1. Next Phase: Benchmarking Presented to the Council of Great City Schools Chief Operating Officers Conference April 2006 Los Angeles Unified School District Managing for Results A Systems Approach to Goal & Performance Measurement Standards

2. Managing for Results Cycle Accountability

3. 3 Comparative Analysis in Performance Measures Performance measures and the systems to monitor them will provide sound information to confront the issues facing our industry. Performance measurement is action based. According to GASB standards, it requires reference points to compare your efforts. Trends – Measures how you are doing over time Targets – Measures how you are doing based on where you want to go Benchmarking – Measures how you are doing compared to peers/competitors Geographic – Measures how you are doing within your own District Client Perspective – Measures how you are doing with your customer

4. 4 Benchmarking Performance goal The goal of benchmarking:  Examine how you compare to your peers  Learn why your peer Districts are ahead  Apply methods to improve your performance by studying their circumstances and approaches. four major steps The four major steps in the benchmarking process include:  Select and compile data to compare districts,  Identify factors in which performance leads and lags,  Study the gaps between your district and best in class to determine why it might be ahead  Develop recommendations and propose actions to close the gap between your district and best in class. Note Note: While comparing performance measures can spot gaps in cost, quality and timeliness, it usually does not provide deep understanding of the processes and skills that create superior performance.  Gap analysis between your district and other districts requires additional information about management disciplines, culture, accountability and other factors that make them best in class.

5. 5 Participating districts determined it was important to identify a common set of key performance measures and compare our performance to each other. Established key indicators for certain areas we determined important for our industry. Two of the areas identified are used for this presentation:  Food Services  Transportation Survey developed based on key indicators  20 districts participated in whole or in part 2005 CGCS COO’s Conference – San Diego, Ca.

6. 6 Participating Districts * Detroit, Fresno, and Des Moines data gathered from district’s website, not self-reported

7. 7 Benchmarking Transportation On-time performance and acceptable variance in minutes Fleet in-service percentage Age of bus fleet Cost per mile Annual cost per student per program – total, general education & special education Percent of buses in contracted services In appendix- Provision of public transit and eligibility requirements Transportation staff number & type  District v. contract  Unionized v. non-unionized  Number of unions Annual cost per student per program – all others Average daily percentage of total driver absence and by absence type Average monthly driver vacancy rate and time to fill

8. Transportation Measure: Percent of total bus routes on time to schools Size of school district does not impact performance Climate is not a factor in on-time arrival Does allowable variance influence performance?

9. Transportation Measure: Allowable variance in minutes for on-time arrival Wide range – From 0 to 20 minutes allowed Slight correlation of size to allowable variance The industry gravitates towards 10 minutes as the acceptable variance How does this impact on-time performance?

10. Transportation Generally:  The better the on-time percentage, the greater the allowable variance  Size of District is compensated for by allowable variance With this in mind which Districts are the most notable in terms of performance?

11. Transportation Measure: Percentage of bus fleet in operating condition and can be placed in service Most districts have 95% or greater in service There may be some differences in how in service percentage was calculated by different districts (100% requires another look)

12. Transportation Measure: Average age of District bus fleet in years In general, states in which it snows have younger fleets Size of District is not a determining factor Districts with older fleets and higher in-service rate likely have higher operating costs per mile.

13. Transportation Measure: Total cost per mile Cost per mile will be driven by factors such as capital costs, debt, labor/benefits costs, etc. Warm climate districts generally have a lower cost per mile (except Chicago)

14. Transportation Measure: Total operating cost by program/number of students transported by program Cost per student will be dependent on programs supported in addition to the cost of doing business.

15. Transportation Districts with higher overall costs transport a greater percentage of special education students Some districts have similar special education populations, but large variances in costs

16. Transportation Measure: Total operating cost by program/number of students transported by program Data is more normalized as it more closely clusters Gap analysis should examine modes of transportation

17. Transportation Measure: Total operating cost by program/number of students transported by program Notes:  There may be some differences in how the annual cost for special education services was calculated by different districts

18. Transportation Measure: Percentage of buses that are contracted Generally  Districts with less contracted are more on time (Boston is notable exception)  Districts with more contracted have younger fleets  Results compared to cost per mile is a mixed bag

19. 19 Benchmarking Transportation Other possible KPIs  Accident rates Accidents per million miles Preventable accidents per million miles Percent of preventable school bus accidents requiring transport to a medical facility  Average bus occupancy  Percent of non-funded riders  Number of breakdowns  Percent of buses passing vehicle inspections  Number of penalties/complaints  Customer survey results  Safety and cost efficiency  Annual total miles/annual field trip miles  Monthly cost of training drivers  Monthly number of field trips

20. 20 Benchmarking Food Services District-wide eligibility for free & reduced programs Student participation as a percentage of average daily attendance Student participation as a percentage of free or reduced eligibility Production costs as a percentage of revenue  Labor & benefits  Food & supplies Net Surplus In appendix- Type of meal production and percentage if hybrid Number & type of food services staff Percentage of sites with multiple lunch periods Meals per labor hour, are meals weighted Meal prices

21. Food Services Measure: District-wide student eligibility as a percent of enrollment Geographic boundaries influence poverty rates among districts Varying poverty rates provide an excellent analytical basis to examine how we appeal to both free/reduced and ineligible populations

22. Food Services Measure: Student average daily meal participation as a percentage of average daily attendance (ADP/ADA) Poverty is not necessarily an indicator of participation. Smaller districts appear to have higher participation rates Participation may be driven by program offerings/approaches.

23. Food Services Districts in the upper quartile of participation indicate strong participation from both poverty and non-poverty alike. High participation, but lower eligible participation suggests we also look at factors like service to the classroom as a mechanism

24. Food Services Measure: Student average daily meal participation as a percentage of average daily attendance (ADP/ADA) Poverty is not necessarily an indicator of participation. Smaller districts appear to have higher participation rates

25. Food Services Districts with higher levels of participation show strong participation from both poverty and non-poverty alike. Comparatively higher percentages of free/eligible participate in the lunch program Appendix – lower participation generally indicates higher prices for elementary full and reduced price lunch

26. Food Services Measure: Student average daily meal participation as a percentage of average daily attendance (ADP/ADA) Much less secondary participation in breakfast programs Range of participation suggests significant differences in programs

27. Food Services In higher participating districts there is a strong correlation to high levels of free/reduced participation

28. Food Services Measure: Student average daily meal participation as a percentage of average daily attendance (ADP/ADA) National average for middle school participation is approximately 60%, with 50% for high school Districts with high participation rates represent both high and low eligibility – indicator of program appeal

29. Food Services Programs with high participation rates are appealing to both eligible and non-eligible populations Programs with low participation and high eligible participation suggest non- eligible can be a source of new participation and revenue

30. Food Services Measure: Labor/Benefits expenses as a % of revenue The School Food Services industry generally recommends labor & benefits expenses between 40% and 45% of revenue Most responding district fall within this range

31. Food Services Measure: Food & supplies expenses as a percent of revenue Revenue streams come from reimbursements and cash for reimbursable meals, as well as non-reimbursable a la carte sales. Higher expenses may point out more expensive food selections that are non-reimbursable.

32. Food Services Measure: Net surplus as a percent of revenue Surplus has a wide range unlike labor/benefits & food/supply costs illustrated Some districts have high surpluses, but low participation rates Some districts have lower labor/food costs but low surplus Some districts have high eligibility but low or no surplus

33. 33 Food Services Other possible KPIs  Summer food services program  Increased participation  Health department scores  Employee job satisfaction  Customer survey results  Child care food services program

34. 34 Next Steps in Benchmarking Step 1: Identify Operational Areas  Establish what areas we will benchmark as “Operations” Step 2: Establish Standing Working Group  Establish key indicators and refine measurement  Serve as industry experts to survey development & analysis  Identify how to capture data in the next year and going forward  Serve as communication team to stimulate more participation Step 3: Review and refine measurements  Refine how we measure data to accurately collect information Step 4: Collect Data  Establish survey instruments that will collect data Step 5: Gap Analysis – how and why are we different  Identify factors in which performance leads and lags  Study the gaps between districts to determine differences  Establish clearinghouse of best practices and approaches

35. 35 Contact Information Copies are available online:  FY04 & FY05 Service Efforts & Accomplishments reports  Nov 05 CGCS Presentation: Planning & Measurement  April 06 CGCS Presentation: Benchmarking Michael Eugene  Los Angeles Unified School District, Business Services Division Website: go to www.lausd.netwww.lausd.net  Click on “Offices”  Click on “Business Services Division”  (213) 241-2947  michael.eugene@lausd.net michael.eugene@lausd.net For copy of full survey results/appendix, contact  Heidi Hrowal at (213) 241-3020  heidi.hrowal@lausd.net heidi.hrowal@lausd.net