The Transformation Budget 2013–2014 Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Meeting 4VUKH`1HU\HY`‹WT

The Transformation Budget 2013–2014 Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Meeting 4VUKH`1HU\HY`‹WT
The Transformation
Budget 2013–2014
Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Meeting
4VUKH`1HU\HY`‹WT
Citizens’ Bu
udget Rev
view Com
mmission
n Meeting
g
Janu
uary 14, 2
2013
5:00
0 P.M., BO
OARD RO
OOM
Agenda
Introductions
L
Louisa Meyer
C
Chairperson
I.
Fe
ederal Program
ms
-
-
-
-
-
Jordan Robertss
1
II.
Compliance Division
-
-
-
-
-
D
Donald Smith
19
III.
Fo
ood Services
-
-
-
-
-
D
Dora Rivas
31
Appendix A - CBRC Reco
ommendations Update
59
Appendix B – Budget Callendar 2012-20
013
71
Appendix C – Contact Lis
st
81
Future Mee
eting Dates:
Feb. 11, 20
013
Mar. 04, 20
013
Apr. 08, 20
013
Apr. 22, 20
013
May 06, 2013
May 23, 2013--Budget Adoptted
Federal Programs
Budget Commission Report, January 2013
Jordan Roberts, Director of Grants Management
1
1
Grants Management Duties





Compliance
Budget
Accounting
Supplemental Education Services (SES)
NCLB Application
 Title I
 School Improvement Program (SIP)
2
2
2012 – 2013 Federal Awards
 Dallas ISD currently operates with 26 federal grant
awards.
Grant Type
Grant Award ($)
Total FTE
Entitlement
$
168,944,190
1827.9
Discretionary
$
17,547,145
179.6
Total
$
186,491,335
2007.6
3
3
Grants
Entitlement
Discretionary
 Competitive
 Published selection
criteria
 Applications must best
meet program
requirements and are,
therefore, most worthy of
funding
 Not competitive
 Award based on a
formula prescribed in
legislation or regulation
(ex. population,
enrollment, per capita
income, or a specific
need)
4
4
Entitlement Grants
Grant
2012-13 Award
Title I, Part A
FTE
Title I, Part D
92,105,500 1091.0
64,241
Title II, Part A
14,656,739
150.6
Title III, Part A
8,366,482
33.8
IDEA B Cluster
41,598,905
496.6
Title I School Improvement Program
9,422,628
48.6
Carl D Perkins
2,527,195
7.0
202,500
0.5
$
McKinney Vento – Homeless Education
5
5
Entitlement Grants Budgets
Budget
FTE
Campus
89,540,421
1,305.1
Non-Campus
79,403,769
523.9
168,944,190
1,828.1
Total
6
6
Entitlement Grants
Example of Programs Funded:
Title I
Title II
Title III
IDEA
SIP
Carl D.
Perkins
McKinneyVento
Community and
Family Relations
Teacher
Recruitment
and Retention
Multilanguage
• Training
• Coaches
EBS Healthcare –
Specialized speech
therapy
Supplemental
Educational
Services (SES)
Thom Markham Project-based
Learning
Salvation
Army/Camp
Hoblitzelle
Extended Year
School
Alternative
Certification
Dual Language
UTD Callier Center Deaf Ed Services
Education Service
Centers support
North Central Texas
Interlink
Big Thought Arts
education services
College Access
Program
School
Leaders
Academy
Early Childhood
Dallas County
Schools –
Bus Monitors
Teacher, program
development
specialists, aides
Career Cruising middle and high
school campuses
Rainbow Days After-school
programming
Youth and Family
Centers
Instructional
Leadership &
Coaching
AVANCE
Campus based
instructional staff
(teachers, support
staff, diagnosticians)
Campus based
instructional staff
Class Size
Reduction
Teachers
National Academy
Foundation - High
School Redesign
Capital Outlay
(computers, AV
equipment, etc.)
7
7
FY 13 Entitlement Grants
FTEs
8
8
Discretionary Grants
Grant
2012-13 Award
Head Start
FTE
1,422,957
41.0
10,807,533
68.3
3,331,824
66.2
Indian Education
130,698
2.0
Refugee School Impact
136,750
1.0
$
Texas Title I Priority Schools (TTIPS)
Adult Basic Education
Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool
Youngsters (HIPPY) - United Way of Metropolitan
Dallas
1.2
279,600
Other Miscellaneous Grants
1,437,783
9
9
Discretionary Grants Budgets
Budget
FTE
Campus
9,299,987
107.3
Non-Campus
8,247,158
72.4
17,547,145
179.7
Total
10
10
Discretionary Grants
Example of Programs Funded:
Head Start
Texas Title I
Priority
Schools
Adult Basic
Education
Indian
Education
HIPPY
Other Misc.
Campus staff:
Teachers and
Teacher assistants
for 26 classrooms
on 9 campuses
Master and Mentor
Teacher program
Teaching staff
providing literacy,
numeracy, and
language acquisition
Personnel:
Program Manager
& Community
Liaison
Personnel:
Coordinator and
part-time Home
Instructors for 3
areas
Alternative Certification
grants focused on
interns/teachers in highneed areas
Instructional
supplies
Incentive Pay
Testing materials and
instructional supplies
Instructional
Reading Supplies
Curriculum and
supplies
Texas Eat Grow Go:
Junior Master Gardnerin school (4) gardens
Educational
excursions
Dual Credit Program
Extra-Duty Pay for
summer
enrichment
Technology
Infrastructure
HIPPY: home instructors for
3 Dallas areas
Refugee Impact: summer
program and translators
TAP Program –
Alternative Education
System
11
11
FY 13 Discretionary Grants FTEs
12
12
Current Year FTEs
All Grant Types
13
13
Funding Trend Analysis
by Grant Type
14
14
Total Funding by Fiscal Year
*ARRA funding received in FY 10 and ended beginning of FY 12
Dallas ISD received approx. $125M
15
15
FTEs by Grant Type
16
16
Total FTEs by Fiscal Year
17
17
Grants Management
Q&A
18
18
Dallas ISD Compliance Division
Briefing For
Citizens Budget Review Commission
Donald R. Smith, Chief Compliance Officer
19
Dallas ISD Compliance Division
Director E‐Rate Programs……………………...Rhonda Scholwinski
Director Office of Professional Responsibility...Norman Epstein
Manager Child Abuse Office…………………...Carol Duncan
20
Dallas ISD Compliance Division
Comprised of Three Separate Functions, which work together to efficiently provide a positive and safe environment for the students in the Dallas Independent School District.
• E‐ Rate
• Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
• Child Abuse 21
E‐Rate
Dallas ISD E‐Rate History
• In July, 2005, reports began to surface about potential improprieties in the Dallas ISD E‐Rate Program that centered around a high ranking DISD Employee;
• Federal Investigation was launched to determine if allegations were true;
• Federal Investigation found Dallas ISD guilty of non‐compliance with Federal E‐rate program.
• Actions of Dallas ISD resulted in the following:
• Arrest and incarceration of a Dallas ISD Administrator and other individuals;
• Withholding of E‐Rate funds for projects since 2006
• Criminal matters concluded in 2008
• On June 25, 2009, Dallas ISD and US Department of Justice Agreed to Settle Claims Under These Terms:
• Relinquish E‐rate funding requests ‐ $150 Million
• Pay fines ‐ $750,000.00
• Enter into a compliance agreement with the FCC and USAC
• Hire an E‐Rate Compliance Officer (ERCO) as a direct report to Superintendent
Compliance Agreement is a legal contract composed of 15 pages, 25 paragraphs, 30 subparagraphs
Dallas ISD current E‐Rate
• Unique (only 2 districts in Texas are under a Compliance Agreement – Dallas and Houston)
• Dallas ISD Policy – CAA (Reg) & CAA (Local) Incorporate Compliance Agreement
Dallas 2012 Annual Audit for Compliance
• 2012 Deloitte Audit – 1 finding (failed to advertise RFP in Newspaper)
• Corrected audit findings immediately, 1st time to be in compliance since Compliance Agreement signed in 2009
• Prior Audit for 2011 revealed 26 items in 8 program areas of non‐compliance
22
E‐Rate
Dallas ISD current E‐Rate Outstanding funds
Current Status
Total Funding Request Number (FRN)
$ 11,662,805.19 4
2011
$ 767,082.20 $ 733,498.76 $ 1,500,580.96 3
2010
$ 5,106,882.96 $ 30,053,562.12 $ 35,160,445.08 8
2009
$4,298,125.87 $ 30,132,783.75 $ 34,430,909.62 3
2008
4
2006
$4,076,410.54 $ 28,971,991.82 $ 33,048,402.36 $ $ 5,657,968.44 ‐
$ 5,657,968.44 $ ‐
$ 17,666,925.29 $ 17,666,925.29 Totals
$ 31,569,275.20 $ 107,558,761.74 28
Year
P1 2012
$ 11,662,805.19 2007
P2 23
$ 139,128,036.94 3
3
Office of Professional Responsibility
OPR History
• In June of 2007 the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was created and staffed to restore public confidence in the District (Purchase Card Investigation)
• By increasing the accountability of District employees • Through the detection and prevention of fraud, waste and abuse. • To accomplish its mission
• OPR originally provided ethics training
• Conducts internal investigations
• Fraud, Waste and Abuse
• Employee Misconduct
• Child Abuse Complaints involving Employees
• Criminal Arrests Reporting Violations
• EEO Violations
• Raises awareness of District policies. • Computer Forensic Investigations
24
Office of Professional Responsibility
OPR History • OPR gained additional responsibilities in July 2007 during the “delayering process” with the absorption of the Human Resources Investigations (HR Investigations) and Criminal Records Checks departments. • During the spring of 2011, the Dallas ISD faced a significant budget shortfall and implemented a district wide downsizing. During that downsizing, OPR lost three investigative and one training position; a reduction of more than one third of its personnel.
• OPR was folded into the newly formed Compliance Division in August 2011 due to E‐Rate Compliance Officer inclusion.
25
Office of Professional Responsibility
Disposition of Information Reported to OPR
September 1, 2009-August 31, 2012
2009/2010
OPR Investigations
2010/2011
2011/2012
139
157
63
268
67
72
80
626
272
238
1136
120
95
94
72
538
444
242
1224
84
77
121
51
396
709
862
1967
193
182
375
184
129
313
157
67
224
(fraud, waste, abuse,)
CRC Investigations
CPS Investigations
Public Information Requests
TEA Requests
Sub Total
Transferred to Other Divisions
or Closed Without Action
Total Incidents
Reports of Investigation Submitted
Preliminary Investigations
Completed Investigations
26
Child Abuse Office
Children who live with the fear of abuse cannot learn. Not only is their health and safety at risk, but they also risk school failure, cognitive and developmental delays, mental illness, behavioral problems, delinquency, and dropping out of school. Child Abuse Office History



Created in 1990 in response to complaints from Dallas Police Dept., Child Protective Services and other community agencies that Dallas ISD campus staff were not reporting suspected child abuse as is mandated by law. Operates hotline to help staff with recognition and reporting of suspected abuse. Receives all reports of employees alleged to have abused or neglected a child and coordinates assignment for follow‐up investigation.
27
Child Abuse Office





Provides mandated training to district staff on recognition and reporting of suspected child abuse, as well as district policies regarding suspected child abuse. In 2007, the Child Abuse Office was also charged with offering Teen Dating Violence Awareness training for students in secondary schools, as mandated in Texas Education Code Section 37.0831.
In 2011, the Child Abuse Office was reduced from 5 FTE’s to 2 FTE’s. In 2011‐2012, there were 2776 reports of abuse made to the Child Abuse Office. Already this school year, we have received 921 reports.
59 of the Reports received this year were investigated or are under investigation by OPR. These reports would all involve a school staff member.
28
Budget
Year
Employees
Departments
Total Budget
FY 07‐08
16
3
$1,309,8661
FY 08‐09
9
2
$1,043,0501
FY 09‐10
10
2
$1,019,7381
FY 10‐11
7
1
$1,074,8371
FY 11‐12
12
3
$1,007,8501, 3
FY 12‐13
13
3
$1,294,5902
3 E‐Rate and Child Abuse personnel 1 All Figures are as of June 30 End of FY
acquired late in FY budget year
2 Current year’s budget
29
30
CITIZEN’S BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
Dora Rivas, MS,RD,SNS,
Executive Director
1
Presentation: 1/14/2013
31
FCNS STRATEGIC PLANNING/CYCLE PROCESS
Visioning
Session/
Mission
Statement
Annual
Review and
Update
Key
Performance
Indicators
SWOT
Analysis
Dallas ISD FCNS
Strategic Plan
2011-2015
Critical Issue
Statements
Goal
Setting//Strategy
and Action Step
Development
Balanced
Scorecard
32
2
CGCS KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS USED IN GOAL SETTING
CGCS Key Performance Indicators
CGCS KPI 2008 Median
Dallas ISD 2008 Report
CGCS KPI 2010 Median
Breakfast Participation rate
26.90%
25.40%
27.58
Elementary
31.50%
29.10%
Secondary
19.10%
Lunch Participation Rate
Dallas ISD 2010 Report
30.83
CGCS KPI 2011 Median Dallas ISD 2011 Report
Dallas ISD Goals for Actual
2012‐13
2012
33.07
30.78
34.43
35%
37.23
42.76
36.35
44.27
60%
18.80%
11.12
20.17
23.09
20.53
20%
61.10%
79.10%
62.56
64.92
79.86
77.27
80%
Elementary
74.50%
86.60%
75.57
77.58
92.28
88.15
89%
Secondary
48.30%
65.80%
44.24
50.28
62.73
61.9
65%
Food Costs per Revenue
34.40%
34.20%
34.93
34.27
34.50
42.85
35%
19.03
44.75
18.54
79.57
36.17
Meals per Labor Hr
Labor Cost per Revenue
49.00%
41.50%
Total Costs per Revenue
Fund Balance as percent of Revenue
47.33
38.13
99.07
94.66
5.51
12.56
19%
37.86
35.9
38%
96.24
93.55
105.32
95%
6.69
6.45
‐5.32
15%
The top quartile (whether high or low) The third quartile (which is the value between the median and the top quartile) 3
The second quartile The lowest quartile The analysis compares a district across all Power Indicators and Essential Few within each functional area to determine overall quartile ranking
33
FCNS RESPONSE TO CORE BELIEFS
1. Improve academic achievement through good nutrition and nutrition
education.
2. Maximize effective instruction by supporting healthy living initiatives
through nutrition education and quality meals.
3. Self-operated and financially self-supporting operations free up resources
that can be directed toward supporting high quality instruction.
4. Provide free or low cost access to meal services that meet special dietary
needs of all students and assure equity to quality meals through integrated
systems solutions in a pleasing dining environment across the District.
Maximize revenue for continued facility and kitchen improvements.
5. Commitment to excellence in delivery of service for the children.
34
4
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
OUR VISION:
To be The
Exemplary
Food and Nutrition
Provider
RECIPE FOR
SUCCESS:
“Communicate,
Cooperate,
Collaborate, and
Commitment”
OUR MISSION:
“We Provide
Nutrition that
Fuels Successful
Learning”
OUR MOTTO:
Quality Food....
On The Line….
All The Time….
WITH A SMILE!
5
35
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
 BREAKFAST PROGRAM
 LUNCH PROGRAM
 FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROGRAM
 AFTERSCHOOL SNACK PROGRAM
 SUMMER MEALS PROGRAM
6
36
FINANCIAL
CORE BELIEF 3:
Self-operated and financially self-supporting operations free up
resources that can be directed toward supporting high quality
instruction.
 SELF-SUSTAINING
 FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
7
37
REVENUE BY SOURCES
(Ending 06-30-2012)
.92%
5.84%
1.9%
.93%
6.67%
2.37%
18.36%
Cash
State Matching
Breakfast
Lunch
USDA
Summer
Snack
Miscellaneous
63.01%
38
ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURES







Food and supplies
Labor and benefits
Utilities
Travel
Printing
Office Equipment
Nonexpendable Items: freezers, refrigerators,
table & chairs, steam tables, mixers, etc
 Advertising
 Recognition of employee achievement
9
39
ELIGIBILITY FOR LAST FIVE YEARS
SCHOOL
YEAR
FREE
REDUCED
% of Enroll
2012-13
132,750
6,939
88.18*
2011-12
132,194
6,721
89.49
2010-11
129,898
7,241
88.18
2009-10
127,171
9,456
86.36
2008-09
124,124
11,419
84.88
2007-08
119,914
12,416
82.70
* - thru 12-9-2012
10
40
REVENUE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Cash
7,737,772
7,957,320
7,150,751
6,321,941
6,391,706
State
566,604
568,265
566,848
535,822
523,115
Breakfast
11,939,337
12,736,801
13,431,725
12,347,255
15,342,067
Lunch
46,273,572
49,335,895
52,641,871
51,764,128
52,677,796
USDA
3,345,805
3,770,025
3,827,259
5,600,316
4,886,202
Summer
1,343,483
1,195,005
804,519
1,180,742
1,762,042
927,063
784,952
761,099
853,425
778,397
22,539
106,379
835,715
1,491,431
2,136,726
72,156,175
76,454,642
80,019,787
80,095,060
84,498,051
Snack
Misc. (FFVP)
11
Total
41
LUNCH PARTICIPATION
Middle School Lunch
Elementary Lunch
82,000
94,645
95,000
28,247
19,000
27,883
18,500
81,000
94,000
80,000
93,000
28,500
28,071
28,000
27,630
18,000
91,912
79,000
91,122
92,210
91,257
90,785
78,000
77,000
81,123
79,886
80,664
79,945
77,045
17,000
91,000
16,500
90,000
16,000
15,500
26,000
25,854
25,500
25,000
15,000
88,000
Lunch Participation Count
27,287 27,000
26,500
78,788
75,000
17,500
92,000
89,000
76,000
27,500
15,975
17,885
18,129
18,692
17,933
17,874
14,500
Enrollment Trendline
24,500
Lunch Participation Count
Participation Trendline
Participation Trendline
42
Enrollment Trendline
LUNCH PARTICIPATION
High School Breakfast
High School Lunch
7,000
40,000
6,000
39,500
21,500
39,624
21,000
39,624
38,836
19,500
38,836
39,000
20,000
39,000
5,000
39,500
20,500
39,455
40,000
39,455
38,038
19,000
38,500
4,000
37,988
38,000
37,516
18,500
38,000
38,038
3,000
37,500
17,000
36,500
18,408
19,483
20,549
20,732
19,831
21,257
16,500
37,000
1,000
37,000
17,500
37,516
2,000
37,500
18,000
37,988
36,000
36,500
4,105
4,504
5,532
5,725
4,908
0
5,093
36,000
Lunch Participation Count
Participation Trendline
Breakfast Participation Count
Enrollment Trendline
13
Participation Trendline
43
38,500
Enrollment Trendline
EXPENSES FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS
2007-08
Payroll
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
30,838,992
29,153,682
30,295,118
30,716,218
30,304,863
Contract
Services
9,635,076
9,822,413
11,105,072
6,565,356
8,613,198
Food & Supplies
29,219,963
31,100,990
31,895,645
44,295,812
47,937,730
730,727
229,065
239,112
278,299
208,678
1,575,826
2,067,469
1,323,236
2,987,009
1,924,948
Yes
Yes
Other
Capital
Fund Balance
Transfer
Total
Profit/Loss
No
72,000,584
155,590
No
No
72,373,619
74,858,183
4,081,023
5,161,603
44
84,842,694
88,989,417
(4,747,634)
(4,491,366)
14
BUDGET 2012-2013
Object
2011-12
2012 - 13
Payroll
33,334,477
33,273,814
Contracted Service
12,474,300
7,575,297
Food & Supplies
35,360,328
44,383,977
Other Expenses
483,231
313,543
Capital Expenses
735,000
254,667
7,000,000
4,587,715
89,387,336
90,389,013
Fund Balance Transfer
Total
45
15
GRANT FUNDS OVER LAST 3 YEARS
2009
 ARRA
 Dairy Max Grant
2010
 Walmart Foundation
 Actions for Healthy Kids
 Healthier US School Grant
2012
 Arby’s Share our Strength Grant
 Farm to School Grant
Total
$363,547
$ 28,554
$338,645
$ 16,500
$155,065
$ 5,000
$ 43,587
$950,898
16
46
NUTRITION/NUTRITION EDUCATION
CORE BELIEF 1:
Improve academic achievement through good nutrition and nutrition
education.
CORE BELIEF 2:
Maximize effective instruction by supporting
healthy living initiatives through nutrition education and quality meals.
Healthy students are better students.
Smarter
Lunchrooms
Menu
Planning
Special
Diet Needs
Nutrition
Education
17
47
INITIATIVES 2012-2013
MENU
•
Implement New Menu Pattern- Lunch
•
Implement New Breakfast Regulations
•
Special Dietary Needs (Allergen info online)
NUTRITION EDUCATION/TRAINING
 Chef-Dietitian demos
 Nutrition Ed Promotions
 Culinary Training
 SMART LUNCHROOMS
(Cornell Univ)
Culinary Training
NEW INITIATIVES:
 Expand Breakfast Program
CO(LOCAL)

At-Risk Supper Program (10 Pilots)

Wellness Policy (FFA Regulation)

Farm to School Planning Grant
RD-Chef Demos
Smart Lunchrooms Program
18
48
KITCHEN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
UTILIZING FCNS FUNDS
CORE BELIEF 4
Provide free or low cost access to meal services that meet special dietary needs of
all students and assure equity to quality meals through integrated systems solutions
in a pleasing dining environment across the District. Maximize revenue for
continued facility and kitchen improvements.
19
49
FURNITURE…..EQUIPMENT....
……….SERVING LINES
Seating and Tables @
Spruce HS
Serving lines
@ Ann Richards
Smoothie-Deli Bar @
Carter HS
20
Serving lines @ Woodrow Wilson
50
FCNS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
CORE BELIEF 1: Improve academic achievement through good
nutrition and nutrition education.
CORE BELIEF 4: Provide free or low cost access to meal services that
meet special dietary needs of all students and assure equity to quality meals
through integrated systems solutions in a pleasing dining environment across
the District. Maximize revenue for continued facility and kitchen improvements.
21
51
FCNS TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES 2012-13
 OneSource
 Improve Testing & Upgrade
 Implement 3rd Serving Period
 Implement Quantity Sale
Process
 Research/Implement BIC
reports
 FileMaker




Develop Access Management
Normalize Dbase Structure
Implement FileMaker V12
Implement Quantity Sale App
 Site POS Support
 Develop Image Tracking
 Migrate All users to AD
 Disaster Recovery
 Buckner DR Site Installation
22
52
Media Cast – Digital Signage
 Completed Successful Pilot
of 13 Sites
 Implementing Phase1: 75
site rollout
 Elementary Gold HUSSC
 Smoothie Bar Displays
 Additional MS/HS
23
53
PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE
CORE BELIEF 5:
Commitment to excellence in delivery of service for the children.
 SCHOOL NUTRITION ASSOCIATION (SNA)
“DISTRICT OF EXCELLENCE”
 USDA HealthierUS SCHOOL Challenge Criteria (HUSSC)
 ELEM SCHOOLS (78 Gold & 76 Bronze Awards)
 MIDDLE SCHOOLS (pending approval)
24
54
Collaborations/Partnerships
 DFW Health Collaborative (United Way)
 Food Planning Association (Baylor Texas Hunger Initiative)
 Food Focus Alliance
 Alliance for a Healthier Generation
 North Texas Food Bank Hunger Research Center
 Urban School Food Alliance (Los Angeles, Miami-Dade,
Chicago PS, New York, Orange County)
25
55
Research Studies & Intern Programs
 BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
 Breakfast in Classroom
 TEXAS A & M- Texas Go! Eat! Grow!
 Walking, Healthy Eating, School Gardens, Curriculum
 Texas AgriLife Plate Waste for Potato Council
 Cornell University
 BEN Group – Smarter Lunchrooms
 USDA Farm to School
26
56
FCNS in REVIEW
Q&A
27
57
58
Appendix A
CBRC
RECOMMENDATIONS
UPDATE
59
60
Recommendations 1.
Benchmark Salaries and Staffing Ratios Against Peer Districts Annually – The most recently available Education Resource Group data (compiled for school year 2009‐10) comparing DISD’s average salary, staffing ratios and resulting cost per student to a group of districts reflecting similar characteristics (Houston, Garland, Mesquite, Richardson and Carrollton‐
Farmers Branch ISD’s) revealed substantial differences in costs at the campus level between DISD and the comparison group. (See Exhibit A.) DISD exceeded the average salary paid for every position (Principals, Asst. Principals, Teachers, Aides, Counselors, Librarians, Nurses, and other Auxiliary/Support Staff). Team Leader
Charles Glover/James Terry
Completion Date
December‐2012
Status
TASBE completed an analysis that concluded this fall. Feasability recommendations impacting certain staffing groups will be examined by the compensation team for priority implementation.
Collectively, if DISD had paid the average salary in 2009‐10 for each position of this specific peer group and maintained identical staffing ratios, it would have saved over $110 million dollars, with aggregate spending for teaching staff ($75 million) and teacher aides ($20 million) accounting for most of this variance. The variance is driven by three factors: (i) a salary scale (see Exhibit B) that is meaningfully higher for DISD than for peers districts for teachers with of more than 5 years of tenure; (ii) staffing ratios (Exhibit A) that are lower in most cases for DISD than for peer districts; and (iii) higher tenure levels. While this data is two years old and does not reflect the District’s recent budget reductions made in response to declining state revenues from the state, DISD’s peers have made similar adjustments and it is likely that a sizable difference in campus costs per student continues to exist. (Note that these amounts exclude expenditure differentials for custodial services, with DISD spending exceeding market levels based on recent quotes to outsource this service).
2.
We recommend the district compare its compensation plans and staffing ratios to those of peer districts annually to identify potential opportunities to reduce costs and improve efficiencies (fully recognizing that the district may opt to pay above the benchmark levels as a necessary cost of attracting and retaining talent). In order to help determine whether premium pay is necessary, we further recommend that the district measure annually (i) the percentage of employees in each category who are requested to stay but leave voluntarily and (ii) the number of potential
new hires who are offered a job but choose to go elsewhere to help ascertain whether the district is maintaining a competitive compensation structure. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
Charles Glover
HCM will be building out a centralized system of processing and exiting and allocating capacity to to understanding employment and resigantion trends. Creating one hub for offcial resignation will go live in Novmeber.
Implement the Vertical Alignment of Schools by Feeder Pattern – The Commission concurs with the recent STAR Commission report that a single director should have expanded authority and accountability over all schools within each K‐12 cluster. By serving as a “feeder pattern director”, each manager would have full accountability and flexibility in staff selection throughout the cluster (principals, teachers, support staff, etc.) ensuring a consistent culture and alignment throughout. We believe that a large majority of parents pick a school system based on the confidence they have that their child will have a consistent experience throughout their child’s K‐12 years. Placing a manager over that feeder pattern fully responsible for its hiring, culture and outcomes is a critical step in recruiting and retaining those parents and their children within DISD. Sylvia Reyna
Done
61
1/10/2013
Recommendations Team Leader
As part of this recommendation, the selection and the associated budget responsibility for such programs as College Readiness/Access and Parental Engagement should also fall under the feeder pattern director’s management (staffing at 3700 Ross should be limited to centralized data collection, compliance reporting and monitoring of best practices). As a result, each feeder pattern would have a consistent culture and identity, and each employee working within that feeder pattern would have collective responsibility for every student within their care, including feeling a shared sense of accountability for their ultimate DISD graduation and post‐secondary readiness. Benefits would include less central overhead and meetings as costs are pushed down closer to the field; greater ability to communicate a consistent experience coupled with historical outcomes to each parent and student; and improved flexibility to implement programs accelerating student success. Sylvia Reyna
In order to provide the “director” with meaningful academic performance data and in consideration of high student mobility, the student database will need to include a reliable history of campuses students have attended. The database currently assumes the secondary students attended the elementary school defined to their current address when in fact they attended one or more schools in and outside of DISD. The lack of this easily retrievable information already causes additional work for campus registrars to support reporting needs at headquarters. (Approved by CBRC 8‐0 with two abstentions)
James Terry/Gray Salada
3.
Expand/Continue to Improve Principal Leadership Training – Given the Board’s stated desire to empower principals much more fully while concurrently holding them much more accountable for campus results, we strongly support the District’s recent expansion of principal training programs (such as its Aspiring Principals program) to 40‐50 candidates annually to fill the 8% to 10% rate of annual vacancies that should occur due to voluntary and involuntary turnover. With 500 to 600 principal positions across the district and a stated belief by management and the Board that DISD does not have universally strong quality principals in all positions, a more highly‐trained pipeline of managers comfortable with more robust teacher evaluation and development and the enhanced campus‐level budget responsibility recommended later in this memo is critical to DISD’s future success. Data/surveys should be continually employed to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of any leadership training program (including graduates subsequent ability to drive academic growth and reduce grievances on their campus). (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
Mike Miles/Ann Smisko
4.
Undertake Initiatives to Improve Attendance – According to the most recently available attendance data from TEA, DISD’s average attendance of 94.8% in 2009‐10 was lower than the 96.3% average for its peer group of Mesquite (96.7%), Garland (96.4%), Carrollton‐Farmers Branch (95.8%), and Richardson (96.0%). DISD forgoes $41 per student per day for student absences from school. By bringing its attendance rate up to the peer‐group average, DISD could achieve $16.6 million of additional revenue. Roughly 40,000 students did not show up for the first day of school in August 2011 (a one‐day revenue loss of $1.6 million alone) and it
takes roughly 3 to 4 weeks for school attendance to ramp up. In addition to the financial cost, student absences negatively impact student achievement. To raise attendance, we recommend the district: Sylvia Reyna/Jennifer Sprague
62
Completion Date
August‐2012
Status
Done
In Process: – Update on FELLOWS ACADEMY sent to CITIZENS BUDGET REVIEW COMMISSION on OCTOBER 3, 2012
1/10/2013
Recommendations 5.
Team Leader
a) Provide funding for (i) outsourced truancy programs (especially those which can be done on a revenue sharing basis at no cost to the district) and (ii) outsourced parental engagement programs (which cost $5,000 to $10,000 annually per campus) stressing the importance of continued attendance starting the first day of school. It is believed that these efforts could more than pay for themselves, both financially and academically, through higher attendance. We also recommend that the district evaluate which campuses were the biggest contributors to first day absences and whether targeted strategies to meaningfully reduce the associated revenue shortfall can be implemented. To incentivize principals to take these actions, we recommended that the increased net revenues resulting from these moves stay on the subject campus; James Terry
b) Increase funding for extracurricular programs, which help keep students engaged and which could partially pay for themselves through higher attendance; and
c) Create “reason codes” in the student database and proactively capture the reasons that students (i) are not in school on the first day, (ii) transfer from the school and (iii) drop out of the school, to better understand and attempt to address these issues. At a minimum, these efforts should be piloted in a number of schools and their effect on attendance should be carefully monitored to determine whether scaling these programs district‐wide makes sense. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
James Terry
Growing a Culture Aspiring to Careers and Post Secondary Education – With recent statistics showing that less than 10% of DISD 9th graders graduate four years later with a college‐ready SAT or ACT entrance exam, increasing both the academic preparedness and the incentive for students to want to prepare for and access a post secondary education (college or vocational) and subsequent career remains critically important. We recommend giving campuses freedom to drive one or more of the following strategies including:
Mike Miles/Ann Smisko
a. sourcing internal and external funds to reinstate district‐wide funding for AVID starting in 7th/8th grade to help emphasize a college‐going culture in the critical middle school years;
b. seeking grants for additional funding for effective college access programs on each high school campus (such as EIF and ASP) given current staffing levels and;
c. finding marketing dollars to ensure better visibility to all students and their parents within our comprehensive schools of different career paths found within non‐magnet DISD programs (i.e. law, business, cosmetology, hospitality, etc.)
James Terry
d. support for feeder pattern initiatives that standardize events, programs and projects for their schools (Career Days, Leader Project, college visits, etc.) e. giving SAT/ACT tests during school hours (as has been done recently by Irving ISD) to increase participation and reduce the transportation, work or other barriers that may prevent a student from taking the test on a weekend;
f. consider studying and perhaps replicating RISD’s Enterprise City by repurposing a closed or underutilized campus. Bond funds could be used to establish the center. RISD’s annual cost to maintain is $106K.
Sylvia Reyna
Completion Date
Status
James Terry/Gray Salada
James Terry/Gray Salada
In process: Ann Smisko is working with Pam Lear, Director, High School Redesign
Jennifer Sprague
2013‐2014 goal for DEF
Jennifer Sprague
Included in the 2012‐2014 marketing campaign plan
Sylvia Reyna
Sylvia Reyna
(Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
63
1/10/2013
Recommendations Team Leader
Completion Date
Status
6.
Aggressively Promote Pre‐K Opportunities and Fill Every Seat Possible – If all seats cannot be filled with children from low socio‐economic populations (the district’s first priority), offer open positions to DISD parents for a tuition equal to only the marginal cost to deliver the education (rather than the likely higher market price). Doing so will bring other families to the district who might not engage otherwise while ensuring that a quality pre‐K education is delivered to as many children as possible living within DISD boundaries. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
Ann Smisko/Jennifer Sprague
Our records currently indicate 379 remaining seats to fill for 2012‐13. We have a current waiting list of 172 children from a list that started well over 700. Upon offering seats to these children on the waiting list, all other seats will open up to the three children who are on the centralized waiting list for PreK tuition. See the chart below for an update by Division.
7.
Create and Fund a Grant Writing Office – Given the funding challenges DISD faces and the strong interest expressed by area foundations to support the district, budgeting funds for this function will most likely easily pay for itself while providing dollars to help scale programs and initiatives proven by data to be effective toward increasing student achievement. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
Jennifer Sprague/James Terry
Hired Byron Sanders and developing an action plan for the DEF. Not sure about grants writing office./Alan King
8.
Reevaluate Safety and Security Plans to Ensure That Use of Metal Detectors on Traditional (non‐Alternative) Secondary School Campuses is Necessary. This long held daily practice is fairly unique to DISD and not used on a regular basis by surrounding peer districts (Grand Prairie, Lancaster, DeSoto and Richardson were surveyed). It is unclear whether this practice is truly effective given the vast number of entrances a student can use to enter a building, the fact that many students go to outside portables at beginning of day, etc. In addition, the associated costs of two to four people staffing these stations at dozens of secondary campuses could be significant and better used elsewhere. Eliminating this practice will also help students to get to classes more quickly and reduce tardiness. Finally, their removal will make the school appear more welcoming and remove the negative external perception concerns that DISD high schools must use them in order to provide a safe environment. Kevin Smelker/Chief Craig Miller
Our recommendation is that principals, teachers and perhaps students be polled on this issue. In addition, this management practice should be evaluated by the Dallas ISD police in terms of actual incidents vs. the cost (both monetary and to a school’s culture) of maintaining them. The alternative use of security cameras may prove to be meaningfully more effective at a lower cost to school budgets and culture. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
Kevin Smelker/Chief Craig Miller
Ensure Sufficient Funds are Budgeted to Pay for Recent Events/Changes – These would include the following:
a) Anticipated higher costs of summer remediation due to higher standards associated with new STAAR testing;
b) Search firm costs associated with filling numerous senior vacancies beneath the superintendent level. These are some of the most important positions affecting the direction of the district and the net should be cast wide to source their replacements;
James Terry
c) Costs associated with the complete restructure of the Human Resource area as recommended by the STAR Commission;
Charles Glover
9.
January, 2013
Work in Process
August‐2012
Completed
James Terry
Mike Miles
64
Aug‐13
HR will move into an official new structure by the end of October 2012. Full cost of reorganization against budgeted funds wil be reported at end of fiscal year.
1/10/2013
Recommendations 10.
11.
Team Leader
d) Costs to implement the new Teacher Evaluation System, including costs for: technology, training for principals and teachers about the new system, training for principals on how to evaluate teachers and conduct reviews, and increased professional development.
Charles Glover
e) Costs associated to train the feeder pattern directors as recommended above as well as costs associated with providing them accurate student academic histories as described above.
(Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
James Terry
LONGER TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Empower Principals to Make Budget and Staffing Decisions at the Campus Level –
Currently, DISD management determines the staffing levels for all campuses solely on the basis of FTEs per student, without regard to total salaries or campus expenditures per student. DISD principals are not empowered nor required to make the tough judgments in terms of the right mix of salaries, staffing levels and programs on their campuses consistent with their student revenues and campus objectives. Other districts, such as Houston ISD, allocate revenues to each campus based on expected enrollment and attendance. They then in turn require the principals to make critical judgments about the optimal mix of tenure and compensation (as well as staffing ratios consistent with board policy and Title 1 comparability requirements) to meet their academic goals while holding them fully accountable for their academic results. Without financial discipline at the campus level, overall costs per employee (as noted above) have steadily grown beyond those of similar districts, forcing
DISD to cut back in numerous other areas that meaningfully contribute to academic growth and student engagement. The results from other districts demonstrate that a principal (well trained and supported by a business analyst) in control of his/her campus budget will allocate their resources more effectively to best support student achievement, if given the flexibility (and the responsibility) to pick their desired mix of resources. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)$
Outsource Custodial Services – DISD recently solicited bids to outsource its custodial services. The district received several attractive bids from qualified custodial services that would save the district approximately $15 million per year for custodial services. The CBRC voted 5 to 2 with one abstention to urge the district to move forward on outsourcing custodial services under a performance‐driven model through the use of three vendors (one of which could be in‐house services, if cost‐competitive). It made this recommendation based on the belief that the district would (i) be able to easily compare vendor performance, (ii) create an environment where vendors strive to provide exceptional performance else lose their contract on a specific campus and (iii) be in a position to more easily replace an under‐performing vendor. Even though the board ultimately decided to continue to insource custodial services, we recommend that management and the board continue to benchmark these costs against outsourced alternatives should cost savings be needed in the future. (Approved by CBRC 8‐0 with two abstentions)
James Terry
Kevin Smelker
65
Completion Date
Ongoing
January, 2013
July, 2013
Status
Thus far the cost of DMC contract was reduced by $360,000 given capacity of Supt., HCM, and other departments to design parts of the evaluations and implement focus group.
1. Implemented a one for one position trade off procedure. Guidelines and form were developed, implemented and communicated to principals. 2. Considering a budget system similar to Houston ISD's model for campuses. At the completion of FY 12‐13 cost per square foot will be calculated and compared to prior outsourced competitive bids. In addition to financial benchmarks, customer satisfaction surveys will be conducted annually, benchmarked at 75% approval and service level inspections conducted monthly benchmarked at 90% compliance.
1/10/2013
Recommendations 12.
13.
Team Leader
Completion Date
Status
Establish Consistent Campus‐Based Communication Tools – The CBRC has a significant concern about the lack of funding toward a consistent school appearance and image and the inability to effectively market feeder pattern culture and outcomes that help create a sense of school pride and community identity and engagement. Similar to the need for curriculum alignment, establishing common information at the front door of each campus is critical to improving parent engagement and reducing the 30% student mobility rates which hamper the district. Examples include: Jennifer Sprague
a) Posting the map of a school’s attendance zone to help a family requiring a move identify new living communities that would keep them within the same attendance zone or feeder pattern:
b) Removing outdated banners and certificates. c) Establishing standardized signage, within the main entrance of each campus, that includes a photo of the principal and a departmental listing of staff members, a map of the feeder pattern attendance zone, commonly needed campus and district phone numbers, e‐mails and website addresses, calendar, school accolades, volunteer information etc.
James Terry/Velia Lara
Jennifer Sprague
Will be addressed in a principal's training during a best practices in marketing/communication presentation.
d) Establishing a middle and high school bulletin board at each elementary
campus that promotes secondary school programs and successes, and also provides contact information. Regular updates to the boards would be created by the secondary schools and distributed to the feeder pattern via inter‐office mail.
Jennifer Sprague
Will be addressed in a principal's training during a best practices in marketing/communication presentation.
e) Establish a Common Open House across the entire district held the same week in February each year to market neighborhood schools to prospective parents. Follow and improve upon the pilot program initiated in 2010 for three North Dallas feeder patterns. Note: The district has consistently financially supported magnet and vanguard open houses recruiting within DISD. DISD is also now in competition for students with neighboring districts (Grand Prairie and DeSoto ISD to name two) and charter schools who have developed recruiting programs.
Jennifer Sprague Sylvia Reyna
f) Providing support for creating campus brochures that communicate a unified message about the district and feeder pattern but that are personalized to each campus.
Jennifer Sprague
Will be addressed in a principal's training during a best practices in marketing/communication presentation. Most likely an initiative for the 2014‐2015 school year.
g) Allocating additional funds for exterior banners on schools that earn the
two highest academic performance ratings from the TEA and to laud other
significant campus achievements awarded by a State or National organizations.
h) With the reinstatement of previously eliminated videographer positions, campuses could share the benefit via video of outstanding guest
speakers and programs.
Jennifer Sprague
Working on this
Jennifer Sprague
Working on this
Evaluate Priorities within Transportation Practices – Rising fuel costs and an inefficient and inequitable use of transportation services require the need to reprioritize this operation with a 2012 budget amount of $24.4 million. 2010 costs were reported to be $24K per bus route (55 students) or $480 per student. Other estimates based on lower ridership (35 student average) are $700 per student for buses and $4,500 per student for vans. a. Campuses report having limited funds for field trips and no funds for even local college visits. James Terry
James Terry
66
1/10/2013
Recommendations Team Leader
b. Transportation is provided for approximately 23,000 students living two
or more miles from their assigned campus; plus over 8,000 magnet and vanguard students ($5 million) and approximately 250 (1% of those eligible) who elected NCLB transfer ($1.5 million).
i. Outliers include: the use of vans ($1.5 million) carrying as few as four students under NCLB transfer with one making three stops and traveling as much as 52 miles round trip from Seagoville to North Dallas; and a magnet school bus traveling the same distance to Dealey Montessori when Stone Montessori is closer. 1. Principals report that routes traveling long distances are frequently late.
2. The annual cost of the Seagoville to Dealey bus is equal to that needed to send 10,000 seniors on one college visit to UNT in Denton.
James Terry
c. Transportation is denied to almost 10,000 students (est. $7 million if provided) who have exercised choice options to attend another school. This includes:
i. students at 16 campuses who elected, as allowed, to complete middle or high school where they started despite being reassigned due to a change in attendance zone;
ii. students at 42 campuses allowed transfer by (PEG) Public Education Grant; and iii. students at 17 of 22 high schools offering Career Pathways. Five such campuses provide transportation.
James Terry
Completion Date
Status
d. The 11,000 students in charter schools provide their own transportation.
e. It was recently reported that the state of Illinois is considering charging students for bus transportation.
(Approved by CBRC 8‐1 with one abstention)
14.
Reduce Contract Labor Costs by Addressing the Shortage of Speech Pathologists, Therapists and Diagnosticians – Work with local and regional universities to expand their programs and graduates and establish pathways and financial incentives for those students to work for DISD. Consider establishing related vocational programs on high school campuses with the goal of DISD graduates ultimately becoming DISD employees. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
Charles Glover
Ongoing
Being Reviewed for letter of early intent. Meeting with local and state universities. Examining outsourcing of services that do not require full time employment.
15.
Identify Trends and Reasons for Student Transfers – 10,000 non‐magnet student transfers, often utilizing a “hardship” rationale, are the primary reason many campuses are underutilized (vs. declining populations).. We must address any leadership, program or perception issues that are causing students to transfer away from their neighborhood school, which often results in an inefficient use of campus assets and reduced parent engagement at the school left behind (for example, 1/3rd of students living within the Carter High School attendance zone opt to transfer to another school).. DISD should proactively survey on a confidential basis every parent opting to have their child transfer outside of their home school to determine the true reasons for their move. Only by having true and candid knowledge for why over 10% of students across the district opt to attend elsewhere can steps be taken to effectively address this issue.. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
James Terry/Sam Iliya/Gray Salada
April, 2013
Being reviewed and considered in conjunction with recommendation 4) Undertake Initiatives to Improve Attendance, c) Create “reason codes” in the student database and proactively capture the reasons that students (i) are not in school on the first day, (ii) transfer from the school and (iii) drop out of the school, to better understand and attempt to address these issues. 67
1/10/2013
Recommendations 16.
Team Leader
Evaluate Increase within the Extra‐Curricular Activities Budget ‐ the CBRC feels that extracurricular activities are critical in engaging and motivating students and that their balanced inclusion allows DISD to educate the whole child. Unfortunately, DISD spending on extracurricular activities ranks in the bottom 8 of the top 100 large school districts in Texas (an additional $23 million would be required to simply meet the midpoint of our peers, demonstrating the acute needs in this area). These programs are proven to improve student success by serving as after‐
school and dropout prevention programs where students are mentored, learn discipline, and obtain needed physical activity. A study by Northside ISD found that its athletes had a 2% higher attendance rate, 7% higher graduation rate, 4‐10% higher TAKS passing rate and had a 10% lower incidence of discipline referrals. Furthermore, extra‐curricular activities are a source of individual and community pride, and help to increase parent engagement. We recommend that the district identify the best use of any increase in funds that can be found via recommendations of a potential to‐be‐created
Extra‐Curricular Activities Task Force. James Terry
a.) Create a group of District stakeholders with backgrounds in Athletics, Fine Arts, Speech, Journalism, ROTC, chess and other traditional extra‐
curriculum school programs. Invite those with similar backgrounds from peer districts with the objective of increasing the funding and structure of DISD programs to match that of successful peer districts and to most importantly, maximize student participation. Include community leaders in related collegiate or professional fields. James Terry/Sylvia Reyna
b.) Utilize existing Bond funds to purchase needed equipment as identified
by the task force and improve campus areas devoted to band, choir, art, theatre and athletics, especially where existing program subscription exceeds capacity. c.) Reward successful programs with additional funds based on increased subscription and success in UIL competition.
d) Continue to evaluate attendance and relative costs for sporting events held at regional field houses versus holding events at home gymnasiums. Almost 300 basketball games were moved in 2012 to campuses for a savings $150K. Utility savings at the field houses were not quantified but could be significant.
a. Many of these field houses were built during an era when many DISD schools were 5A in class size and had larger event attendance. With many high schools now 4A and 3A and lower‐income students having less access
to transportation, the district should carefully look at where it makes sense to use these larger facilities and expand leasing opportunities to external groups.
b. Conversely, most campuses lack the needed equipment to host volleyball games and many older high school campuses and most middle schools lack bleachers. If the direction is toward more campus based athletic events, then facility upgrades will be required.
James Terry/Ed Levine
e.) In the next school year, expand the number of athletic trainers so that each high school campus has at least one trainer on site. It is difficult for all student athletes to receive therapy when transportation is required to see a trainer at the area field house. In some districts, on site Athletic Trainer programs also teach classes related to their profession thus providing another career pathway. In addition to reducing utility usage at the field houses, contract labor expenses will be reduce for the hiring of extra trainers to staff all campus based football practices. James Terry/Jeff Johnson
Completion Date
Status
April, 2013
James Terry/Jeff Johnson
68
1/10/2013
Recommendations Team Leader
Completion Date
Status
(Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with on abstention)
17.
Asset Sales/Additions to General Fund Balance – Dallas ISD may sell buses currently within its inventory to Dallas County given the County’s ability to finance their purchase at roughly 1.5%. Because the expected proceeds of $6‐$7 million are non‐recurring, it is the Commission’s recommendation that those funds, once received, be allocated to the District’s General Fund Balance in its continuing effort to rebuild those funds to acceptable levels. The CBRC is additionally supportive of the District continuing to work toward a General Fund Balance that is able to cover working capital needs without necessitating borrowing during the year (target of $190 to $210 million vs. current level of $140 million). (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)
James Terry
69
June 30, 2012
Fund Balance end of Fiscal Year 2012 expected to see over $200M
1/10/2013
70
Appendix B
Budget Calendar
2012 - 2013
71
72
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
Please read over and review the 2013-2014 Preliminary Budget Calendar for discussion. If you have
any suggestions or changes, please contact Christina Campos at [email protected] and\or 972-9253661.
September 7, 2012
Campus deadline to delete no shows from Student Data System (Chancery)
September 12, 2012
Attendance Boundary Core Meeting
September 13, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
September 11-28, 2012
Leveling meetings
September 19, 2012
Attendance Boundary Advisory Committee Meetings
September 25, 2012
Deadline to submit documentation for October 11th Board Briefing
September 27, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
September/ October, 2012
Demographics Department- Special Ed and MLEP reviews\analyzes preliminary enrollment data to be
used in the 2013-2014 Projected Enrollment
Pre-leveling meetings to discuss integrity of enrollment data
HCM Staffing will meet with principals to discuss Leveling results
Final leveling campus staff numbers used to run Title I, Part A – Comparability of Services Requirement
October 1, 2012
13/14 Projection Analysis begins – Chancery Enrollment Snapshot
October 4, 2012
Board Business Briefing Meeting
October 5, 2012
Actual enrollment used to determine settle-up
1/08/2013
73
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
October 8, 2012
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
October 11, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
October 12, 2012
Settle-Up Date – Over\Under Enrollment Projections sent to campuses
October 15, 2012
Demographics Department - MLEP and Special Ed to finalize the review\verification of current
enrollment data
October 16, 2012
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
October 23, 2012
Deadline to submit documentation for November 8th Board Briefing
October 24, 2012
2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Conner Elementary School
(Schools affected: Truett, Conner, Bayles, Sanger)
October 25, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
October 29, 2012
2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Dade Middle School
(Schools affected: Dade, Long, P.C. Anderson)
October 30, 2012
2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Mata Elementary School
(Schools affected: Roberts, Mt. Auburn, Mata)
November 1, 2012
Board Business Briefing Meeting
2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Hawthorne Elementary School
(Schools affected: Hawthorne, Ireland, San Jacinto)
November 5, 2012
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
1/08/2013
74
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
November 8, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
November 12, 2012
2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Lang Middle School
(Schools affected: Gaston, Lang)
November 13, 2012
Deadline to submit documentation for December 13th Board Briefing
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
November 20, 2012
Preliminary Action Plans due to the Superintendent
November 29, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
December 4, 2012
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
December 6, 2012
Board Business Briefing Meeting
December 10, 2012
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
December 11, 2012
Deadline to submit documentation for January 10th Board Briefing
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
December 12, 2012
Final Action Plans due to the Superintendent
December 13, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
December 20, 2012
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
January 10, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
1/08/2013
75
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
January 14, 2013
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
Presentation on the 13-14 Budget Development Process
January 15, 2013
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
Action Plans Presented by the Superintendent
January 18, 2013
Demographics Department – Preliminary projections sent to campuses for review & response
January 22, 2013
Deadline to submit documentation for February 14th Board Briefing
January 24, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
Final Approval of Boundary Re-Zoning
January 30, 2013
Release of non-campus controllable budget preparation tool (position & non-position)
January 31, 2013
Release of campus controllable budget preparation tool (position & non-position)
February 1, 2013
Preliminary enrollment review from campuses due back to Demographic Department.
February 6, 2013
Demographics Department sends Budget Services Final 13-14 Projected Enrollment
Campus Staffing Ratios due to Budget Services
February 7, 2013
Board Business Briefing Meeting
February 11, 2013
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
February 12, 2013
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
1/08/2013
76
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
February 14, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
February 19, 2013
Deadline to submit documentation for March 7th Board Briefing.
February 25, 2013
Budget Services will send HCM 13-14 Campus Staffing Allocations
February 26, 2013
HCM Talent Partners begin to meet with principals to discuss 13-14 Campus Staffing Allocations
February 28, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
Deadline to request additional allocations to Executive Directors to be prioritized for both campus and
non-campus. Prioritization is sent to Chiefs. Requests should be submitted to Budget Analysts.
March 1, 2013
Board Business Briefing Meeting
March 4, 2013
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
March 5, 2013
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
March 7, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
March 22, 2013
Deadline to submit prioritized additional allocations to Budget Services.
March 26, 2013
Deadline to submit documentation for April 11th Board Briefing
1/08/2013
77
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
March 27, 2013
Submit Citizens Budget Review Commission proposed recommendations
Submit Budget Presentation – Dallas Expenditures vs Peer Group Comparisons
Submit Budget Presentation – Preliminary Estimate of Expenditures and Budget Reductions
Submit Budget Presentation – Estimated Revenue & Preliminary Costs Estimates
Submit Preliminary Budget for FY 2014
Submit Preliminary Budget Presentation Comparison Districts – ERG & eFacts
March 28, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
March 29, 2013
HCM Talent Partners complete meetings with principals to discuss 13-14 Staffing Allocations
HCM will complete changes in BAUI (budget preparation tool)
April 4, 2013
Board Business Briefing Meeting
April 8, 2013
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
April 9, 2013
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
April 11, 2013
Deadline to submit documentation for May 9th Board Briefing (Estimate date)
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
Preliminary Budget for FY 2014
Board of Trustees determines on public meeting date on budget and proposed tax rate
Preliminary Budget Presentation Comparison Districts – ERG & eFacts
April 22, 2013
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
April 24, 2013
Submit Proposed Budget for FY 2014 presented to the Board
1/08/2013
78
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
April 25, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
Discuss Citizens Budget Review Commission proposed recommendations
Budget Presentation – Dallas Expenditures vs Peer Group Comparisons
Budget Presentation - Preliminary Estimate of Expenditures and Budget Reductions
Budget Presentation – Estimated Revenue & Preliminary Costs Estimates
Preliminary Budget for FY 2014 presented to the Board
Board of Trustees determines on public meeting date on budget and proposed tax rate
April 30, 2013
Estimate of Preliminary Certification of Appraisal Roll
May 2, 2013
Board Business Briefing Meeting
May 3 & 10, 2013
Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Budget & Proposed Tax Rate (Source: Dallas Morning News)
Publish proposed budget summary on DISD website.
May 6, 2013
Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting
May 7, 2013
Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting
May 9, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
Submission & review of the proposed 2013-2014 Budget
May 17, 2013 (Estimate date)
Deadline to submit documentation for June 13th Board Briefing
May 23, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
Adoption of 2013-2014 Budget and to discuss proposed tax rate.
June 6, 2013
Board Business Briefing Meeting
June 13, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
1/08/2013
79
REVISED DRAFT
1/08/13
The Transformation
Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014
June 27, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
Back-up date for Budget Adoption
July 25, 2013
Final Tax Roll estimates received from DCAD.
August 2 & 9, 2013
Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Proposed Tax Rate (Publish on these dates only if needed)
(Source: Dallas Morning News)
August 9, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Briefing
Discuss Adoption of Tax Rate
August 23, 2013
Board of Trustees Board Meeting
Adoption of Tax Rate
1/08/2013
80
Appendix C
Contact List
81
82
Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Contact Superintendent
of Schools
CHAIRPERSON
CONTACT NUMBER
Mike Miles
Louisa Meyer
4635 Sugar Mill Road
Dallas, TX 75244
(972) 490-5038 (home)
(214) 669-3842 (cell)
TRUSTEE
REPRESENTATIVE(S)
EMAIL
[email protected]
CONTACT NUMBER
EMAIL
Nancy Bingham*
Jose Hernandez
(972) 287-8936 (home)
(214) 724-6790 (cell)
Dan Micciche*
Jeff Veazey
404 Bondstone Drive
Dallas, TX 75218
(214) 226-5422
[email protected]
(214) 394-0028
[email protected]
Bernadette Nutall*
Justin Henry
Vinson & Elkins, LLP
2001 Ross Av., Ste 3700
Dallas, TX 75201
Susan Schuerger
(214) 226-7866
[email protected]
(214) 827-6719 (home)
(214) 500-0689 (cell)
[email protected]
Lew Blackburn*
Elizabeth Jones*
Mike Morath*
Eric Cowan*
Carla Ranger
Adam Medrano
Jim Kipp
6648 Avalon Avenue
Dallas, TX 75214
David Look
7007 Yamini
Dallas, TX 75230
Josh Womack
Debbie Sherrington
5843 Del Roy
Dallas, TX 75230
Michael MacNaughton
Strasburger & Price, LLP
901 Main Street, Ste 4400
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 215-4567
Val Haskell
Lucy Livingston
1600 Day Star Drive
Dallas, TX 75224
Jesse Moreno Jr.
5004 Columbia Avenue,
Ste.103
Dallas, TX 75214
(972) 816-9837
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
(214) 762-6957
[email protected] (last email address I had)
(214) 651-4830 (office)
(214) 564-5316 (cell)
[email protected]
(214) 566-5093
[email protected]
(214) 339-1464 (home)
(972) 207-7969 (cell)
[email protected]
214-682-1633
[email protected]
Staff Contact
[email protected]
Kevin Smelker
Chief of Operations
(972) 925-5062 (office)
Sylvia Reyna
Chief of School Leadership
(972) 925-4660 (office)
[email protected]
Deno Harris
Board Services
(972) 925-3962 (office)
(469) 955-7010 (cell)
[email protected]
James Terry
Budget & Demographic
Services
(972) 925-3655 (Office)
[email protected]
1/10/2013 83
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement