 3.3

% Exhausted fu

nd bal...

% Reduced Services

% Eliminated Services

% Increased user fe

es% perso

nnel cuts% Sell Asse

ts

% Explore Consolidatio

n

% Consider B

ankruptcy

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low Need Average Need High Need Rural Small City

Next Steps

• Multivariate Analyses - Financial and Demographic• Spatial Analyses• Proper State Estimates• Policy Briefs and Published Studies• Searchable Database of Cases

@jsipple, @NYRuralSchools

http://NYRuralSchools.org

http://pad.human.cornell.edu