Nyscoss F2013 Shared Services Sipple

download Nyscoss F2013 Shared Services Sipple

If you can't read please download the document

  • date post

    16-Dec-2014
  • Category

    Business

  • view

    310
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

description

Slides from Prof. Sipple's presentation on the Cornell Shared Services Study at the 2013 Fall meeting of the NYSCOSS. September 23, 2013.

Transcript of Nyscoss F2013 Shared Services Sipple

  • 1. Shared School District & Municipal Services: Lets 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

2. Central Questions/Themes Schools Communities? Communities Schools? Information is better than guessing. Short- vs. Long Term planning/decisions Regional Planning and Action 3. Available Data Tools Achievement Comparison & Benchmarking Fiscal Analysis Historical and Scenario Building Mapping Demographic Trends and Projections (District & County) 4. %Graduates Outcomes, After 6 year + NYC Public Schools + High Need/ Resource Urban- Suburban Districts + High Need/ Resource Rural Districts + New York State Public Schools 07/ 08 08/ 09 09/ 10 10/ 11 11/ 12 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% New Tool Ach Illustrator 5. 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 Superintendents American Planning Association, New York Upstate Chapter Key Partners for Study 6. Cities Counties Town s Villages Supt s 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 7. 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 8. 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 9. 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 / authority How Formal is the Arrangement ? More Informal 10. 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. 11. 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 MOU Liability Insurance 6.2% 12.1 Joint Ownership Administrative and Support Services 12. 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 13. 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 14. 55.3% 64.5% 65.6% 69.8% 75.5% 80.8% 82.8% 84.8% 85.5% Personality conflicts Restrictive labor Elected official opposition/politics Job loss/local employment impact Loss of flexibility in provision options Local control/ community identity State rules/ legal regulations Accountability concerns in sharing Liability/risk concerns Obstacles 15. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Significant Moderate Weak and None cities(N=37) counties(N=36) towns(N=412) Villages(N=283) Fiscal Stress Faced by Municipalities 16. 0.4% 7.1% 9.9% 10.6% 14.9% 17.9% 22.1% 34.1% 34.3% 41.0% Consider declaring bankruptcy/insolvency Sell assets Eliminate service(s) Deliver services with citizen volunteers Consolidate departments Explore consolidation with another Reduce service(s) Personnel cuts/reductions Explore additional shared service Increase user fees Responses to Fiscal Stress 17. School District Data 18. 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 4.2 HN Rural 4.8 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.6 4.1 Ave Need 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.4 3.8 Low 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 4.7 HN Rural 3.2 4.5 3.6 3.1 4.3 4.6 Ave Need 3.2 4.4 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.6 Low Need 3.3 4.4 3.8 3.0 3.5 4.4 19. Outcome of sharing Instructional Staff? Informal Agreement Cost Savings Improved Quality Improved 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% 20. 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 21. HN Rural Districts Medical care beyond the school nurse After school programs/act ivities Summer school Distance learning/ online Student 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/No n-profit 21% 32% 7% 0% 7% Private sector 24% 3% 2% 2% 10% 22. 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 4.0 HN Rural 3.8 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.9 Ave Need 4.0 4.4 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 Low Need 4.0 4.4 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.7 Elected official opposition/po litics Liability concerns Personality conflicts Restrictive labor aggreements Job loss/local employment impact Local control/ community identity Small City 2.5 3.4 2.8 4.4 3.4 3.2 HN Rural 2.7 3.5 2.5 3.9 3.5 3.7 Ave Need 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.5 3.7 Low Need 2.5 3.4 2.1 3.3 2.9 3.3 23. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Low Need Average Need High Need Rural Small City 24. Next Steps Multivariate Analyses - Financial and Demographic Spatial Analyses Proper State Estimates Policy Briefs and Published Studies Searchable Database of Cases 25. @jsipple, @NYRuralSchools http://NYRuralSchools.org http://pad.human.cornell.edu