Post on 16-Dec-2014
description
transcript
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