phase ii: operational efficiency audit comprehensive report · phase ii: operational efficiency...

Phase II: Operational

Efficiency Audit –

Comprehensive Report for Hillsborough County Public Schools

2016

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:

1 Contents

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Report Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Organization of Report............................................................................................................................ 12

Chapter 1 – Governance and Administration ............................................................................................. 13

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Board Governance .................................................................................................................................. 13

District Administration ............................................................................................................................ 25

Chapter 2 – Financial Management ............................................................................................................ 41

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 41

Financial Management, Accounting and Reporting ................................................................................ 45

Budgeting ................................................................................................................................................ 50

Procurement ........................................................................................................................................... 54

Accounts Payable .................................................................................................................................... 67

Payroll Operations .................................................................................................................................. 76

Chapter 3 – Human Resource Management .............................................................................................. 83

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 83

Human Resources Operations ................................................................................................................ 91

Health Insurance ................................................................................................................................... 106

Chapter 4 – Technology Management...................................................................................................... 113

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 113

IT Strategy and Governance .................................................................................................................. 118

IT Application and Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 122

IT Security .............................................................................................................................................. 125

IT Operations and Continuity ................................................................................................................ 130

Chapter 5 – Transportation Management ................................................................................................ 133

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 133

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 138

Fleet Management ................................................................................................................................ 149

2 Contents

Chapter 6 – Facilities Use and Management ............................................................................................ 161

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 161

School Size and Configuration .............................................................................................................. 163

School Conditions and Capital Planning ................................................................................................ 168

Facility Asset Management Planning .................................................................................................... 172

Maintenance Operations ...................................................................................................................... 175

Custodial Services ................................................................................................................................. 195

Grounds Management .......................................................................................................................... 200

Energy Management ............................................................................................................................. 204

Appendix A – Recommendations and Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................... 213

Appendix B – IT Recommendations and Status ........................................................................................ 219

3 Introduction

Introduction

In December 2015, Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) contracted with Gibson Consulting Group,

Inc. (Gibson) to conduct an Educational and Operational Efficiency Audit to assess the efficiency and

effectiveness of the district’s major operations and programs over a 14-month period. This work is taking

place over three phases, as described below:

Phase I: Operational Audit, Major Cost Savings (January – April 2016)

Phase II: Operational Audit, Comprehensive Review (January – September 2016)

Phase III: Academic Management Audit (June 2016 – February 2017)

This report presents the results of Phase II, and incorporates applicable recommendations from Phase I

that relate to operational areas.

Gibson wishes to express our appreciation to the HCPS management and staff for its responsiveness in

providing us the needed information to perform this important work, and the cooperation and willingness

to assist us during our site work.

Background

HCPS is the eight largest school system in the U.S. with 207,442 students enrolled in 2015-16. As depicted

in Figure 1 student enrollment has increased in each year since 2011-12, and 6.8 percent over the five-

year period.

Figure 1. HCPS Student Enrollment, 2011-12 through 2015-16

Source: Florida Department of Education

The HCPS budget is divided into “funds” that represent funding sources. The General Fund is the district’s

primary operating fund and is supported by state and local revenues. Other major funds include Federal

Funds (e.g., Title I, student nutrition), Debt Service Funds, Capital Funds (e.g., construction, school buses),

194,197 197,530 198,823 202,284 207,442

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

4 Introduction

and Internal Service Funds (e.g., health insurance, workers compensation). Figure 2 presents the expected

distribution of HCPS funds for the 2016-17 budget.

Figure 2. HCPS Projected Revenue by Fund, 2016-17

Source: First Public Hearing of 2016-17 Budget, August 2, 2016

The district operates with a total budget of almost $3 billion, with $1.7 billion being incurred through the

General Fund. Table 1 presents a five-year history of General Fund actual expenditures for 2011-12

through 2015-16. During this time total General Fund expenditures increased 16.4 percent, or just under

4 percent annually on average. The largest percentage increase (8.1 percent) was between 2013-14 and

2014-15.

Table 1. HCPS General Fund Expenditures by Type, 2011-12 through 2015-16

Expenditure Type (Object) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

(Unaudited)

100 Salaries $927,033,356 $928,224,593 $982,290,892 $1,059,397,964 $1,061,859,991

200 Employee Benefits $230,255,688 $223,956,894 $251,351,846 $275,671,926 $285,201,347

300 Purchased Services $145,180,414 $163,755,958 $188,555,479 $212,823,931 $225,766,012

400 Energy Services $47,185,321 $47,186,192 $45,636,656 $43,549,290 $37,271,456

500 Materials & Supplies $54,160,581 $58,411,876 $49,226,606 $58,256,112 $38,116,414

600 Capital Outlay $19,771,004 $15,494,563 $19,520,658 $16,982,920 $14,880,861

700 Other $19,021,885 $20,758,193 $22,259,052 $13,371,477 $16,947,316

900 Transfers $38,354 $33,348 $26,980 $5,269,882 $25,933

Total $1,442,646,602 $1,457,821,617 $1,558,868,168 $1,685,323,501 $1,680,069,331

Source: HCPS Five-Year Financial and Staffing History

Table Note: May not sum to total due to rounding

General Fund, 64%

Federal Funds, 12%

Capital Outlay, 9%

Internal Services, 7%

Debt Service, 8%

5 Introduction

On a per student basis, General Fund expenditures have also increased over the past five years (see Figure

3). Expenditures per student increased from $7,429 to $8,099, or 9 percent, during this time period. The

largest annual percentage gains (6.3 percent) occurred in 2013-14 and 2014-15; in 2015-16 the district

experienced a drop of approximately 2.8 percent.

Figure 3. General Fund Expenditures per Student, 2011-12 through 2015-16


Table Note: 2015-16 expenditures are unaudited

Approximately eighty cents of every General Fund dollar HCPS spends is allocated to staffing costs for

teachers, instructional support staff, school and district administrators, and auxiliary staff. Staffing costs

include salaries, wages and benefits. Compared to its Florida peer districts, HCPS has higher staff levels

relative to its student population. Figure 4 compares the ratio of students to full-time equivalent (FTE)

employees to four Florida peer districts: Duval County Public Schools (DCPS), Palm Beach County Schools

(PBCS), Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) and Pinellas County Schools (PCS). Generally, the lower the

ratio, the higher the number of employees relative to the student population. However, other factors,

such as outsourcing of major functions, can affect the comparability of data.

$7,429 $7,380$7,840

$8,331$8,099

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

6 Introduction

Figure 4. Ratio of students to FTE employees, HCPS and Florida Peer Districts, 2014-15

Source: Florida Department of Education, 2014-15

One of the major factors that prompted this efficiency audit was the decline in the district’s fund balance.

A district’s fund balance represents the difference between total district assets and total liabilities, and

reflects the financial health and stability of a school system. Fund balances have declined precipitously

since 2010-11. From June 30, 2011 to 2015, the total General Fund balance declined from $361 million to

$146 million, or almost 60 percent. Because of the district’s cost control measures implemented in 2015-

16, the June 30, 2016 fund balance (unaudited) is expected to be similar to the prior year. While current

fund balance levels meet the state minimum requirements, bond rating agencies may desire higher fund

balances to support higher bond ratings. Higher bond ratings are desirable in that they reduce bond

interest costs, among other advantages.

Other major changes have occurred. The board hired a new superintendent during 2015, a major

reorganization at the district level has occurred, and a teacher incentive pay program is being modified as

an $80 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has expired.

In the context of these changing events, The HCPS board and district leadership sought an outside review

to evaluate operational efficiency and improve the financial stability to levels it achieved in years past –

without sacrificing student learning. The following provides an overview of the Phase II report

recommendations to help the district achieve this goal.

Report Summary

This report contains five commendations on operating efficiency, and 55 recommendations to improve

efficiency and management effectiveness in HCPS operational areas. The district is already moving

forward on some of these and other initiatives. Once fully implemented, the recommendations will result

10.4

8.48.1 8

7.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

DCPS PBCS OCPS PCS HCPS

7 Introduction

in savings, net of identified investments, of $46,873,053 per year. However, several investments (facilities,

transportation) cannot be quantified at this time.

Applicable recommendations from the Phase I report (clerical, custodial and transportation) have been

incorporated into the respective operational area analysis in each chapter. Accordingly, savings and

investments presented in this report are cumulative. Fiscal impacts from recommendations made in Phase

I are noted in this report.

The Phase II work identified several best practices in place at HCPS. These include the following:

HCPS has applied best practices in the development of a long-range Strategic Plan. HCPS board

members were consistent in their praise for the strategic planning process and the results. The

review team also believes this document is an excellent starting point to guide the district through

the next five years, particularly because of its focus on what’s important and the establishment

of measureable objectives to hold the district accountable.

The district’s written teacher recruiting plan is both productive and creative. The Applications

and Recruitment unit in Human Resource’s Personnel Services Department annually conducts a

recruitment season review which assesses results and informs the strategic recruiting plan for the

subsequent recruitment season. In the 2015 recruitment year, the successes of recruitment

planning showed that over 5,000 teacher applications were received, increasing applicant volume

by 55 percent over the prior year. The Applications and Recruitment unit was able to build a pool

of approximately 3,000 active candidates, and 1,324 teacher vacancies and been filled by the first

day of school.

The Program to Attract and Train High (PATH) quality and exceptional teachers for students

with disabilities has become a major source for HR’s filling special education vacancies. Project

PATH is an alternative certification training program funded by a Transition to Teaching grant from

the U.S. Department of Education. The grant provides financial assistance and support for

Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teachers from non-traditional backgrounds who teach in a

high needs school while earning their professional certification through HCPS’ Alternative

Certification Program.

The Procurement Department utilizes a robust management software for Procurement Card (P-

Card) transactions. The Department has been able to maintain strong internal controls over P-

Card transactions and has achieved highly efficient and effective processes. The software is

configured to the district’s bank files so purchases made on P-Cards are automatically loaded into

the system. As a result, bookkeepers only need to enter a few additional details, including item

descriptions and account strings, in order to expense the transaction.

The Accounts Payable Department implemented an E-payables program in FY 2008. In addition

to electronically streamlining vendor payments and reducing the number of days to pay vendors

8 Introduction

(earning discounts in some cases), the district earns rebates from the program. In 2014-15, total

revenues generated from the program were $574,118.

During the Phase II work several cross-cutting themes emerged. Several recommendations made in this

report are common to multiple chapters. These are discussed briefly below:

Upgrade job descriptions.

Several HCPS division leadership positions do not require technical experience, training, or

licensure in the function overseen. The operational leadership positions are generic, and state a

preference for teaching or general public administration experience instead of specific technical

requirements. In the maintenance area, most maintenance positions are Multi-Trade workers and

the job requirements do not include licensure in specific trades. HCPS job descriptions need to be

upgraded to ensure that the positions require the technical expertise and experience needed to

execute the job duties.

Develop division and department level performance measures.

The district’s strategic plan identifies specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that will help hold

the school district leadership accountable for reaching strategic goals. These KPIs, however, have

not yet led to the creation of specific division- and department-level measures in all operational

areas. Sample measures are provided in each operational chapter of this report, and tracking

these will help ensure the long-term efficiency and effectiveness of these areas.

Streamline processes and increase the use of technology (all areas).

HCPS invests in application software to support efficient operations, but many of these

applications are outdated or underutilized. This results in the proliferations of many manual,

paper-intensive tasks that are not efficient. The district needs to upgrade its financial and human

resources software, purchase and integrate additional software, and re-engineer processes to

maximize the use of technology and become paperless.

Reorganize certain divisions and departments.

In several chapters, departmental restructuring is recommended (Human Resources Division,

Accounts Payable Department). A separate recommendation is also made to improve the way

HCPS develops, reviews, and approves organizational charts. Organizational charts are important

in that they establish the chain of command and support accountability. The recommendations in

this report provide specific guidance to certain areas and general recommendations that will

improve long-term organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

9 Introduction

Other major recommendations in this report include the following:

Expand the scope of internal audit function

Develop a decision-making framework for the central office, area offices and schools

Consider converting current employee health insurance plan to a self-funded program

Implement changes to the HCPS health insurance program structure

Conduct health insurance dependent eligibility audit

Develop a facilities management plan

Improve facilities preventive maintenance program

Implement additional energy conservation measures

Make changes to the district’s account codes to support more effective cost control and

financial reporting

Develop supplemental annual budget report to improve clarity and transparency

Require all hourly employees to report hours worked

The Phase II Information Technology (IT) assessment focused on the district’s implementation of 126

recommendations made through a prior comprehensive study conducted in 2013. Based on the review

team’s assessment, 48 percent of these recommendations have been fully implemented. There are

several key recommendations from that report that are critical to IT’s long-term success. These

recommendations and their status are discussed briefly below:

The district has implemented several high priority recommendations including establishing

various IT governance councils, reorganizing the IT department, and developing an educational

data warehouse to establish a single accessible and highly available data source to store and link

student and employee data.

There are several high priority recommendations that the Department is in the process of

implementing. Perhaps the most important is adopting an IT service model which embraces

commercially available software or software as a service (SaaS) for core district systems. The

district has developed customized software in-house that resides on aging technology platforms.

In order to support aging software and platforms, the Department must utilize staff with skillsets

that are increasingly difficult to find (COBOL programming). Additionally, the Department cannot

easily leverage staff knowledge in other more current software and platforms. The Department is

working to replace in-house aging systems with commercially available software.

Another key recommendation that is in process is to create a formal project management office

(PMO).The district hired one project coordinator position under this function and selected project

portfolio management software to manage projects. Considering the size and the number of

projects for the district, the Department is planning to add more staff and resources to this

function.

The recommendations contained in this report can be implemented over the next five years (2016-17

through 2021-22), although the implementation timing may vary based on individual recommendations.

10 Introduction

Once fully implemented, these recommendations will result in net annual savings of $46,873,053 by 2019-

20 (Phases I and II combined1). If fully implemented, recommendations contained in this report will

require one-time investments of $28,805,000 and additional investments in subsequent years. Appendix

A lists all recommendations made as a result of the review, by operational area, along with estimated

savings, investments, and net fiscal impacts.

It is important to note that savings identified through Phase I and Phase II recommendations need to be

used to support investments – primarily in facilities and technology, and some of these investments

cannot yet be quantified.

For those recommendations involving position reductions, average pay for that position was applied in

calculating savings. Depending on the district’s projected financial situation, it is expected that some if

not most of these positions can be eliminated through attrition. A benefits rate of 28 percent was applied

in calculating gross savings from position reductions.

Methodology

Phase II work began in January 2016, the same time as Phase I. Data collection efforts for both phases

began at that time. The review team efforts were focused on Phase I major cost savings opportunities

through March; the Phase II site work was in April. Below is a description of the methodology applied

during Phase II of the efficiency audit.

Data Collection

To conduct a comprehensive efficiency audit of HCPS, the review team used a variety of data collection

and analysis approaches. This comprehensive review of HCPS’ non-instructional areas included the

following data collection approaches:

Existing HCPS data

Interviews with district staff

School site visits

Focus group sessions

Florida state average and peer data

National peer data

Existing HCPS Data

To provide proper context for the review, Gibson requested from the HCPS a broad spectrum of data and

documents related to the operational areas under review. Gibson collected over 1,000 pages from HCPS,

the Florida Department of Education, and other sources. The purpose of this data request and subsequent

analyses was to gain a deeper understanding of HCPS operations and provide background and context for

the review. In addition, these data and documents were utilized to help formulate questions for the

1 Total fiscal impact excludes teacher scheduling recommendation from Phase I

11 Introduction

interviews and focus group sessions held with district administrators, department heads and staff, school

administrators and staff, and teachers. Data analyses, discussed later, were conducted to determine levels

of efficiency within the organization.

Interviews with District Staff

To ensure that the review team had a complete and thorough understanding of district processes,

procedures, operations, and issues, interviews of key staff involved in day-to-day operations in the HCPS

were conducted in April 2016. Interviews included board members, district leadership, department heads

and staff, operational leads, and support staff, among others.

Since some preliminary data analyses were completed prior to the site visit, interview time was dedicated

more to understanding performance trends, in addition to learning about system processes and staff

responsibilities. Through these interviews and focus groups, the review team was able to develop a better

overall understanding of district operations and clarify any data questions that arose during preliminary

analysis, including investigation of possible causes of unfavorable variances, current efficiency or

performance measurement systems, current plans and initiatives, current approach to cost savings,

recent cost savings or cost cutting measures, decision-making frameworks, and additional areas of

concern for the staff.

School Site Visits

A sample of HCPS schools was selected for site visits based on school type and geographic location within

the district. The review team selected and conducted site visits to HCPS elementary, K-8, middle, and high

schools. The purpose of the school visits was to gather information on school operations, facilities, and

staff members’ perceptions of the services provided by the central office.

Focus Group Sessions

Focus groups are an effective way of obtaining more in-depth information from staff than a one-on-one

formal interview or other data collection instruments. In addition, the dynamics of a focus group often

stimulate the expression of ideas that might otherwise go unstated. The project team conducted focus

group sessions with varying groups of stakeholders (e.g., principals, teachers, operational area leads,

departmental and school staff). These focus groups were conducted during the April 2016 site visit.

State and National Peer Data Analysis

Gibson used the most recent state expenditure and staffing reports to compare HCPS to state and peer

averages. These reports are available annually; the most recent reports available at the time of this study

contained actual expenditure and staffing data through the 2014-15 school year. Unaudited actual

expenditure data for 2015-16 was also included.

For national comparisons, Gibson used the Council of Great City Schools Managing for Results – an annual

survey of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) that are self-reported by major U.S. school systems including

Hillsborough County. The most recent report is dated October 2015 and contains 2013-14 comparative

data.

12 Introduction

Analysis

Data Analysis

As discussed previously, existing HCPS data were requested and analyzed to provide background and

context for this review. During the assessment phase of this project, each functional area was reviewed

individually to determine whether efficient financial and operational management practices were in place.

The analyses included trend and peer analysis of expenditure data, staffing data and operational

performance measures, as well as process, document (e.g., job descriptions) and organizational analysis.

Interview and Focus Group Data

Qualitative interview and focus group data were analyzed by functional area leads conducting the focus

group sessions to determine common trends across the various stakeholder groups (e.g., district

administration, school leaders and staff, department heads and staff). Other sources of input (e.g.,

observations, district data, and industry best practices) were also included in analyses.

Organization of Report

The remainder of this report is organized into the following:

Chapter 1 – District Organization and Management

Chapter 2 – Financial Management

Chapter 3 – Human Resources

Chapter 4 – Technology Management

Chapter 5 – Transportation Management

Chapter 6 – Facilities Management

Appendices

13 Chapter 1 – Governance and Administration

Chapter 1 – Governance and Administration

Introduction

The effective and efficient education of students depends on a district’s governance structure,

administrative management, and planning processes. The role of the school board (board) is to set goals

and priorities, establish policies, and to approve the plans and funding necessary to achieve district goals

and objectives. The superintendent is responsible for managing district operations, recommending

staffing levels, and preparing a plan for spending financial resources in order to carry out the board’s goals

and objectives. Department and school administration executes the plans and measures performance

against established targets that are aligned with the district’s goals and objectives. Each component of

this system of governance and administration helps ensure that goals and objectives are in fact achieved,

and that departments, schools, and the individuals that oversee them are held accountable for results.

Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) is the eighth largest district in the nation with approximately

207,000 students (in 2015-16). HCPS is the largest employer in Hillsborough County with more 25,000

employees. The district has over 270 school sites, including 141 elementary schools (K-5), 43 middle

schools, 27 high schools, 5 K-8 schools, and 47 charter schools. HCPS also provides many distinct learning

programs including Magnet, International Baccalaureate, Career and Technical Education, Advanced

Placement, and Dual Enrollment. Other services offered include 11 adult programs, 4 technical colleges,

4 Career Centers, and 9 Exceptional Centers. Approximately 36.2 percent of students are White, 33

percent Hispanic, 21.3 percent Black, and 5.5 percent Multi-racial. Approximately 62 percent are

economically disadvantaged and 15.7 percent are English language learners.

This remainder of this chapter provides commendations and recommendations related to board

governance and district-level management and administration.

Board Governance

The HCPS school board is responsible for the organization and control of the district’s public schools and

is empowered to determine the policies necessary for the effective operation and the general

improvement of the school system. The school board is a public corporate entity and can take action only

when the board is meeting in official public session and a quorum is present.

HCPS is governed by a seven-member school board, representing the seven districts in HCPS. The board

members have staggered terms to support continuity. Table 1.1 presents the HCPS current board

members, the district they represent, and the number of years of service on the board.


Table 1.1. HCPS Governing Board Members

School Board Member Title District Years on Board

April Griffin Board Chair 6 10

Cindy Stuart Board Vice Chair 3 4

Susan Valdez Board Member 1 12

Sally Harris Board Member 2 2

Melissa Snively Board Member 4 2

Doretha Edgecomb Board Member 5 12

Carol Kurdell Board Member 7 24

Source: HCPS website, http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/doc/list/school-board/board-members/97-418/.

Regular board meetings are held once a month in the School Board Auditorium in downtown Tampa.

Separate board workshops are also held monthly. Other recognition and special board meetings occur

throughout the year. Formal board meetings are aired live on the Tampa Bay Arts & Education Network.

Board meeting agendas and supporting information are posted online through the district’s school board

website. These meetings are also open to the public.

Operating expenditures for the school board for the past five years are presented in Table 1.2. The school

board expenditures include board member compensation as provided by state law. Other expenditures

include board member professional development, travel expenditures, and costs for secretarial staff and

communications. Since 2011-12 board expenditures have risen by an average of 7 percent annually,

mostly due to increases in benefit costs.

Table 1.2. HCPS Board Expenditures, 2011-12 through 2015-16


(Unaudited)

100 Salaries $290,641 $286,685 $297,171 $298,158 $298,309

200 Employee Benefits $87,201 $79,813 $146,397 $179,988 $180,860

300 Purchased Services $53,405 $47,980 $58,203 $58,144 $75,670

500 Materials & Supplies $2,000 $2,479 $2,068 $2,468 $6,730

600 Capital Outlay $200

700 Other $21,813 $89,301 $21,358 $10,151 $29,448

Total $455,061 $506,458 $525,197 $548,910 $591,016

Source: HCPS Five-Year Financial and Staffing History - Site code 9110 (Board Members)


The board office includes four secretarial support staff who are shared among two or more board

members.


The HCPS board policy manual is located on the district’s web site and includes legally required and locally

adopted policies for the district. Policies are differentiated from administrative regulations and operating

procedures in that they must be approved by the board. District administrative regulations – which

provide additional guidance – may be approved by the Superintendent. Departmental operating

procedures may be approved by department leaders.

The HPCS Board Policy Manual includes the following major sections2:

0000 Bylaws

1000 Administration

2000 Program

3000 Instructional Staff

4000 Support Staff

5000 Students

6000 Finances

7000 Property

8000 Operations

9000 Community Relations

Policies are updated at least twice per year. HCPS also has a tab on its web site for Administrative

Procedures. Currently, administrative procedures exist for the policy sections on Finances (6000),

Property (7000) and Operations (8000).

The scope of the board governance review encompassed the following areas:

Planning and Accountability

Board Information Needs for Decision-making

Board Meetings

Internal Audit

Board Communications

Commendation 1-1: HCPS applied best practices in the development of its Strategic Plan.

The Hillsborough County Public Schools Superintendent and School Board began the development of a

new strategic plan in spring 2015. Guided by the district’s vision, “Preparing Students for Life”, and

mission, “To provide education and the supports that enable each student to excel as a successful and

responsible citizen”, four strategic priorities were created.

2 HCPS Web Site: http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/policymanual/index


These priorities are:

1. Increasing graduation rates

2. Communicating with stakeholders

3. Building culture and relationships

4. Foundation of financial stewardship

For each strategic priority, key performance indicators (KPIs) were designated with appropriate measures.

HCPS will regularly assess these measures to ensure that is on track for achieving its strategic goals. KPIs

for Increasing Graduation Rates include kindergarten reading readiness, student attendance, and

graduation requirements. Family engagement, student communication, and district website usage are

measured for communicating with stakeholders. Employee engagement, student experience, and

workforce diversity are including in strong culture, and bond rating, audit results and fund balance are

KPIs for ensuring financial foundation strength.

The Strategic Plan objectives are organized through a Balanced Scorecard framework, including each

strategic priority and its accompanying objectives. To give the plan structure, Goal Areas were identified

for Student Learning, Talent Management, Culture & Relationships, and Processes & Financials.

Through the strategic planning process, HCPS developed a unique organizational philosophy – an inverted

structure whereby students and families served are at the top of the structure and support at every level

in the organization is directed towards students and families. The key belief in servant leadership brought

about this culture shift. Figure 1.1 displays the organizational philosophy displayed in the district’s

strategic plan.

Figure 1.1. HCPS Organizational Philosophy

Source: HCPS Strategic Plan 2015-2020


HCPS board members were consistent in their praise for the strategic planning process and the results.

The review team also believes this document is an excellent starting point to guide the district through

the next five years, particularly because of its focus on what’s important and the establishment of

measureable objectives to hold the district accountable.

Recommendation 1-1: Consider options to improve the efficiency of board meetings.

The review team analyzed board meeting minutes and durations, and also observed several board

meetings. Board members receive board packets in advance of each meeting, and each agenda item has

a cover sheet with standard pieces of information about the item. Board members are allowed to submit

questions about the board packet in advance of the meeting so that items may be addressed prior to

board meeting discussion or action.

There are four types of board meetings – regular meetings, workshops, recognition meetings, and special

meetings. All meetings are subject to the same legal requirements for postings, notices, and access by the

public. Board workshops provide a more interactive venue for in-depth discussions of future agenda

items. Recognition meetings acknowledge and celebrate student and staff achievements. Both the board

workshops and the recognition meetings increase the efficiency of the regular board meetings. Special

meetings may be called for any special purpose and may include one or more agenda items.

Between June 2015 and June 2016 the average board meeting time for regular board meetings was 3

hours and 55 minutes.

The review team’s assessment is that several other opportunities exist to improve the efficiency and

ultimately effectiveness of the board meetings. These opportunities are discussed below.

Timed Agendas for Regular Board Meetings

Only the Recognition meetings have timed agendas. Time agendas help establish reasonable expectations

for the length of discussion. The times do not need to be strictly adhered to, but their existence will help

limit the discussion of an item to the targeted time.

Eliminate Paper Copies of Board Packets

While the board packets are provided electronically and posted on the district’s web site, paper copies

continue to be provided to each board member. This creates unnecessary costs and effort to photocopy,

organize, and distribute the board packet. As the board continues to support investments in the district’s

technology to eliminate paper, their actions should also reflect this philosophy.

Formally Adopt and Consistently Apply “Way of Work” Guidelines

The Board created a document entitled “Way of Work”, containing a comprehensive list of guidelines and

procedures to ensure that the board is committed to governing as a professional board of directors. The

procedures and norms of meetings in this document include the following effective practices:


Members will avoid surprises by articulating specific concerns about agenda items in advance

Members will…avoid negative and personal comments

Members will not hold sidebar conversations (during the meeting)

Members will demonstrate respect for diverse opinions

Special circumstances, such as how to handle pending litigation meetings, termination hearings, and

pulling agenda items, are also addressed in the Way of Work.

During interviews with the review team, Board members generally agreed that these guidelines are not

consistently followed or enforced. Since valuable time was incurred to develop them, and they contain

excellent guidance, the board should formally adopt these guidelines and enforce them. By doing so, more

productive time in board meetings could be achieved.

Develop Guidelines and Standards for Staff Presentations to the Board

While board members stated that staff presentations generally met their expectations, the review team

analyzed several presentations and observed others during board meetings and noted that the format

and length of presentations vary by department. While each presentation is unique, the following

suggestions will help improve the efficiency, delivery, and impact of staff presentations:

Presentation format guidelines. Establish maximum number of words on a slide and minimum

font size – to support readability and focus on key messages. Graphics standards should also be

established. A standard color scheme should be applied to presentations, along with the inclusion

of the HCPS logo. This will help the support a consistent branding of HCPS quality.

Presentation length guidelines. Establish maximum number of slides for a presentation, which

will have a direct impact on the presentation length, and help manage the agenda item to

established time targets.

Presentation coaching. Major presentations should be subject to a trial run before the meeting

with the executive team and the Communications Department. As needed, HCPS department

heads should receive videotaped public speaking training.

Implementation status dashboards. Create dashboards that are updated quarterly, or other

frequency defined by the board, to report status of district initiatives such as the implementation

of the strategic plan activities or internal audit recommendations. Use of dashboards would

automatically provide the board with the most recent status report, allowing them to drill into

specific projects or activities that is of interest to them. This would likely reduce the amount of

time district administrators would need to present a status report. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 present

sample screen shots from of an internal audit implementation status dashboard.


Figure 1.2. Sample Implementation Status Dashboard, Global View

Source: Gibson Consulting Group, Inc.

Figure 1.3. Sample Implementation Status Dashboard, Detailed View



Consider Establishment of Board Committees

The HCPS board does not currently have any standing committees. The Way of Work contains a provision

for the establishment of such committees, recognizing that not all of the board’s work can be

accomplished at regularly scheduled meetings of the entire board. The creation of standing committees

for key district functions, such as instruction, facilities, and finance/audit may help the board dedicate the

necessary time to these functions without consuming board meeting time. These committees are advisory

in nature, and cannot make decisions on behalf of the board. No more than three board members may

serve on any individual committee, as by doing so would constitute an official board meeting with a

quorum.

Consider Florida Master Board Certification Program

Florida’s Master Board Certification program is a tailored training for school boards and superintendents

to strengthen the team’s ability to work effectively, efficiently, and collectively. The training curriculum

concentrates on student achievement through the four elements of the Florida School Boards Association

(FSBA) Governance Model: Vision, Structure, Accountability and Advocacy. Some of the skills and

knowledge learned through the curriculum are team development, strategic planning, problem solving,

and self-assessment. To complete the certification program, members must complete 22 training hours.

There are currently 21 Florida school districts who have achieved this certification.

During the 2001-02 Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) Efficiency

Review conducted by Gibson Consulting Group, Inc., HCPS had its master board certification. The district

originally received its master board certificate in 1993.

Each board member interviewed during the OPPAGA review stated that this certification program was a

key to their success in working together as a board. Several board members were not initially supportive

of the idea, but after going through the training and realizing the benefits they became ardent supporters

of the process. One of the principle benefits noted at the time was that differences in board member

views were resolved during the certification process, saving valuable board meeting time by avoiding the

repeated discussion of those differences.

The HCPS board should consider this as a strategy to improve their effectiveness as a board and to increase

the efficiency of board meetings.

Recommendation 1-2: Increase breadth of coverage of internal audit to maximize effectiveness.

Internal audit is an independent and objective assurance and consulting activity that informs leaders how

well systems and processes are working. Audits result in findings and recommendations to improve

processes and mitigate the risks surrounding those processes. Internal audit is different from an external

audit, which expresses an opinion on the reasonableness of the district’s financial statements within

materiality limits. Internal audit focuses on processes and whether or not they are compliant, effective,

and efficient.


HCPS maintains a district auditing team and an audit committee (the entire board). The mission of the

district auditing team is to provide assurance that the district is maintaining the highest standard of

stewardship while utilizing public resources efficiently and effectively.3 According to the HCPS audit

committee charter, the entire school board functions as the audit committee in order to “promote,

maintain, and enhance the independence and objectivity of the internal auditing function of the District by

ensuring broad audit coverage, adequate consideration of audit/review reports, and appropriate action

on recommendations.” The audit charter also states that the district is required to conduct a periodic

district-wide risk assessment as a basis for recommending future audits. Currently, the district risk

assessment is comprised of expenditure comparisons from the past two years.

Duties and responsibilities of the audit committee include:

Approving the internal audit charter

Reviewing and approving the audit work plan

Reviewing audit reports

Allowing for budgeting special unplanned audits required under board’s Investigation policy

Holding meetings with the Chief Auditing Officer quarterly

Quality assurance audits are also required to be conducted every five years, budget permitting, to assure

the board and Superintendent that the internal auditing activities conform to the Institute of Internal

Auditors’ Code of Ethics and Standards. In prior years, the district auditing team reported to the

Superintendent. Currently, this unit reports jointly to the Superintendent and the board. Florida state law

allows internal auditing functions to report to the board or the board’s designee.4

HCPS incurs approximately $1 million annually in operating costs for its audit function. Table 1.3 presents

the internal audit expenditures for the past five years, reflecting virtually no growth in spending during

this time.

3 HCPS Web Site: http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/doc/list/auditing/about/3-7/ 4 Florida Education Code 1001.42


Table 1.3. HCPS Audit Expenditures, 2011-12 through 2015-16


(unaudited)

100 Salaries $739,883 $747,469 $735,700 $792,662 $745,357




600 Capital Outlay $9,109 $5,174 $2,494 $1,273 $5,334

700 Other $0 $0 $150 $0 $0

Total $943,510 $944,468 $944,319 $1,013,237 $961,996

Percent Change - 0% 0% 7% -5%

Source: HCPS Expenditure Data Extract


Approximately 83 percent of the non-administrative District Auditing Team staff are dedicated to two

types of audits – Student Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) audits for attendance reporting and Student Activity

Fund audits. The internal audit function also has two administrative positions. Figure 1.4 presents the

distribution of the 12 non-administrative audit staff by function.

Figure 1.4. Distribution of HCPS Non-Administrative Auditing Staff by Function

Source: HCPS Auditing Team Organization Chart

Activity Fund, 8

Student FTE, 2

Other, 2


Annual Student Activity Fund audits are required by state law.5 Full-time equivalent audits are not

required by Florida law; however, the Auditor General conducts FTE audits every other year. The last

adjustment made by the state of Florida was $220,000 (decrease), based on an audit of 45 schools.

The district also provides an anonymous information reporting system for anyone to report violations that

may include issues such as gross mismanagement, gross neglect of duty, and violation of state and federal

law. The auditing team monitors this reporting. Based on interviews, HCPS board members expressed

general satisfaction with the district’s internal audit function, and found the audit reports to be useful.

The current scope of coverage by the HCPS auditing team is very limited, and does not reflect the intent

of the audit charter to ensure “broad audit coverage.” This is not uncommon in public education, but this

approach does not adequately address all the risks faced by HCPS. The universe of audit projects should

include every functional and program area of the school system, and a comprehensive risk assessment

should be conducted for all areas every five years. Figure 1.5 is an example of a more comprehensive risk

assessment. Each auditable area (left side) receives a numeric score based on nine risk areas (across the

top).

Figure 1.5. Sample Risk Assessment Scoring Matrix


Table Note: Does not reflect actual HCPS data

5 Florida Administrative Code, Rule 6A-1.087


Risk areas include the risk of fraud or theft, the risk of non-compliance, the risk of failure to meet

objectives, the risk of litigation, and the risk of negative publicity. Factors that could influence the risk

assessment of an area might include:

Excessive management or staff turnover in the area

New information systems recently implemented

Not subject to an audit during the past five years

Recurring lawsuits

Recurring negative publicity

Significant changes in spending or staffing

The regulatory complexity of the area

The size of the area in terms of budget and/or staffing

Through a detailed analysis of data from each auditable area and interviews of area leaders, an

independent and complete risk assessment profile can be developed. This, in turn will support a more

robust internal audit plan. In the figure above, these scores are color coded based on the level of risk, with

red reflecting higher risk areas and green reflecting lower risk areas. Generally the higher risk areas are

audited first.

HCPS should broaden the scope of its internal audit function to include the following areas:

Financial Management (internal controls, purchasing, payroll, grants, activity funds)

Administrative Operations (human resources, insurance/risk management)

Auxiliary Operations (maintenance, transportation, food service, safety and security)

Academic Program Management (General Education, Special Education, Bilingual/ESOL, Career

and Technology Education)

Bond Program/Construction Management

Technology and Information Systems

A broader risk assessment will result in a broader and more impactful internal audit function. Many

internal audits identify cost savings, help avoid misappropriations of assets, or reduce the risk of expensive

litigation. The investment in a comprehensive internal audit function typically sees a return on the

investment that exceeds the cost.

Fiscal Impact

A one-time investment should be incurred for an outside firm to conduct a comprehensive risk

assessment. This one-time investment is estimated to be $100,000.

Based on the audit needs identified through the risk assessment, additional in-house or external resources

will be needed, as the scope of the internal audit function is expected to be significantly broader. While a

better estimate can be provided after the risk assessment is completed, it is estimated that the annual


internal audit budget would need to be doubled, to approximately $2 million a year, beginning in fiscal

year (FY) 2017-18. This may include additional HCPS audit team staffing and contracted services.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Conduct risk assessment ($100,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Increase internal audit

resources $0 $0 ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)

Total ($100,000) $0 ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)

Note: Costs are negative. Savings are positive.

District Administration

This section addresses district level administration, which includes the Superintendent and the direct

reports to the superintendent position. School administration, which includes principals, assistant

principals, and other school-level administrative staff, will be addressed in Phase III of the Educational and

Operational Efficiency Audit. District administration also includes management and performance

reporting at the high levels of the organization, as well as administrative regulations adopted by the

Superintendent and district level communications.

The Superintendent, as provided by law, is the Secretary and Executive Officer of the school board. The

board appoints the Superintendent, and the current superintendent, Jeff Eakins, assumed responsibilities

in June 2015. Prior to serving as Superintendent, Mr. Eakins served as Deputy Superintendent for HCPS

and prior to that served as the district’s Director of Federal Programs.

According to Florida Statutes 1001.51, “the organization of the district shall be designed to meet objectives

set by the Board to ensure clear lines of authority and responsibility. Positions should also be defined with

clarity. Responsibility should flow clearly from the Superintendent through the administrative staff to the

operational personnel.” Figure 1.6 presents the district’s organizational structure as of August 2016. Under

the prior organization, many senior management positions reported directly to the Superintendent. Now,

under a Chief of Staff organizational model, all management positions report to the Chief of Staff, who

reports directly to the Superintendent. This allows the Superintendent to focus more on the board and

external demands of the position. The Chief of Staff model is not uncommon large school systems. Under

the new organizational structure, all schools report up through the chief of schools position, and a deputy

superintendent position oversees Workforce Connections, Academic Support and Federal Programs,

Strategy Management, Student Services, and the Teaching Tools Store. The remaining core functions,

including business, facilities operations, human resources and technology, report directly to the Chief of

Staff.

“Staff” functions, or functions that support the entire district (such as attorney services, internal audit,

and diversity) appear in red on the organization chart and are differentiated from the “line” functions

described above.


Figure 1.6. HCPS District Organizational Structure

Supterintendent

School Board

Chief of Staff

School Board Attorney

Chief OfficerDiversity

Chief OfficerGovernment

Relations

Department Manager Auditing

Chief of Schools Administration

Deputy Superintendent

General Manager Information &

Technology

Chief Officer Community

Relations

Chief OfficerBusiness Services

Assistant Superintendent Student Services

Chief OfficerOperations

Chief Officer Human Resources

Assistant Superintendent

Educational Leadership and PD Assistant

Superintendent Academic Support

& Federal Programs

General ManagerStrategy

Management

Executive OfficerCompliance

Area Superintendents (8)

OfficerWorkforce

Connections

Chief OfficerTeaching and

Learning

Assistant Superintendent

Outreach/School Improvement

DirectorVirtual Schools

District Attorney

Teaching Tools Store

Chief Officer School Security & Emergency

Management DirectorLow Performing

Schools

DirectorChoice / Magnet

Schools

General DirectorCharter Chools

DirectorAdministration

Source: HCPS Organization Chart, August, 2016

Expenditures for district administration fall under the function “General Administration” as defined by the

state reporting requirements. In 2015-166, the district incurred $5.7 million in General Administration

expenditures, with $4.8 million or 84 percent relating to personnel costs. Figure 1.7 compares HCPS

General Administration Expenditures as a percentage of the total budget to six Florida peer districts for

2013-14, the most recent year comparable data are available. HCPS had the lowest percentage of General

Administration Expenditures among its peers. Because of recent organizational changes, this percentage

is expected to increase in subsequent years.

6 2015-16 expenditures are unaudited


Figure 1.7. General Administration Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Budget, HCPS and Peer

Districts, 2013-14

Source: Florida Department of Education Data Extract

Recommendation 1-3: Develop administrative regulations for all applicable policy areas.

The district maintains Administrative Procedures and publishes them on its web site. These procedures

are actually administrative regulations that provide additional operational guidance – beyond board

adopted policies – that are approved by the Superintendent.

Administrative regulations provide additional administrative guidance on “what” is to be done. They are

typically aligned under the same table of contents as the board policy manual and HCPS organizes the

administrative regulations they do have in this way. Procedures, on the other hand, provide information

on “how” activities are to be done and by “whom.” Operating procedures are under the responsibility of

functional and program areas leaders.

HCPS currently has administrative regulations for only three of the board policy manual’s nine sections:

Finances (Section 6000), Property (Section 7000) and Operations (Section 8000). All board policy sections

should be evaluated and administrative regulations should be added for each as needed.

Fiscal Impact

This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

Hillsborough Pinellas Broward Duval Dade Orange Palm Beach

Hillsborough Pinellas Broward Duval Dade Orange Palm Beach


Recommendation 1-4: Establish administrative guidelines for the development of district

organizational charts.

During this operational efficiency audit, HCPS provided the review team organizational charts for the

central office and for each department. The review team concurs with the recent change to a Chief of

Staff model at the district level (discussed in more depth previously in this chapter). Departmental

organizational charts are assessed under separate chapters of this report.

The development of organizational charts are very important to an organization in that these charts define

the chain of command and accountability, and depict the level of importance of individual positions. They

also drive budget responsibility reporting.

HCPS organizational charts provided by the district in April 2016 did not follow key best practice

guidelines. These are discussed briefly below:

Dual reporting responsibilities – in several instances, the district showed positions reporting to

multiple supervisor positions. This splits accountability and confuses lower level management on

who their boss is. The only position that should be allowed to have two supervisors is the district

internal audit team, which reports jointly to the Superintendent and the board. This alignment of

internal audit is allowed by state law.

Leveling – leveling is the positioning of similar positions at the same horizontal level on the

organizational chart. HCPS has several supervisory positions that are ranked lower than others,

but appear at a higher positioning on the organizational chart. For example, a director position

should not be presented at the same horizontal level as a general manager; the higher ranking

position should be higher on the organizational chart. The lack of appropriate leveling conveys

mixed messages about the seniority of the position. Particularly at the higher organizational

levels, leadership positions (General Manager, Director, Officer) should each be positioned

equally on the organizational chart, reinforcing the seniority of the position. Figure 1.8 shows a

sample organizational chart reflecting positions at the same horizontal level with proper leveling.


Figure 1.8. Sample Organizational Chart

Chief Officer

General Manager General Manager

DirectorDirector

SupervisorSupervisor Supervisor Supervisor


Figure Note: Sample only; this does not reflect current HCPS positions or alignment

Position titles – some HCPS departmental organizational charts do not specify titles, only

functions. This may also contribute to confusion about reporting responsibility and accountability.

Each box on an organizational chart should reflect a position title.

Centralized management – as of April 2016, departmental organizational charts were prepared

by the respective departments and there was not centralized guidance, review, or quality control.

The HCPS Human Resources Division should “own” the organizational charts (as it does job

descriptions), maintain the guidelines for developmental and review, and serve as the quality

control mechanism to ensure that organizational charts are accurate and consistently presented.

The process does not diminish the importance of the district and department leader’s

involvement in the development of organizational structures.

Fiscal Impact


Recommendation 1-5: Reduce clerical staffing7.

Compared to its Florida peer districts, HCPS has more clerical staff relative to the student population. The

review team analyzed HCPS clerical staffing levels and formulas and compared clerical staffing to four

Florida peer districts – Pinellas County Schools (PCS), Palm Beach Schools (PBS), Duval County Public

Schools (DCPS), and Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). As reflected in Figure 1.9, HCPS is the largest

of the five school systems.

7 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS.


Figure 1.9. HCPS and Peer District Student Membership, 2014-15

Source: Florida Department of Education – Average Salaries for Select Support and Technical Staff, 2014-15

According to the Florida Department of Education8, in 2014-15 HCPS had 1,589 clerical employees which

consists of bookkeepers, secretaries, clerk/clerk typists, and data entry operators. State peer data for

2015-16 are not yet available; however, HCPS data shows that the number of clerical staff at the district

remained relatively unchanged for 2015-16. Figure 1.10 presents the number of clerical employees in

HCPS, OCPS, PCS, PBS, and DCPS for the 2014-15 school year.

8 Source: Florida Department of Education’s “Average Salaries for Select Support and Technical Staff” report under the category “clerical staff”

103,768

186,598

128,070

191,599

207,453

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

PCS PBCS DCPS OCPS HCPS


Figure 1.10. Clerical Staff, HCPS and Peer Districts, 2014-15


The same state staffing report shows declining numbers from two of the peer districts over the past five

years, while HCPS and other peer clerical staff counts have remained constant over the same time period.

Figure 1.11 presents the five-year trend of total clerical staff counts for these five districts.

717

1,004

1,104

1,293

1,576

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

PCS PBCS DCPS OCPS HCPS


Figure 1.11. Clerical Staff, HCPS and Peer Districts, 2010-11 through 2014-15

Source: Florida Department of Education – Average Salaries for Select Support and Technical Staff, 2010-11 through

2014-15

Table 1.4 presents ratios of students to clerical staff and total employees to clerical staff for HCPS and the

peer districts, along with the data used to calculate these measures. The lower ratio, the more clerical

staff relative to the respective population. HCPS has the lowest clerical staff ratio on a student basis and

the second lowest clerical staff ratio on a total staff basis compared to the peer districts.

Table 1.4. Clerical Staff Ratios, HCPS and Peer Districts, 2014-15

Measure PCS PBCS DCPS HCPS OCPS

Student Membership 103,768 186,598 128,070 207,453 191,599

Total Staff 12,962 22,091 12,371 27,000 23,667

Total Clerical Staff 649 978 914 1,589 1,302

Student to Clerical Staff Ratio 159.89 190.80 140.12 130.56 147.16

Total Staff to Clerical Staff

Ratio 19.97 22.59 13.54 16.99 18.18


Central Office Clerical Staff

Of the 1,589 clerical positions in the district, 468 or 29 percent are located in central office (non-school)

locations. Based on interviews with the district staff and observations made while on site, several factors

appear to be contributing to these levels of clerical staff at the HCPS central office:

Voicemail systems are underutilized

There is a proliferation of manual processes for time and attendance reporting and payroll

processing

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

DCPS HCPS OCPS PBCS PCS


Clerical job descriptions and related work processes have not changed with technology

developments

Elimination of clerical support tasks for all but the top three layers of supervisory positions (e.g., answering

phone, reading emails, and typing) and automation and re-engineering of manual and labor intensive

processes (e.g., timekeeping, payroll) will reduce the demand for clerical staff work. This will in turn allow

the district to reduce clerical staff positions to levels similar to those of its peer districts relative to the

respective student populations.

As of September 2016, HCPS began implementation of this recommendation by eliminating 50 central

office clerical positions.

School Clerical Staff

According to staffing data provided by HCPS, there are 1,130 clerical staff in schools throughout the

district.9 HCPS applies a staffing formula to allocate clerical staff to schools based on the school type and

the number of students. The middle school and high school formulas appear to be reasonable based on

current work demands, but these formulas should be revisited after the district’s finance and human

resource information systems are upgraded. The elementary school formula provides the same number

of clerical staff for a 200 student school as for an 849 student school. This is an unusually wide range for

the same staffing. Not until a school gets below 200 students are fewer than three staff allocated. Table

1.5 presents the clerical staff allocation for HCPS elementary schools.

Table 1.5. HCPS Current School Clerical Staffing Formula, Elementary Schools

School Enrollment Clerical Units

1 to 199 students 2

200 to 849 students 3


1,000 to 1,249 students 5

1,250+ students 6

Source: HCPS, spring 2016

The district should change their elementary school clerical formula to provide two clerical positions for up

to 499 students, as reflected in Table 1.6.

9 There is a 9 FTE difference between the state and district data that could not be reconciled.


Table 1.6. Recommended School Clerical Staffing Formula, Elementary Schools

School Enrollment Clerical Units

1 to 499 students 2



1,000 to 1,249 students 5

1250+ students 6


Fiscal Impact

The total estimated annual savings from clerical position reductions in elementary schools and the district

central office combined is $6,143,760. The position reductions increase the HCPS student-clerical staff

ratio to 146.71 and also increase the HCPS total staff to clerical ratio to 19.09.

After implementing other elements of this recommendation, HCPS should evaluate the need to upgrade

the clerical staff job descriptions and revisit pay levels for these positions. This may offset some of the

savings.

The average salary for HCPS clerical staff based on the state data is $26,086. Adding 28 percent for benefits

brings the total average compensation to $33,390. If the district reduced central office clerical staff by 33

percent (156 positions) this would yield annual savings of $6,143,76010.

Changing the elementary school clerical staffing formula would result in the district eliminating 28 clerical

positions across all elementary schools11, yielding annual savings of $934,92012.

The fiscal impact in the table below assumes a two-year phase-in approach.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Reduce the number of central

office clerical staff positions. $0 $2,604,420 $5,208,840 $5,208,840 $5,208,840 $5,208,840

Reduce the number of

elementary school clerical staff

positions.

$0 $467,460 $934,920 $934,920 $934,920 $934,920

Total $0 $3,071,880 $6,143,760 $6,143,760 $6,143,760 $6,143,760

Note: Costs are negative; savings are positive

10 (156 x $33,390 [average salary and benefits]) 11 28 elementary schools have between 200 and 499 students 12 (28 x $33,390 [average salary and benefits])


Recommendation 1-6: Increase use of district’s complaint tracking system.

Policy 1139 of the HCPS board policy manual addresses complaints against administrative staff. The policy

states that “any complaint against an administrator which comes to the attention of the Board shall be

referred to the Superintendent.”

Complaints against instructional staff are handled differently, in accordance with policies 3139

(Complaints Against Instructional Staff Members) and 9130 (Public Complaints). These complaints must

meet the legal definition of a complaint and be reported to the district Office of Professional Standards in

the Human Resources Division. Other complaints about instructional staff, if not addressed directly by the

instructional staff, generally go to the school principal, then the Area Superintendent, then the Chief of

Schools, then the district Superintendent.

The board office receive calls from parents regarding complaints. The Way of Work defines procedures

for handling all calls or emails to board members. All complaints or concerns received in the board office

(by board secretaries) are forwarded to the Superintendent (or designee). During interviews with board

members, several stated they also receive calls directly from parents. While there is no formal policy or

procedure established, board members generally ask if the parent has gone through the channels above

with their complaint. In many of the instances when they are called, the parent has attempted to go

through the channels but was either unsatisfied with the response or did not get a response. For the latter

situation, this is indicative of a communication system that is not working effectively.

HCPS does not have a districtwide complaint tracking system. Only one school, the Choice School, uses

software to track and monitor the communication and resolution of parent complaints. The Office of the

Chief of Schools receives, on average, 25 calls per day. For approximately 50 percent of the calls, the

parent has not yet gone through the proper channels. The nature of complaints received by the Chief of

Schools Office varies throughout the year, and include complaints about:

Grades, graduation, promotion to next grade

Student suspensions

Change of educational placement

Student disciplinary matters

Lack of responsiveness from school administrators or area superintendents

Absent a system to track these calls/complaints, callers are requested to call back if the complaint is not

addressed. In some situations, the school administration or Area Superintendent’s office will notify the

Chief of Schools that a complaint has been resolved. The lack of a system also prevents the establishment

of an audit trail of complaints, the related communications, and the resulting resolution of the complaint.

A complaint tracking system can facilitate the necessary communications, establish an audit trail, and

provide reports that show district effectiveness and/or point to possible problem areas that need to be

addressed by the district, area or school administration.


HCPS should evaluate the existing complaint tracking software in place at the Choice School, and if it is

determined to meet district needs, implement the software districtwide. Implementing this

recommendation will help support the district’s strategic goal of “Communicating with Stakeholders.”

Fiscal Impact

Some additional licensing costs may need to be incurred, along with staff training, but these costs are not

expected to be significant. This recommendation can be implemented with existing district resources.

Recommendation 1-7: Develop a decision-making framework for the central office, area offices and

schools.

The Florida Education Code Section 1001.42(19) addresses local-level decision making for Florida schools.

This section states that boards are to “adopt policies that clearly encourage and enhance maximum

decision making appropriate to the school site. Such policies must include guidelines for schools in the

adoption and purchase of instructional materials, the implementation of student health, staff training,

school advisory council member training, student support services, budgeting, and the allocation of staff

resources.” This law is reinforced through HCPS board policy 2120.

Over the past 25 years, decision making in most public school systems has become more decentralized,

allowing principals and site-based planning committees more latitude in making school-level decisions. In

many school systems, decentralization created inefficiencies. Different schools apply different curricula,

remedial programs, and technologies to address school needs. The burden for central office functions

often became greater, requiring the support, maintenance, and training of a larger number of programs.

These factors have prompted many school systems to re-think their decision-making framework and to

apply more standards to promote consistent learning and efficiency while not overly constraining the

creativity and flexibility needed at the school level.

At HCPS, the decision-making process is more complex because of the area superintendent offices. HCPS

currently does not have a decision-making framework or any single document that defines decision-

making authority between the central office, the area offices, and the schools.

The job description for principals outlines the following essential duties and responsibilities:

Ensure conformance to state, national and school board standards

Develop and coordinate educational programs

Develop and administer educational programs for students with mental or physical disabilities

Confer with teachers, students, and parents concerning educational and behavior problems in

school

Establish and maintain relationships with colleges, community organizations, and other schools

to coordinate educational services


Requisition and allocate supplies, equipment and instructional material as needed

Direct preparation of class schedules, cumulative records, and attendance reports

Walk about school building and property to monitor safety and security

Plan and monitor the school budget

Plan for and direct building maintenance

The area superintendent job description includes the following essential duties and responsibilities:

Supervise, develop and evaluate principals to improve student achievement

Gather and utilize data to drive professional development

Develop a team of support-providers and problem-solvers to address stakeholder concerns

Inspect and analyze regularly the operations within the area…and take action to continuously

improve

Recommend hiring, transfer, and termination of school principals

Neither of these job descriptions fully define the decision authority of the position. This is not uncommon,

but can lead to confusion and inconsistent decision making throughout a school system. For example, who

can make decisions on professional development and under what circumstances? Who can make

decisions on what type of technology to purchase at schools? Who has the authority to establish lunch

schedules? The HCPS policy manual provides guidance on some decisions, but there is no single source

for principals, area management, or district management to reference in making decisions.

The review team identified examples where the lack of a decision-making framework was contributing to

inefficient practices, and expects to learn more in Phase III of this efficiency audit in fall 2016. Below are

two examples learned during Phases I and II:

Custodial services. While not documented in their job description, HCPS school principals have

decision authority over custodial services at their schools. However, principals are not trained in

the operation of a custodial function. Certain decisions relating to equipment, scheduling,

cleaning frequencies, and custodial supplies should be made by positions that are trained in such

matters. While a central office custodial function exists, it serves only in an advisory and support

role and does not have the authority to make decisions. As noted in Chapter 2 – Facilities

Management of this report, the decentralized approach to custodial services has contributed to

an inefficient and overstaffed operation.

Technology. HCPS area superintendent offices are being provided more latitude in making

technology decisions for their area. This creates complications for the district’s IT Department in

that multiple service platforms might need to be supported. This is less efficient and less effective

for the district as a whole.


Some decisions, such as curriculum decisions, should be made or guided centrally in order to provide

consistent application and efficient operations at the school, area and district administration levels. Other

decisions, such as differentiation of instruction for individual students, can and should be made at the

school level. Documentation of a single decision-making framework will help ensure that all principals and

area and district administrators understand the criteria for making certain decisions. Adopting a decision-

making framework will ensure its consistent use by all positions involved in decision making. At a

minimum, decisions should be identified in the following four categories:

1. Site-based decisions not requiring district administration approval. These are decisions that can

be made or approved independently by principals or their designees without intervention or

approval by district administration. These decisions might include teaching strategies used and

assignments of special projects to staff.

2. Site-based selection from a list of district-provided options. Examples of selection lists might

include computer and instructional software available for purchase. Schools can be provided

choices of computer brands and software as long as they meet minimum specifications

established by district administration’s technology function. Purchasing items that are not on the

approved list could result in the inability of the technology function to effectively support the

hardware or software. Selecting from a list provides decision-making flexibility within a

framework that helps ensure districtwide efficiency and effectiveness.

3. Site-based decisions requiring district or area office approval. Certain decisions, such as hiring

or terminating school staff, should require the approval of area and district administration to

ensure compliance with state and federal laws and board policy.

4. District or area office decisions. There are certain decisions that should be made by district

administration and enforced at all schools. A single standardized curriculum and the school bell

schedule are examples of decisions that should be established, or standardized, by district

administration. In making these decisions, however, district administration should elicit input

from schools and area offices to ensure that decisions make sense for the schools, as well as the

district.

In developing a site-based decision-making framework, the authority, using the four options above, should

be defined for the following types of decisions:

Curriculum / curriculum guides

Academic program decisions

Ability to re-allocate instructional and/or non-instructional staff to meet needs identified by

school

Response to Intervention

Assessment / Benchmark testing development and scheduling

Course offerings (secondary)

Identification of professional development needs


School calendar

School bell schedule

Class size

Bus routes

Cafeteria schedule

Authority over custodians and how they spend their time

Authority over food service workers and how they spend their time

Work schedules for any categories of staff

Number of work days per year for any categories of staff

Block scheduling (secondary)

Terminating school staff

Establishing staffing needs

Establishing non-staff budget needs

School facility renovations

Student discipline – code of conduct

Student activity funds – software / processes

Class rank determination / computation

Purchasing decisions as they relate to teachers’ or principals’ authority to select vendors, versus

using the district administration purchasing department or only pre-approved vendors

Computers / servers

Instructional software purchases

Hiring school staff

In implementing this recommendation, the district administration should first conduct a brief online staff

survey to gauge perceptions of decision-making authority based on the list of decisions, and any additional

decision areas desired by district management. A committee of school principals, area assistant

superintendents, and district leaders from all program and operational areas should be convened to

review the survey results and develop the decision-making framework.

Job descriptions for all affected instructional and school administrative positions, area superintendent

positions, and central office leadership positions should reference the decision-making framework.

Fiscal Impact

The district is expected to need outside assistance ($50,000 in consulting or contractor fees) in

implementing this recommendation. This is based on an estimated 250 hours of facilitation and advisory

services at an hourly rate of $200. In addition, school, area and district administrators will need to dedicate

approximately 20 hours each to the development of the framework and modification of job descriptions.


The outside consultant/contractor will serve as an independent facilitator for the committee and be

primarily responsible for developing the decision-making framework materials.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-1 2019-20 2020-21

Develop site-based

decision-making

framework

($50,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Note: Costs are negative. Savings are positive.

41 Chapter 2 – Financial Management

Chapter 2 – Financial Management

Introduction

In order to maximize the effectiveness of financial resources and plan for future needs, school districts

must rely on sound financial management. An effective financial management function ensures timely

and accurate financial reporting, adequate internal controls, efficient accounting operations that

maximize the use of technology, and sound financial decision making.

This chapter provides commendations and recommendations related to five aspects of financial

management of HCPS:

Financial Management, Accounting, and Reporting

Budgeting

Purchasing

Accounts Payable

Payroll

Financial Overview

At Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS), financial management is a major undertaking, as the district

manages a budget of more than $2.8 billion (all funds).13 School districts in Florida are funded through the

Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP). School boards must impose an established tax rate to generate

a required local share of funds in order to obtain the state share of funding for their respective districts.

District budgets are divided into “funds” that represent funding sources. The General Fund is the district’s

primary operating fund and is supported by state and local revenues. Other major funds include Federal

Funds (e.g., Title I, student nutrition), Debt Service Funds, Capital Funds (e.g., construction, school buses),

and Internal Service Funds (e.g., health insurance, workers compensation). Figure 2.1 presents the

expected distribution of HCPS funds for the 2016-17 budget.

13 Anticipated budget for 2016-17 based on First Public Hearing of Budget on August 2, 2016; presentation located at http://www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/docs/00/00/01/38/1617FYFirstPublicHearing.pdf.


Figure 2.1. HCPS Projected Revenue by Fund, 2016-17

Source: First Public Hearing of 2016-17 Budget, August 2, 2016

According to the Operating Summary for the 2015-16 school year, the HCPS General Fund budget was

$1.68 billion, reflecting a decrease of $5 million or 0.3 percent over the previous year. Table 2.1 presents

a five-year history of General Fund actual expenditures for 2011-12 through 2015-16. During this time

total General Fund expenditures increased 22 percent, or just over 5 percent annually on average. The

largest percentage increase (8.1 percent) was between 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Table 2.1. HCPS General Fund Expenditures by Type, 2011-12 through 2015-16


(Unaudited)

100 Salaries $927,033,356 $928,224,593 $982,290,892 $1,059,397,964 $1,061,859,991

200 Employee Benefits $230,255,688 $223,956,894 $251,351,846 $275,671,926 $285,201,347

300 Purchased Services $145,180,414 $163,755,958 $188,555,479 $212,823,931 $225,766,012

400 Energy Services $47,185,321 $47,186,192 $45,636,656 $43,549,290 $37,271,456

500 Materials & Supplies $54,160,581 $58,411,876 $49,226,606 $58,256,112 $38,116,414

600 Capital Outlay $19,771,004 $15,494,563 $19,520,658 $16,982,920 $14,880,861

700 Other $19,021,885 $20,758,193 $22,259,052 $13,371,477 $16,947,316

900 Transfers $38,354 $33,348 $26,980 $5,269,882 $25,933

Total $1,442,646,602 $1,457,821,617 $1,558,868,168 $1,685,323,501 $1,680,069,331



Personnel related costs (salaries and employee benefits) represent 80 percent of the district’s total

General Fund expenditure. If $17 million in substitute costs are included (part of the account codes 300

and 700 above) the percentage is above 81 percent.

General Fund, 64%

Federal Funds, 12%

Capital Outlay, 9%

Internal Services, 7%

Debt Service, 8%


The large percentage increase in purchased services relates primarily to the district’s charter schools

growth.

On a per student basis, General Fund expenditures have also increased over the past five years (see Figure

2.2.), but decreased 2.8 percent in 2015-16 (unaudited), largely because of the district’s cost cutting

efforts. Since 2011-12, expenditures per student increased from $7,429 to $8,099, or 9 percent. The

largest annual percentage gains (6.3 percent) occurred in 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Figure 2.2. General Fund Expenditures per Student, 2011-12 through 2015-16



Table 2.2 presents the distribution of General Fund Expenditures by Function, such as instruction, general

administration and maintenance of plant. This information shows that HCPS spent a higher percentage on

instruction (65.5 percent) in 2015-16 compared to 2011-12 levels (63.6 percent).

Table 2.2. HCPS General Fund Expenditure Distribution by Function, 2011-12 and 2015-16

Expenditure Type (Function) 2011-12 2015-16

(unaudited)

5000 Instruction 63.55% 65.53%

6100 Student Personnel Services 3.84% 3.87%

6200 Instructional Media Services 1.37% 1.26%

6300 Instruction & Curriculum Dev. Services 1.33% 1.74%

6400 Instructional Staff Training Services 2.16% 1.47%

6500 Instructional-Related Technology 2.12% 1.87%

7100 Board of Education 0.09% 0.15%

7200 General Administration 0.27% 0.39%

7300 School Administration 6.01% 6.05%

$7,429 $7,380$7,840

$8,331$8,099

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16


Expenditure Type (Function) 2011-12 2015-16

(unaudited)

7400 Facilities Acquis & Construct 0.22% 0.07%

7500 Fiscal Services 0.42% 0.38%

7600 Food Services 0.02% 0.02%

7700 Central Services 1.56% 2.44%

7800 Transportation Services 4.65% 3.74%

7900 Operation of Plant 7.57% 6.56%

8100 Maintenance of Plant 1.92% 1.61%

8200 Administrative Technology Services 0.04% 0.02%

9100 Community Services 2.84% 2.80%

9700 Transfer of Funds 0.00% 0.00%

Total 100.00% 100.00%


The primary impetus for this efficiency study was the decline in General Fund balances over the past five

years. The General Fund balance, which has several components, represents the difference between the

district’s assets and liabilities, and is similar to net worth. Some of the fund balances may be restricted for

specific uses by the source of funds; other balances may be assigned based on district decisions. Any other

amounts represents the “unassigned” fund balance.

The Florida Department of Education (DOE) requires minimum balances for the unassigned balances in

the General Fund as a percentage of total operating expenditures. Section 1011.051 of the Florida

Education Code states that if the unassigned fund balance level is projected to fall below 3 percent of the

district’s annual General Fund revenues, the superintendent must provide written notification to the

school board and the Commissioner of Education. HCPS’ unassigned fund balances have exceeded 5

percent of General Fund revenues in each of the past five years, thereby meeting the legal requirements.

However, HCPS board policy 6210 requires the district to maintain an unassigned fund balance of “at least

30 days of total operating expenses,” which is above 8 percent. HCPS is not meeting this requirement, but

through implementing recommendations contained in this report, the district should be able to restore

the unassigned fund balance to the board established target.

Total fund balances have declined precipitously. From June 30, 2011 to 2015, the total General Fund

balance declined from $361 million to $146 million, or almost 60 percent. The district’s most recent

estimate for the June 30, 2016 fund balance (unaudited) is $146 million, reflecting virtually no change

from the prior year. While current fund balance levels meet the state minimum requirements, bond rating

agencies may desire higher fund balances to support higher bond ratings. Higher bond ratings are

desirable in that they reduce bond interest costs, among other advantages. Figure 2.3 presents the HCPS

General Fund balances since 2010-11.


Figure 2.3. HCPS General Fund Balance, 2010-11 to 2015-16 (unaudited)

Source: HCPS General Fund – Fund Balance, Comparison across Fiscal Years, 9/23/2016

The decline in General Fund balances has been due – in the simplest terms – to the excess of General Fund

expenditures over revenues during this time period. The HCPS board seeks to reverse this trend.

Financial Management, Accounting and Reporting

HCPS Business Office

The HCPS Business Office is led by a Chief Business Officer and includes the functions of accounting

services, budget/cash management services, payment services (accounts payable and payroll),

procurement services, and unit allocation. Figure 2.4 presents the Business Office organizational chart,

which reflects a reorganization that became effective summer 2016. In an effort to save costs and reduce

the span of control to more reasonable levels, this unit consolidated several management positions and

the Chief Business Officer now has five direct reports instead of eleven (excluding secretarial staff). This

is a more effective organizational structure for the division.

Figure 2.4. HCPS Business Office Organizational Chart

Chief Business Officer

Payroll/Payment Services

Budget/Cash Management

Services

Procurement Services

Accounting Services

Planning and Related Services

Source: HCPS Business Office

$361.1

$298.6

$269.3

$229.6

$146.0 $146.1

$0.0

$50.0

$100.0

$150.0

$200.0

$250.0

$300.0

$350.0

$400.0

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16(unaudited)


Other changes included the movement of “unit allocation” from another HCPS division to the Business

Office. The review team endorses this move. Unit allocations are staffing formulas for virtually all school

level positions, and this unit is responsible for maintaining and updating them.

The Chief Business Officer is the lead financial executive in the district. The position responsibilities for

the Chief Business Officer include the following:

Plans, organizes, controls, and directs the operations, activities and services within the business

unit.

Supervising the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and required reports

to the Florida Department of Education and School Board,

Monitor compliance and financial indicators, such as the general fund balances and class size

ratios

Establish and maintain effective and sound internal controls

Preparation of annual and capital budget.14

Financial Information Systems

The financial function uses enterprise resource planning (ERP) software to support its operations. The

current ERP system, which also supports human resources, is Infor (formerly Lawson). Infor has specific

modules for purchasing, accounts payable, payroll, and general accounting, and also has reporting and

other tools. This system – which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 – Technology of this report – is

significantly outdated because the district has not kept up with the current versions of the software. The

district’s current use of the Infor financial system and other supporting information systems are described

throughout this chapter.

Each year, the district must undergo an external audit of its financial statements. A “clean” or unqualified

opinion by the external auditor is the most desired, as this opinion states that the financial statements

are reasonable within materiality limits. HCPS has consistently received clean audit opinions on its

financial statements, and this is a good indicator of sound accounting practices.

HCPS posts online its Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, which includes the auditor’s report and

many other schedules containing or explaining supplemental financial and operating information. HCPS

has consistently received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the

Government Finance Officers Association on its annual financial reporting. The district’s Comprehensive

Annual Financial Report must meet specified requirements to be eligible for this award.

The Accounting Services Team is responsible for the above reporting responsibilities as well as all general

accounting functions. The Accounting Services Team also oversees four other major accounting areas:

14 HCPS Chief Business Officer job description.


Student Nutrition Services Accounting, Program Cost Accounting, Property Control Accounting, and

Special Revenue Accounting.

Recommendation 2-1: Consider implementing more robust closing procedures to ensure the accuracy of

monthly financial statements.

Monthly, the district prepares internal financial statements that contain budget to actual comparisons. In

most school districts, the process to close the books at month-end and prepare financial statements takes

weeks. At HCPS the financial statements are prepared on the first day of the following month – less than

24 hours. HCPS does not delay the preparation of financial statements for reconciliation of sub-ledgers,

reconciliation of bank statements or other activities commonly performed by school districts to ensure

the accuracy of month-end financial statements. Any adjustments resulting from these activities are

reported by HCPS in the following (current) month instead of the prior month. The primary advantage of

this approach is that the district is able to view monthly financial statements virtually in real-time. The

disadvantage of this approach is that the quality of monthly financial statements may be sacrificed.

The district should consult with Infor and its external auditor to determine a proper course of action, as

there may be some functional limitations in implementing this recommendation immediately. Best

practices suggest more rigorous closing procedures, and a closing checklist, to ensure that the monthly

financial statements are accurate and can be relied upon by the board and district and school

administrators. Once implemented, the financial statements should be able to be produced within 10 to

14 days after month-end.

Fiscal Impact


Recommendation 2-2: Make changes to the district’s account codes to support more effective cost

control and financial reporting.

Account codes are used to assign definition to an expenditure item. A district’s chart of accounts is a

complete listing of the account codes. An account code structure is typically broken into segments, with

each segment explaining a different type of expenditure. Account codes are extremely important in that

they should provide adequate definition for expenditure control so that accountability for spending can

be achieved.

Below are the major elements of the HCPS account code structure:

Fund –the funding source, such as the General Fund.

Function – the school district purpose for the expenditure, such as instruction, administration, or

transportation.

Object – the type of expenditure, such as salaries, supplies, or contracted services.


Program – relates to specific academic or other defined programs, such as Basic Education for

Grades K-3 and Exceptional Student Education (ESE).

Site – relates to a district organizational unit, such as a school or administrative department. At

HCPS, several departments may comprise a division such as Human Resources.

Project – this code is used in theory to meet temporary project accounting needs, most commonly

grants.

While the district’s account code structure is compliant with state requirements, the review team noted

several weaknesses that adversely affect the district’s ability to budget and control specific expenditures.

These are discussed briefly below:

Insufficient Object Codes

The state code structure does not provide sufficient object codes to effectively track expenditures, leaving

it up to the districts to establish their own supplemental codes. For example, there are no object codes

for basic types of supplemental pay, such as overtime or stipends. As a result, the only way to obtain this

information is through the payroll system. In another example, only one object code is used to track

“professional and technical services.” It cannot be determined from the accounting system which services

are consulting services, legal services, auditing services, or other types of professional services.

Since these important line items do not appear on a financial statement or on a budget, budgets – the

primary control mechanism for expenditures – cannot be established for these types of expenditures.

HCPS should develop a complete inventory of the types of costs (object codes) it needs to track for

effective cost control, and add those accounts to the object code listing.

Improper Use of Project Codes

Project codes are established for specific projects, such as grants. Other non-grant projects, such as

construction a district initiative, can be set up through the use of project codes. The defining characteristic

of a project is that it has a beginning and an end that may not correspond to the district’s fiscal year.

Currently there are 2,313 project codes listed in the HCPS chart of accounts. Most of these accounts relate

to grants or projects. However, of these project codes, 412 have the exact same name of “School Supply

Budget.” No two account codes should have the same name.

Further, “school supplies” are not a project but a type of expenditure (object code). Various types of “fees”

are also inappropriately listed as a project code. By embedding object codes into project codes, the

integrity of the account code structure is compromised. This complicates the reporting process and

expenditure control by having two types of codes that are used for the same purpose. More detailed

object codes should be established as such, or as what are referred to as “sub-object” codes providing

lower level details.


Project codes should only be used to define projects, and controls should be implemented to ensure their

proper use. All requests for new project codes should be approved by Accounting Services based on

specific criteria constituting a project.

Lack of Hierarchy or Roll-up to HCPS Division Level Codes

The state account code structure prescribes function codes, such as Basic Education, School

Administration, Fiscal Services, and Food Services. In some cases, such as Fiscal Services, this function

aligns with the HCPS organizational structure. In other instances they do not. For example, Human

Resources is a division in HCPS, but does not have a defined function code by the state; it rolls up into

another higher level account code. The only way to view a Human Resources aggregate budget report is

to generate “site” code reports for the eight departments in the Human Resources Division.

The district’s chart of accounts should be structured whereby financial information can be easily reported

at the department level and aggregated at the division level. Division leaders cannot be expected to

monitor their overall budget without adequate reporting to do so. During the review team’s interviews

with division leaders, several could not cite their overall budget responsibility.

HCPS should modify its account code structure to eliminate or at least minimize the impact of the above

issues. The district’s external auditor should also be consulted. Business Services should work with the

software vendor (Infor) and the HCPS Technology Department to determine what changes can be made

within the current system limitations of the chart of accounts. If the district decides to move to another

ERP system, requirements for the chart of account structure should be specified so that both state

requirements and local reporting and expenditure control needs are met. An improved account code

structure will improve the budget development process, the reporting process, and the analysis of actual

to budgeted expenditures for cost control.

Fiscal Impact

This recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources.

Recommendation 2-3: Upgrade the education, experience, and certification requirements in the Chief

Business Officer job description.

The Chief Business Officer job description contains the following requirements for education, work

experience and certification:

Education: A master’s degree. Degree in Educational Leadership or Administration/Supervision

preferred.

Experience: Three years of increasingly responsible experience in classroom teaching preferred,

with three years of related management or supervisory experience required. Experience in public

school administration, public school district administration, or other large diverse organizations

required.


Certificates/Licenses/Registration: Florida Professional Education Certificate. Educational

Leadership, School Principal, or Administration/Supervision preferred.15

These requirements do not speak to financial or accounting degrees, experience or certification. This is

highly unusual for the financial management function of the eight largest school district in the U.S.

By way of comparison, below are requirements for the Chief Financial Officer position of Orange County

Public Schools:

Master’s degree in Business Administration, Public Administration, or Educational Administration.

Training and experience in budgeting, accounting, and related technology or CPA required.

Eight years of business and finance management experience (five years in school district

administration).

Experience as a Chief Financial Officer preferable.16

While the current Chief Business Officer meets the Orange County requirements, the risk is that with the

current HCPS job description, the next Chief Business Officer may not. HCPS should upgrade its

requirements for financial management education, experience and certification.

Budgeting

Section 1011.035 of the Florida Education Code states the Florida school districts should “provide budget

transparency to enable taxpayers, parent, and education advocates to obtain school district budget and

related information in a manner that is simply explained and easily understandable.” Because of the

timing of the state’s legislative session, school district budgets are not adopted until the budgeted year

begins. Section 1011.08 states that between July 1 (beginning of the fiscal year) and the date the budget

becomes official, “district boards are authorized to approve ordinary expenditures, including salary

payments, which are necessary for the approved school program.”

The HPCS Budget process begins in January of each year. According to the materials provided at a board

budget workshop on April 28, 2015, the following calendar reflects the series of events and other

important dates in the development of the 2016-17 budget:

January – Governor’s Budget

February – Unit (staffing formula) review and allocation for the year

March – Legislative session begins

April – Review and Plan

May – End of Legislative Session (First Calculation)

15 HCPS Chief Business Officer job description; https://www2.sdhc.k12.fl.us/jobdescrs/PDF/10102_Chief_Business_Officer.pdf 16 Orange County Public Schools Chief Financial Officer job description; https://www.ocps.net/es/hr/compensation/jobdesc/JobsAdministrative/ChiefFinancialOfficer%2011-07-2014.pdf


June – School Board Workshop

July – Property Appraiser’s Office, Department of Education

August – 13th month closure

September – Final Public Hearing

October – Financial Audit

In addition to the unit allocation calculation spreadsheets, other templates are provided to schools and

departments to identify additional spending needs. This information is reviewed and aggregated by the

Business Office.

In addition to budget development, the Business Office is also responsible for monitoring the budget,

approving and executing budget transfer requests, and conducting budget analysis. Certain budget

transfer requests must be approved by the Board. The review team analyzed several months of budget to

actual reports developed by the Business Office. These reports contained thoughtful analysis of spending

variances. Beginning in 2015-16 the district included more data, graphs, charts, and analysis of revenues

and expenditures.

Figure 2.5 presents the organizational chart for the Budget/Cash Management Services Team.

Figure 2.5. Budget/Cash Management Services Team Organizational Chart

Budget / Cash Management Services Team

Asst. Dept. Manager, Cash

Mgmt. Analyst, Sr. Fiscal Analyst, Sr. Fiscal Accountant 4

VACANT, Accountant 4

Business Process Specialist

Accountant 1

Clerk 3, Accounting

VACANT, Clerk 3 Accounting

VACANT, Secretary 2

Clerk 3, Accounting (2)

Clerk 2, Accounting

VACANT, School Bookkeeper 2- TSA

VACANT, Accountant 1,

PMOE

Source: HCPS Business Office

Recommendation 2-4: Develop supplemental annual budget report to improve clarity and transparency.

The Florida DOE establishes the format for reporting of the annual budget. Table 2.3 presents a summary

of how this information was presented for the 2015-16 General Fund Budget.


Table 2.3. HCPS District Summary Budget, 2015-16

Item Amount

Section II

Revenues $1,628,193,031

Other Financing Sources $18,372,429

Fund Balance $146,022,868

Total Estimated Revenues, Other Financing Sources

and Fund Balance $1,792,588,328

Section III

Appropriations (Expenditures) $1,641,680,932

Other Financing Uses $4,000,000

Fund Balance $146,907,396

Total Appropriations, Other Financing Uses and Fund

Balance $1,792,588,328

Source: Florida DOE Finance Data Base; http://cdn.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7507/urlt/d29.budget1516.pdf

The review team understands that the district must meet state reporting requirements and also provide

this same information to the board. However, this information is somewhat misleading and may confuse

rather than inform board members and other public stakeholders. Further, the above format is not

consistent with how the district’s audited financial statements are presented, and these are not provided

until the following year after the budget year is complete.

What is not obvious from the state budget presentation format is that the district projected an operating

deficit for 2015-16 of $13.5 million (total revenues – total expenditures). For 2014-15, the deficit was

$69.8 million. These operating deficits, while they can be calculated using the information available, do

not appear on the budgets adopted by the board.

The district should implement supplemental reporting of budget information that more closely

corresponds with the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report at year-end. Table 2.4 presents the district

summary budget information in the proposed format.

Table 2.4. Proposed Supplemental Budget Reporting

Item Amount

Revenues $1,628,193,031

Expenditures $1,641,680,932

Excess (Deficiency) ($13,487,901)

Other Financing Sources and Uses $14,372,429

Net Change in Fund Balance $884,528

Fund Balance – Beginning of Year $146,022,868

Fund Balance – End of Year $146,907,396

Source: Gibson Consulting Group, using format summary from the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and

Changes in Fund Balances, HCPS Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015


There are other ways the budget document can be improved. Nothing in the state budget format speaks

to efficiency or includes efficiency or other performance measures. For each HCPS department budget

and aggregated division budget, key performance measures should be included to provide context to the

budget, proving to the board and the public that the district is either operating efficiently and effectively

or moving in that direction.

Providing a five-year history (as opposed to projected budget year only) on an aggregate and per-student

basis would also provide important contextual information regarding expenditure and performance

trends. The most recent years’ measures could also be compared to other Florida peer districts or national

benchmarks such as the Council of Great City Schools’ (CGCS) annual performance measure comparison

report. All of this information would provide a more transparent picture of what is going on behind the

budget numbers, and put the Superintendent and the board in a better position to evaluate and approve

the annual budget.

Fiscal Impact


Recommendation 2-5: Start budget process earlier.

Last year, the HCPS budget was adopted on September 8th. This year the budget is expected to be adopted

September 6th. Both dates are more than 2 months after the fiscal year begins (July 1st). The timing of the

Florida legislative calendar adversely affects the timing of district planning and budgeting, as well as union

contract negotiations.

This notwithstanding, HCPS should begin its budget process much earlier. For many large school systems,

the next year’s budget process starts the day after the current year budget is adopted. Analysis of prior

year expenditures and measures and current year budgeted amounts can support a more informed

budget process, and these activities can begin much earlier.

HCPS should begin the budget development process in October instead of January, and develop multiple

high-level scenarios for state funding expectations.

Fiscal Impact


Recommendation 2-6: Document new budget process.

This year the budget development process began to change at HCPS. In addition to the account code

issues and reporting limitations discussed earlier in this chapter, other concerns were expressed by

division leaders about the budget process in prior years:


Several felt that they were obligated, if not instructed, to keep the prior year budget even though

it did not reflect intended spending.

When expenditures were identified during the year and budgeted funds were not available,

money had to be moved between budget line items to cover the overrun.

In February 2016 a new Budget Committee was created by the Chief of Staff, and meetings were held

monthly to develop more thoughtful budgets that reflected actual spending. HCPS is going the right

direction with these changes and should continue with this new approach and fully document the new

process. With other recommendations in this chapter regarding additional and earlier budget and

performance measure analysis, an improved account code structure, and budget reporting

enhancements, the combination of these changes in a single, documented manual will help the district

achieve a “best practice” budget process.

Fiscal Impact


Procurement

The mission of HCPS’ Procurement Department is to contribute to the delivery of a low cost education by

enabling schools and other departments to obtain quality equipment, goods and services at the best

possible value on the basis of competitive bids considering cost, quality, suitability, service, and delivery.

School districts in Florida must abide by federal and state laws, rules, and procedures pertaining to

purchasing. Districts must comply with the purchasing policies in 6A-1.012 of the Florida Administrative

Code. These policies outline the requirements for the purchasing rules established by school districts.

Included is the requirement that competitive solicitations be requested from three or more sources for

the procurement of any goods or services exceeding $50,000. HCPS’ policy 6320 sets forth additional

procurement thresholds, outlined in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Procurement Thresholds

Requirement Threshold

No written quotes required $0 - $5,000.00

Minimum of three (3) telephone quotes $5,000.01 - $10,000.00

Minimum of three (3) written quotes (i.e. Invitation to Quote (ITQ)) $10,000.01 - $50,000.00

Formal solicitation $50,000.01+

Source: Board Policy 6320

In addition, policy 6320 sets forth approval authority to department heads and school principals, outlined

in Table 2.6.


Table 2.6. Approval Thresholds

Approval Threshold

Site Administrators $0 - $5,000

School Principals $0 - $5,000

School Principals (purchases of commodities paid from the internal funds of the school) $0 - $10,000

Superintendent (consultant agreements) $5,000 - $10,000

School Board (consultant agreements, and Agreements for Technical Services) >$10,000

School Board >$50,000

Source: Board Policy 6320

Procurement Overview

Procurement encompasses the processes and procedures for acquiring all goods and services. Many of

these purchases are authorized through purchase orders (POs), although HCPS can make direct payments,

such as utilities payments, without purchases orders. These are called non-purchase orders (NPOs). The

volume and dollar amount of purchase orders and NPOs processed from fiscal year (FY) 2012 to 2016

(through 4/30/2016) are shown in Tables 2.7 and 2.8.

Table 2.7. Purchase Orders Processed FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

Fiscal Year PO Count PO Amount

2012 50,025 $214,932,563

2013 45,645 $167,723,241

2014 48,812 $285,838,564

2015 46,378 $196,469,715

2016 (through 4/30/2016) 35,338 $208,019,191

Source: Purchase Order Detail FY 2012 – 2016 (through 1/31/2016)

Table 2.8. Non-Purchase Orders Processed FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

Fiscal Year NPO Count NPO Amount

2012 120,235 $500,697,451

2013 119,736 $507,154,615

2014 122,523 $530,170,318

2015 116,896 $586,307,232

2016 (through 4/30/16) 97,741 $488,902,151

Source: Non-Purchase Order Detail FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

The HCPS Procurement Department has implemented a P-Card Program to facilitate the purchasing of

small-dollar, reoccurring goods and services. The volume and dollar amount of P-Card purchases from FY

2012 to 2016 (through 4/30/2016) is shown in Table 2.9.


Table 2.9. P-Card Purchases FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

Fiscal Year Purchases Count Purchases Amount

2012 119,166 $35,893,149

2013 112,447 $35,089,007

2014 120,248 $40,218,187

2015 124,567 $42,214,872

2016 (through 4/30/16) 109,293 $33,563,997

Source: P-Card Transaction Detail FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

As required by the Florida Administrative Code 6A-1.012, the procurement of goods and services over

$50,000 are required to be competitively bid through a formal solicitation. The volume17 of HCPS formal

solicitations from FY 2012 to 2016 (through 4/30/2016) is shown in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10. Formal Solicitations FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

Fiscal Year Contract Count

2012 68

2013 64

2014 74

2015 75

2016 (through 4/30/16) 76

Source: Formal Solicitation Detail FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

HCPS is a member of the CGCS that launched a Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to

establish a common set of KPIs in various school operations, including procurement. Table 2.11 presents

several Procurement performance indicators with the HCPS metric and the corresponding CGCS quartile

of the district. Compared to other urban public school systems, HCPS is highly efficient with regards to

costs per purchase order, strategic sourcing, and P-Card purchasing. In addition, HCPS has a high

percentage of Procurement staff with professional certificates. The district is less efficient in the

processing of formal and informal solicitations (e.g., obtaining quotes over the phone), and falls behind

other districts in procurement savings and costs per $100k revenue.

17 The review team was not able to obtain the dollar amount of formal solicitations from FY 2012 through FY 2016.


Table 2.11. CGCS Managing for Results – Procurement Performance Indicators (FY 2014)

Performance Indicator HCPS Metric CGCS Quartile

Procurement Cost per Purchase Order $27 Best

Procurement Costs per $100k Revenue $76 Median

Procurement Savings Ratio 2.1% Median

Strategic Sourcing Ratio 83.3% Best

Competitive Procurement Ratio 80.5% Median

Cooperative Purchasing Ratio 2.9% Worst

P-Card Purchasing Ratio 9.3% Best

PALT18 for Requests for Proposals 100 Median

PALT18 for Invitations for Bids 55 Median

PALT18 for Informal Solicitations 15 Worst

Procurement Staff with Professional Certificate 32% Best

Source: Council of the Great City Schools Managing for Results report 2015 (Results from FY 2014)

Department Organization

The HCPS Procurement Department is comprised of 25 positions as shown in Figure 2.6. This department

is organized into five teams: Maintenance Support Team, District Support Team, Education Support Team,

Contract Support Team, and P-Card Support Team. The maintenance, district, and education support

teams are mainly responsible for informal solicitations, contract administration, end-user support, and

the processing of purchase orders for their assigned commodity types. The contract support team

processes all competitive solicitations, and the P-Card support team oversees the processing of all

purchases made on procurement cards.

The General Manager directs procurement policies, procedures, and activities and oversees the day-to-

day operations of the entire Procurement Department. The General Manager is supported by three Senior

Procurement Officers, one Senior Procurement Officer II, and one Manager that lead the five support

teams. Each team is comprised of two to five Officers, Assistants, Analysts, Accountants, and/or

Accounting Clerks.

18 Procurement Administrative Lead Time


Figure 2.6. Procurement Department Organizational Structure

General Manager Procurement

Executive Secretary (Vacant)

Sr. Procurement Officer

(Maintenance Support Team)

Sr. Procurement Officer (District Support Team)

Sr. Procurement Officer (Education

Support Team)

Sr. Procurement Officer II (Contract

Support Team)

P-Card Dept. Manager

Procurement Officer

Procurement Assistant

Accountant II

Procurement Officer (3)

Procurement Assistant (2)


Procurement Analyst

Accountant II


Procurement Assistant

Accountant I

Accounting Clerk III (Vacant)

Source: HCPS Procurement Department

Commendation 2-1: The Procurement Department utilizes a robust management software for P-Card

transactions called Resolve, powered by Solvit.

Through using Resolve, the Department has been able to maintain strong internal controls over P-Card

transactions, and has achieved highly efficient and effective processes. The Resolve software is configured

to the district’s bank files so purchases made on P-Cards are automatically loaded into the system. As a

result, bookkeepers only need to enter a few additional details, including item descriptions and account

strings, in order to expense the transaction. Custom workflows are set up within the system based on the

account string to ensure the transaction is routed to the appropriate individuals for approval, and controls

are in place preventing expenditures unless budgeted funds are available.

In addition, based on the key performance indicators reported by the CGCS, HCPS’ FY 2014 P-Card

purchasing ratio put the district in the best quartile compared with other urban public schools systems.

Recommendation 2-7: Establish a plan for the Procurement Department, including specific goals,

objectives and KPIs.

The HCPS Procurement Department has established a vision, mission, and high level department wide

goals, listed above, and is currently in the process of creating more specific goals and objectives. The

Department also tracks several performance measures through the annual submission of data to the

CGCS; however, this information is not used to inform decisions, set targets, or plan for the upcoming

year.


The Procurement Department should create a plan that serves as a detailed vision for the Department

and should include the following:

Established goals and objectives for each support team of the Department

Planned initiatives and projects to achieve established goals and objectives

Priorities for established projects

Specific action items for each project

Estimate of effort necessary to complete the action items

Assignment of responsibility

Start and end dates

Progress reporting plans

Measurable outcomes of completion and success, including KPIs

Approach for reevaluating and updating the plan for changes in goals and objectives

The goals should include specific and measurable objectives and performance indicators. For example, a

goal for the Contract Support Team could be to become more efficient, the objective could be to reduce

the time it takes to administer request for proposals (RFPs) to no more than 50 days, and the performance

indicator could be the average number of days to administer RFPs and the number of RFPs administered

in more than 50 days. It is important that each goal have at least one objective and performance indicator

so that the progress can be measured and tracked. The specific objectives should include timelines by

which completion is expected. For example, all RFPs starting August 1st will be administered within 50

days. Additional examples of KPIs for the Procurement Department are listed below.

Procurement cost per $100k spend

District full-time equivalents (FTEs) per Procurement FTE

Cost per Procurement FTE

Number of purchase order processed per purchasing FTE

Average dollar value of purchase orders processed

Number of purchase orders processed electronically vs. manually

Number of purchase orders processed after receipt of the invoice

Number of non-purchase orders

Time to process purchase orders

Time to evaluate and award vendors for competitive procurement

Number of P-Cards per district FTE

Number of P-Cards issued each fiscal year

By creating a plan the Procurement Department will be able to set priorities, focus effort and resources,

strengthen operations, ensure collaborative work toward common goals, communicate intended results,

define success, and assess and adjust the Department’s direction in response to changes within the

Department.


Fiscal Impact

Establishing a department plan can be accomplished with existing resources.

Recommendation 2-8: Maximize the use of district resources and accounting systems to increase the

efficiency of the Procurement Department.

The utilization of accounting software and systems is critical to achieving efficiency and effectiveness of

operations. The Procurement Department has implemented numerous automated processes in efforts to

become more efficient, however, the Department has not achieved full maximization of the three main

systems used within the Department (Infor, VendorBid, and RightFax). In addition, there is another district

system that is not being utilized within Procurement, IBM Content Manager. The recommended ways to

utilize and maximize these systems are explained below.

Infor Enterprise Resource Planning System

The requisition and purchase order process through the Infor system is mostly automated; however, there

are additional opportunities for automation and maximization of the system. Recommendations for how

to better utilize the system to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Procurement Department

are listed below.

Add warehouse items to the procurement shopping cart and incorporate the shopping cart into

the Infor system. The Procurement Department maintains a shopping cart that lists all bid items

that are available for purchase from a competitive solicitation. Employees use this shopping cart

to select items for purchase and provide this information to campus bookkeepers for requisition

entry. This shopping cart is maintained outside of the Infor system. The district should add the

shopping cart to Infor so that individual items can be selected from the list and populated into a

requisition. In addition, the Procurement Department should add warehouse items to the

shopping cart so that employees can see what items are available from the warehouse and easily

select them.

Establish an acceptable percentage variance for the three-way match and automatically release

these invoices for payment. The Infor system performs a three-way match between the amounts

on the purchase order, invoice, and receiving report. This requires an exact match between all

three amounts (i.e. differences of $0.01 or more are considered non-matches). Senior

Procurement Officers run reports to identify and investigate those purchases without an exact

match. Due to the large volume of purchases in the district, investigating each of these non-

matches can be time consuming. The district should select a percentage variance, such as 5

percent, whereby any invoices with differences of 5 percent or less would be automatically

released for payment. This will allow some of the current time spent investigating to be refocused

on more valuable purchasing functions.


Automate the numbering of bid items in the Infor system. Once a bid has been awarded the bid

items are entered onto a spreadsheet, assigned numbers (Infor item numbers), and uploaded into

the system. In order to determine the next available Infor item number a master spreadsheet of

bid items is maintained on a district shared drive. The new bid items are added and the numbers

are assigned chronologically. The Procurement Department should configure the Infor system to

auto number new bid items with the next available Infor number. This will eliminate the need to

manually maintain a master spreadsheet, and reduce the time it takes to upload bid items into

Infor.

Use system workflow capabilities to automate the processing of manual forms in Infor. Both

non-purchase order forms, and P-card applications, are hard copy documents that are completed

and manually routed for approval. The Procurement Department should research ways to create

these forms within the Infor system so that they can be electronically filled out and routed for

approval by the appropriate individuals based on established business rules.

VendorBid

HCPS uses the online vendor registration system, VendorBid. With this system the district can upload, and

make available to the public, all bid information. Vendors can access VendorBid at no cost, create an

account, update company information, and select commodity codes based on their type of business. The

system will send automatic notifications to vendors of new bids that match their selected commodity

codes, so they can select the bids they would like to respond to. Currently, all vendor responses are

submitted via mail. This can cause delays in the contract process, and requires vendors to prepare and

send responses several days prior to the deadline, in order to ensure it arrives on time. If there is inclement

weather or courier delays a vendor’s response may not be delivered in time, and as a result the vendor

will not be considered for the contract. In addition, there is an inherent risk with hard copy files of

misplacing or losing the documents.

As noted in Table 2.11 in the Procurement Overview section above, the procurement administrative lead

time (PALT) for RFPs, Invitations to Bid, and Informal Solicitations is longer than that of other urban public

school systems. Based on the CGCS Managing for Results report, HCPS was in the median or worst quartile

for these three key performance indicators in FY 2014. The manual receipt of vendor responses can have

a large impact on the lead time between receiving the requisition and issuing the contract, and reduces

the efficiency of the procurement process.

The district should research ways to electronically receive all vendor responses, starting with the current

VendorBid and Infor systems. If these systems are unable to receive electronic submissions, or the

submissions cannot be uploaded in a format desired by the district, other systems with this capability

should be explored. Electronic submission will not only reduce the time to receive vendor responses, but

will also help ensure that all documentation is received securely.

Quotes submitted by vendors are received by the district through fax or mail. The district should also

explore opportunities to receive these documents electronically through existing or new systems.


RightFax

The district utilizes the RightFax system to automate the faxing of purchase orders to the vendors that are

set up with fax numbers within the system. Every night the approved purchase orders for these vendors

are automatically faxed. Not all vendors have been set up to receive these automatic faxes. The purchase

orders for these vendors are manually faxed or mailed. Out of the 6,746 vendors paid19 in FY 2016 (through

4/30/2016), 327 (5%) do not receive these automatic faxes.

The district should obtain the missing fax numbers and set up all vendors to receive automatic faxes of

purchase orders through the RightFax system. Although these vendors only make up a small percentage

of total vendors, electronically streamlining all of the manually sent purchases orders will increase the

efficiency of the Department.

IBM Content Manager

The Procurement Department is currently maintaining hard copy files for all documentation pertaining to

vendor bids, proposals, and quotes. Some of these documents have also been digitized and stored on the

district’s Microsoft SharePoint, however, the paper files are still maintained. In addition, at the campus

level all receipts for P-Card transactions are stapled to statements that are printed and signed by

bookkeepers and site administrators. These packets are retained in hard copy files. The district has

purchased the IBM Content Manager system that enables end users to electronically house and manage

documents. The Accounts Payable Department has utilized this system to become a more paperless

department, however, the Procurement Department has not taken advantage of this system’s

capabilities.

As part of the effort to become more efficient through the maximization of district resources and

accounting systems, the Procurement Department should utilize the IBM Content Manager system. All

paper files should be scanned and electronically managed within this system. The IBM Content Manager

system is integrated with Infor, and therefore all vendor and P-Card documentation can be shared and

maintained within the Infor system as well.

Fiscal Impact

This recommendation will help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Procurement Department

which could in turn provide opportunities for savings through a reduction in staffing levels. In addition, as

this recommendation can be implemented with existing resources the district would not occur additional

costs.

19 This vendor count does not include vendors paid through internal or zero payment methods.


Recommendation 2-9: Implement a more robust and intelligent spend analysis reporting tool.

A spend analysis is a powerful and critical tool for developing and achieving strategic goals in the

Procurement Department. The HCPS Procurement Department performs periodic spend analyses and

prepares an annual spend analysis report for the Board. The periodic analyses consist of the following:

During the daily entry and approval of requisitions and purchase orders, procurement personnel

will run reports within the Infor system, as needed, to identify the year to date spend for a

particular vendor.

On a monthly basis, the P-Card Manager runs a transaction detail report to identify the year to

date spend on P-Cards for a particular vendor. This report is made available to Procurement

Officers and is reviewed by the General Manager.

These periodic reports are primarily developed to identify non-competitive purchases made to a particular

vendor that are approaching or exceeding a given threshold. On an annual basis the Procurement

Department runs reports from the Infor and Resolve systems to prepare the spend analysis that is

presented to the Board. This analysis is performed to determine if the district is in compliance with Florida

Statutes and district purchasing policies. All annual payments are reviewed to identify the following:

The percentage paid to small business enterprise vendors as compared to total competitive

expenditures

All payments made by vendor classification (e.g. textbook vendor, employee benefits,

governmental agencies, etc.)

The breakdown of prime and construction expenditures that could be competitively bid (prime

expenditures are purchases from vendors that are directly paid by the district to supply goods and

services)

Total construction competitive expenditures

Aggregate expenditures for prime vendors greater than $50,000

All payments made, by vendor, to the top 25 prime vendors

The Procurement Department is currently performing these spend analyses based off reports run from

the Infor and Resolve systems that are downloaded and analyzed in excel spreadsheets. Extracting,

consolidating and summarizing information using spreadsheets can be very time consuming.

Spreadsheets are also insecure and highly susceptible to errors increasing the risk of data integrity issues.

In addition, the periodic spend analyses performed are minimal. Reports are run on an as needed basis to

track the spend per vendor during the requisition and purchase order review process. There is only one

report that is consistently run and it only covers the spend per vendor on P-Cards. The annual spend

analysis, although more extensive, is still only focused on certain expenditures by vendor. More can be


analyzed with district expenditure data. A few examples are listed in the automated spend analysis reports

section below.

There are additional district resources that could be utilized to produce more complete, secure, and

reliable data and perform a more in-depth and detailed analysis on-demand. The district should utilize all

available resources and implement a more robust and intelligent spend analysis reporting tool.

An effective spend analysis should include the following steps. By working with the IT Department these

steps can be accomplished through an ETL20 (Extract, Transform, and Load) process and the use of a

business intelligence tool.

1. Identify and collect data: The first step is to identify and understand which systems and sources

within the district contain the required data to create a complete spend record (e.g. Infor and

Resolve). IT personnel can extract data from all sources and, with assistance from the

Procurement Department, review it for completeness and accuracy.

2. Clean and categorize data: The collected data should be cleaned to remove any duplicates or

errors, and to group and categorize vendors and commodities. This will ensure there is an accurate

correlation of spend data and enable targeted analyses. IT personnel can transform the data to

accomplish this.

Categorization of vendors: the Procurement Department analyzes purchases by vendor

class. During the transform stage, IT personnel can categorize vendors into specified

classes (e.g. textbook vendor, employee benefits, governmental agencies, etc.).

Categorization and grouping of commodities: the National Institute of Governmental

Purchasing (NIGP) has developed standardized commodity codes. These NIGP codes, or

similar district developed codes, should be assigned to all goods and services purchased

by the district. In addition, commodities could be grouped into categories, such as

maintenance, district support, and education, so that purchases can by analyzed by

individual procurement support teams. See below for further information regarding

commodity codes.

3. Create repeatable processes: HCPS owns and uses SAP Crystal Reports, a business intelligence

and analytics tool. After extracted data are transformed it can be loaded into this tool to generate

detailed automated reports based on the needs of the Procurement Department. These reports

can be available on demand or auto generated weekly, daily, or even hourly. See below for further

information and examples of automated spend reports.

20 ETL refers to a process in database usage that extracts data from multiple sources, transforms the data for storing it in the proper format or structure, and loads it into a reporting tool for the purposes of querying and analysis.


4. Analyze data: frequent analysis of spend data is vital to ensure compliance with Florida Statutes

and purchasing policies, inform management decisions, and oversee vendor relationships. These

spend reports should be made available to all members of the Procurement Department, and

should be reviewed on a daily basis by all senior level procurement personnel.

Commodity Codes

The only commodity codes assigned and utilized in the Procurement Department are for bid items in

Vendor Bid. These codes are set up so that vendors can select the ones for their type of business and

receive notifications when the district is competitive procuring those commodities. The Procurement

Department does not use these, or any other commodity codes to track and monitor classes of items

purchased to ensure compliance with state procurement statutes. HCPS' Procurement Department does

review purchases to monitor thresholds, but this review is performed manually, which relies on each

individual buyer's memory of recent items purchased, or the running of individual spend reports. When a

systematic analysis of purchases is not performed, the district runs the risk of violating competitive

bidding rules. Florida Statute 6A-1.012 states, “Districts may not divide the procurement of commodities

or contractual services so as to avoid this monetary threshold requirement.” Therefore, for example,

several individual purchase orders for athletic equipment may not individually amount to the threshold,

but in the aggregate, may exceed it.

In addition to monitoring compliance, assigning commodity codes can aid the Procurement Department

in standardizing purchases. The Department can identify the number of vendors used to purchase the

same types of merchandise. Not only will this reveal purchases required to be competitively solicited, but

for aggregate purchases less than the required threshold, the Procurement Department can limit

purchases to one vendor to take advantage of potential discounts by buying in large quantities. In

addition, this will ensure all campuses throughout the district are receiving merchandize of equal quality

and price.

Standardized commodity codes like those produced by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing,

Inc. (NIGP) can be purchased and used by any entity. The commodity codes are a set of numbers that

identifies the commodities and services purchased. The code contains four series of digits to denote class,

item, group and detail, plus a check digit. The check digit (optional) is a computer formula to verify the

code number. The code quickly identifies the commodity or service purchased and the purchase history

for each for various time periods. This is important information for management and aids in making better

purchasing decisions.

The district should purchase and implement standardized commodity codes, or develop and assign

commodity codes for all purchased goods and services. These can be assigned within the Infor system, or

assigned during the transform phase of the spend analysis. If assigned in Infor, a commodity code drop

down should be added to the requisition screen, and the Procurement Department should distribute a list

of commodity codes to schools and departments to be used when entering requisitions.


Automated Spend Reports

The SAP Crystal Reports tool can be used to create on demand or auto generated detailed reports based

on the requirements specified by the Procurement Department. The Department should identify all

information that is to be tracked and develop specific criteria for the corresponding reports. Below is a

list of sample spend analysis reports:

Spend by vendor class

Spend by commodity code

Spend by commodity category

Number of vendors by commodity code

Savings potential: this report can display the total spend by commodity code, average invoice unit

price, minimum invoice unit price, invoice quantity, and the savings potential (if all purchases

were made at the minimum price)

Historical trend analyses

Reports can also be run to calculate key performance indicators for the Department. This will enable

management to set targets and track progress towards achieving established goals and objectives.

Benefits of Spend Analysis

A few examples of the benefits that can be achieved through the implementation of a well-designed spend

analysis are listed below.

Improve processes

Manage risks

Reduce duplicate suppliers and duplicate purchases of similar commodities

Achieve standardization of purchases

Improve compliance with Florida Statutes and district purchasing policies

Increase part reuse

Identify savings opportunities

Obtain information necessary to perform benchmarking with similar size districts

Track progress towards KPIs

Improve communication and transparency within the Procurement Department

For example, by analyzing the number of vendors used to purchase the same type of commodity, based

on the assigned commodity codes, the district can identify opportunities to standardize purchases.

Utilizing only one vendor for a particular commodity can enable the district to receive high volume

discounts, which would in turn save the district money.


Fiscal Impact

While there may not be an initial fiscal impact, an effective spend analysis will help management identify

opportunities for savings that were previously unknown. Using a well-designed reporting tool will enable

the Department to track the reduction in costs and savings achieved over time. The only potential cost

would be the purchase of NIGP’s standardized commodity codes, however, the district can implement this

spend analysis reporting tool with existing resources.

Recommendation 2-10: Require bookkeepers and secretaries to attend ongoing training on the

purchasing process.

Bookkeepers and secretaries must attend a total of three days of training when hired, with one day

dedicated to the purchasing process. The complete session includes training on the budget (e.g. chart of

accounts, transfer of funds), training on requisition entry, and training on the receiving process. Due to

the vast nature of the topics covered it can be difficult to retain all the presented information. In addition,

learning about a process and performing the tasks oneself are very different. While working on the job

employees will inevitably encounter situations not discussed during training and numerous questions will

arise. Subsequent training classes are offered quarterly, however attendance is voluntary. As a result few

bookkeepers and secretaries participate and it is common for these employees to reach out to

Procurement personnel when a question arises, or the employees may just perform the process based on

their limited understanding. This can be time consuming for employees in Procurement as they will have

to stop what they are working on to respond to inquiries, or they will have to spend time to correct errors.

Through interviews conducted with district personnel, the review team discovered that employees within

the Procurement Department have experienced instances of incorrect requisition or receiving entry on

the part of bookkeepers and secretaries, and there is a perception that these employees would benefit

from additional training.

The district should offer periodic training for bookkeepers and secretaries that are not new to the district,

in order to address questions and concerns that arise through the day-to-day processing of transactions.

Attendance for these trainings should be required to ensure that all of these employees are given a

designated time to ask their questions and receive proper responses. This will reduce the risk of errors

and will increase the efficiency of the purchasing process.

Fiscal Impact


Accounts Payable

The HCPS Accounts Payable Department has undergone several initiatives to increase the efficiency of the

Department and generate revenues for the district. Most notably, in 2008 the E-payables program was

implemented, which streamlined electronic payments to vendors and earned the district rebates. In

addition, the Department has made great strides towards becoming paperless through the use of IBM


Content Manager to digitize all invoices and supporting documentation. However, there are still

opportunities for increased efficiency through automation. Some examples include the increased

utilization of electronic invoice entry and payment methods, as well as the creation and approval of

vendor requests. Other opportunities for improvement include the establishment of detailed goals,

objectives and key performance indicators, as well as the restructuring of the Department to create a level

of middle management and reduce the span of control of the head of Accounts Payable.

Introduction

The goal of the Accounts Payable Department is to provide accurate and timely payments for all approved

invoices. In addition, it is important that the Accounts Payable Department maintain full legal compliance.

School districts in Florida must abide by federal and state laws, rules, and procedures pertaining to vendor

payments. Districts must comply with the payment policies in the Florida Statute Title XIV, Chapter 218,

see excerpt below.

Accounts Payable Overview

The HCPS Accounts Payable Department is responsible for paying vendors for all goods and services that

are not purchased on a district P-Card, through schools’ internal accounts, or purchased for construction

projects. In addition the Accounts Payable Department is responsible for all employee travel payments.

Table 2.12 shows the breakdown of vendor payments and employee payments from FY 2013 through FY

2016 (through 4/30/2016).

Florida Statute Title XIV, Chapter 218 218.74 (2): The payment due date for a local governmental entity for the purchase of goods or services other than construction services is 45 days after the date specified in s. 218.73. 218.73: The time at which payment is due for a purchase other than construction services by a local governmental entity must be calculated from:

1) The date on which a proper invoice is received by the chief disbursement officer of the local governmental entity after approval by the governing body, if required; or

2) If a proper invoices is not received by the local governmental entity, the date: a) On which delivery of personal property is accepted by the local governmental entity; b) On which services are completed; c) On which the rental period begins; or

d) On which the local governmental entity and vendor agree in a contract that provides dates relative to payment periods; whichever date is latest.

http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0200-0299/0218/Sections/0218.73.html


Table 2.12. Vendor and Employee Payments FY 2013 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

Fiscal Year Vendor Payments

Count Vendor Payments $

Employee Payments

Count

Employee

Payments $

2013 44,922 $785,320,723 11,217 $1,172,395

2014 43,561 $797,104,490 12,103 $1,272,075

2015 33,041 $600,231,015 14,620 $1,385,347

2016 (through 4/30/16) 34,117 $605,136,342 12,110 $902,123

Source: Listing of disbursements FY 2012 – 2016 (through 4/30/2016)

The Accounts Payable Department processes payments through four different methods: ACH direct

deposits; the E-Payables program; wire transfers; and checks. Table 2.13 presents the breakdown by

payment type for all payments made in FY 2015. The majority of payments (87.8%) are processed through

ACH or check.

Table 2.13. Payments by Type FY 201521

Payment Type Number of

Payments

% of Total

Payments

Number of Vendors

Paid

% of Total Vendors

Paid

ACH 28,805 50.1% $202,286,123 21.8%

E-Payables 6,758 11.8% $29,185,806 3.1%

Wire Transfer 227 0.4% $377,583,811 40.7%

Check 21,653 37.7% $317,896,587 34.3%

Total 57,443 100.0% $926,952,327 100.0%

Source: Accounts Payable Progress and Statistics FY 2015

Prior to submitting payments the Accounts Payable Department enters invoices into the Infor system

under four different methods – manual, modified electronic, site entry, and electronic. Manual entry

consists of the individual entry of each hard copy invoice that is received. Modified electronic entry is the

mass entry of hard copy invoices into a spreadsheet for upload into the Infor system. Site entry is the

individual entry of hard copy invoices at the site level (for travel and postage invoices). The last method,

electronic entry, is a process in which vendors send invoice details in a spreadsheet to Accounts Payable

via email. This spreadsheet is reviewed and uploaded into the Infor system. Table 2.14 presents the

breakdown by entry method for all payments made in FY 2015. The majority of invoices (56.9%) were

entered electronically; however these represent a smaller monetary amount than manually entered

invoices.

21 Table of payments by type does not include internal and zero payments.


Table 2.14. Invoice Entry Methods FY 2015

Entry Method Invoices Count % of Total Invoices Invoice Amounts % of Total Invoice

Amounts

Manual 76,361 31.9% $549,593,857 59.2%

Modified Electronic 6,595 2.7% $4,049,650 0.4%

Site Entry 20,322 8.5% $84,335,336 9.1%

Electronic 136,300 56.9% $290,991,947 31.3%

Total 239,578 100.0% $928,970,790 100.0%

Source: Accounts Payable Progress and Statistics FY 2015

The Accounts Payable function is also included in the CGCS’ Managing for Results report. Table 2.15

presents several Accounts Payable performance indicators with the HCPS metric and the corresponding

CGCS quartile of the district. Compared to other urban public school systems HCPS is highly efficient in

the processing of invoices and has achieved very low costs per $100k revenue as the district falls over $10

lower than the best quartile of $36.10. The district is in the top 5 out of over 50 urban public schools for

each of the first four indicators in the table below. The Department is in the median quartile with regards

to the percentage of invoices past due at the time of payment.

Table 2.15. CGCS Managing for Results – Accounts Payable Performance Indicators (FY 2014)

Performance Indicator HCPS Metric CGCS Quartile

AP Cost per $100k Revenue $25 Best

AP Cost per Invoice $1.67 Best

Invoices – Days to Process 8.2 Best

Invoices Processed per FTE per Month 2,240 Best

Invoices Past Due at Time of Payment 7.99% Median

Source: Council of the Great City Schools Managing for Results report 2015 (Results from FY 2014)

Department Organization

The HCPS Accounts Payable Department is comprised of 11 positions as shown in Figure 2.7. The previous

Manager over the Accounts Payable Department recently retired and the Accountant II is now overseeing

this function. The remaining 10 positions in the Department report to the Accountant II, who is responsible

for managing and training team members to assist with reporting and electronic processing, managing

new projects and program development, as well as payment processing. The Account Managers are

responsible for the accurate and timely payments to vendors, the Vendor Manager enters and maintains

vendor information in the Infor system, the Accountant I assists with reporting and technical tasks and

identifies opportunities to increase revenue streams in the Department, the Accounting Clerk IIIs process

payments that require alternate approval (e.g. non-purchase orders) and assist in the completion of

special projects, and the Accounting Clerk IIs distribute, enter and image invoices, and provide customer

service.


Figure 2.7. Accounts Payable Department Organizational Structure

Accountant II

Accounting Clerk III (2)

Accounting Clerk II (3)

(1 Vacancy)Accountant IVendor Manager

Account Manager (3)

Source: HCPS Accounts Payable Department

Commendation 2-2: The Accounts Payable Department implemented an E-payables program in FY 2008.

This program replaces check or other payment methods with a VISA credit card account. Each vendor that

signs up with this program is notified through email and the Intersect system of a unique one-time credit

card number to use for each payment. This account number is funded at the time of payment and the

vendor receives a remittance advice. In addition to electronically streamlining vendor payments and

reducing the number of days to pay vendors, the district earns rebates from the program which has

enabled the Accounts Payable Department to generate revenue. At the start of the program in FY 2008,

the Department generated $16,290 in revenue. This amount has steadily increased every year as a result

of the growth in the program and an initiative to seek early payment discounts from vendors. In FY 2015

the district partnered with VISA and Regions Bank in a campaign to increase the E-payables program. This,

in addition to early payment discounts, resulted in total revenues of $574,118 in FY 2015 (an 83% increase

from the FY 2014 revenues of $313,557).

The Accounts Payable Department also utilizes the IBM Content Manager system to digitize all invoices

and supporting documentation in efforts to become a more paperless department. This system is

integrated with Infor so that all scanned invoices are linked to the corresponding purchase order in the

system. This, in addition to the implementation of the E-payables program, has increased the efficiency

of the Department. This is evidenced by several of the key performance indicators reported by the CGCS.

Based on Table 2.15 in the Accounts Payable Overview section above, HCPS was in the best and most

efficient quartile for the following KPIs in FY 2014, as compared with other urban public school systems:

AP Cost per $100k Revenue

AP Cost per Invoice

Invoices – Days to Process

Invoices processed per FTE per month


Recommendation 2-11: Establish a plan for the Accounts Payable Department, including specific goals,


The goals should include specific and measurable objectives and performance indicators. For example, a

goal for the Accounts Payable function could be to become more efficient, the objective could be to

reduce the time it takes to pay vendors to no more than 30 days, and the performance indicators could

be the average number of days to pay vendors and the number of payments made in more than 30 days.

It is important that each goal have at least one objective and performance indicator so that the progress

can be measured and tracked. The specific objectives should include timelines by which completion is

expected. For example, all invoices received from August 1st on will be paid within 30 days. A few

additional examples of KPIs for the Accounts Payable Department are listed below.

Accounts Payable cost per $100k spend

District FTEs per Accounts Payable FTE

Cost per Accounts Payable FTE

Average dollar value of invoices processed

Number of invoices received electronically vs. manually

Number of invoices paid electronically vs. manually

Average time to approve from receipt to payment

Discounts captured as a percentage of discounts offered

By creating a plan with all the items listed above, the Accounts Payable Department will be able to set

priorities, focus effort and resources, strengthen operations, ensure collaborative work toward common

goals, communicate intended results, define success, and assess and adjust the Department’s direction in

response to changes within the Department.

Fiscal Impact

Establishing a department plan can be accomplished with existing resources. While implementing a this

plan may not have an initial fiscal impact the increased communication, transparency, and efficiency

achieved within the Department as a result can shift efforts to more impactful analyses, directly adding

value to the Department.

Recommendation 2-12: Maximize the use of district resources and accounting systems to increase the

efficiency of the Accounts Payable Department.

As stated in the Procurement section above, the utilization of accounting software and systems increases

the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Although the Accounts Payable Department has made

great strides towards becoming paperless there are additional opportunities for automation through

several existing department resources, including Infor, Vendor Bid, as well as electronic payment and

invoice entry methods. The recommended ways to utilize and maximize these resources are explained

below.


Infor Enterprise Resource Planning System

In order to request a new vendor employees currently complete a form in the email based Vendor Request

System that is electronically sent to Accounts Payable. The Vendor Manager reviews these forms for

completeness and looks the vendor up in the Infor system to verify that it does not already exist. The form

is then printed and taken to Procurement to approve. Once approved, the Vendor Manager enters all of

the vendor information into the Infor system. This can be a time consuming process as the request system

is not integrated with Infor resulting in the need for several manual processes. The Accounts Payable

Department should explore the Infor system functionalities regarding the creation of vendors. In an ideal

scenario, employees would submit a request directly into the Infor system that would be routed for

approval by the appropriate individuals. If the vendor already exists the employee would be notified,

eliminating the need for the Vendor Manager to look up each requested vendor. Once the request was

approved the system would automatically create a new vendor record.

VendorBid

As VendorBid is a separate system outside of Infor, all new vendors that are awarded within VendorBid

have to be added to the Infor system. In order to do this employees must first complete a form through

the Vendor Request System, explained above. Since the vendor has already been selected and awarded

the form does not need to be approved and therefore the only purpose for the form is to provide the

Vendor Manager with the information needed to create the vendor in the Infor system. In order to

increase the efficiency of this process the Vendor Manager should run reports in VendorBid periodically,

or at the time of award, to obtain the information needed on awarded vendors. This information can then

be used to create the vendor record within the Infor system, eliminating the need to complete a vendor

request form.

Electronic Payment Methods

As mentioned in the commendation above, the Accounts Payable Department has established an E-

payables program that facilitates electronic payments while providing the district with rebates. Although

this program has grown since it was first implemented in 2008, only 11.8 percent of payments in FY 2015

were made under this method (see Table 2.13 in the Accounts Payable Overview section above). The

Department utilizes ACH and wire transfer methods as well, however, over 30 percent of payments in FY

2015 were still processed through checks. The district should expand its use of electronic payment

methods. Efforts should be focused on the continued growth of the E-payables program, however,

vendors that do not want to participate in this program should be set up with the alternate ACH and wire

transfer payment methods.

Electronic Invoice Entry Methods

All invoices that are received by email are currently printed and stacked with those received by fax or mail.

When multiple invoices are received from one vendor these are entered into a spreadsheet that is then

uploaded into the Infor system, this is called the modified electronic entry method. All other invoices from


this stack are manually keyed into the system one by one (i.e., the manual entry method). As presented

in Table 2.14 in the Accounts Payable Overview section above, there are two other methods for invoice

entry. Travel and postage invoices are manually keyed into the system one by one at the site level (i.e.,

the site entry method). The last method, electronic, is the receipt of invoice details in a spreadsheet

directly from vendors via email that is then uploaded into Infor. This method is most commonly used for

large vendors that deliver a high volume of invoices to the district. Based on Table 2.14, 56.9 percent of

invoices, and 31.3 percent of the total dollar amount of invoices in FY 2015 were entered through this

electronic method. The Accounts Payable Department should increase the use of this entry method for

smaller sized vendors. All other invoices received for those vendors that decline this method should be

entered into spreadsheets prior to the upload into Infor. This would eliminate the need to navigate

through various screens within Infor to enter the details of each invoice one by one.

The Accounts Payable Department currently utilizes IBM Content Manager to maintain all invoices

electronically. As invoices received by mail and fax are scanned and saved to IBM Content Manager the

Accounts Payable personnel should utilize this system to pull up invoice details for entry into

spreadsheets. Creating stacks of hard copy invoices and manually flipping through them as they are

entered is not necessary, and only increases the risk that invoices will be misplaced. In addition, the

invoices received by email should be saved to IBM Content Manager where they can be accessed for data

entry, there is no need to print each of these invoices.

Fiscal Impact

Achieving increased efficiency in a department usually presents an opportunity for savings through

reduced staffing levels. The Accounts Payable Department, however, already has a lean organizational

structure. In addition, according to interviews performed with district personnel, the Accounting Clerk II

position vacancy will not be filled due to the current efficiency of the Department. While this

recommendation may not provide additional savings for the district, it can be implemented with existing

resources and therefore will not increase department costs.

Recommendation 2-13: Re-align the creation of vendors under the Procurement Department.

The creation of vendors in the Infor system, as well as the maintenance of vendor profiles, is performed

in the Accounts Payable Department. This presents a segregation of duties risk given that the Department

also processes payments to vendors, thus increasing the risk that a fictitious vendor could be created and

paid. Although the one position dedicated to vendor management, the Vendor Manager, is not

responsible for paying vendors, these two functions should not be performed within the same

department. HCPS should re-align all vendor creation and management functions under the Procurement

Department. This would properly segregate the creation and modification of vendors with the processing

of payments to those vendors.


Fiscal Impact

As there is one position whose sole responsibility is the management of vendors within the Infor system,

the movement of this position under the Procurement Department can be performed with existing

resources.

Recommendation 2-14: Re-structure the organization of the Accounts Payable Department.

The review team analyzed the organizational structure of the HCPS Accounts Payable Department for

proper alignment of functions, reporting structure, and span of control. Through this analysis Gibson

identified the following findings and recommendations:

As noted in Recommendation 2-13, vendor management is not properly aligned under the

Procurement Department. The organization chart of the Accounts Payable Department should be

updated once this function is re-aligned.

As stated in the Department organization section above, the previous Accounts Payable Manager

retired. At this time the Accountant II began overseeing the Department; however, this title was

not changed to Accounts Payable Manager. In addition, the Accountant II position was not re-

established as an open position. As a result, the Accountant II is managing the Department, and

performing the Accountant II duties. The Accountant II roles and responsibilities should be

delegated to the other Accounts Payable personnel.

The current job titles of the Accounts Payable personnel do not accurately reflect the actual duties

performed by the position. Through interviews conducted with district personnel, the review

team discovered that the Department is planning to modify several of these job titles, as indicated

below:

The Accounts Payable Manager position title will be re-instated (i.e. the Accountant II

position title that is currently over the Department will be changed to Accounts Payable

Manager).

The Accountant I job title will become the Accounts Payable Analyst

The Accounting Clerk II job title will become the Accounts Payable Specialist I

The Accounting Clerk III job title will become the Accounts Payable Specialist II

These four changes will properly reflect the roles and responsibilities of each position. In addition,

the review recommends modifying the Account Manager job title to Accounts Payable

Coordinator. These employees perform several high level Accounts Payable functions and are not

responsible for managing other Accounts Payable personnel. Therefore their titles should reflect

the type of work performed, as well as the level of these positions. Figure 2.8 presents the

recommended Accounts Payable Department organizational chart, including the structural and

job title changes listed above.


Figure 2.8. Recommended Accounts Payable Department Organization Chart

Accounts Payable Manager

Accounts Payable Analyst

Accounts Payable Coordinator (3)

Accounts Payable Specialist I (2)

Accounts Payable Specialist II (2)


Fiscal Impact

As the district budgeted for and incurred the costs of an Accounts Payable Manager prior to the retirement

of the previous Manager, the re-instatement of this position title will not increase district expenditures.

As such, this recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.

Payroll Operations

The Payroll Department is responsible for the processing of paychecks to more than 29,000 employees

every two weeks. The HCPS Payroll Department performs this important function through 23 staff

members, including 3 Call Center Representatives, 9 Accounting Clerks, 7 Accountants, a Secretary, an

Office Network Specialist, a Payroll Supervisor, and a Payroll Manager. The Payroll Manager oversees the

Department and reports to the Chief Financial Officer.

According to the Payroll Manager Job Description, the role of the Payroll Manager is to supervise, direct,

and oversee the process of payroll production and required reporting in accordance with Federal, State,

and other laws. Specific duties include:

Develop and control all tasks necessary to accomplish payroll processing objectives.

Create and monitor improvements/modifications to payroll system.

Continuously review policies and procedures in order to make recommendations to improve upon

and standardize the process.

Regularly inspect and analyze operations within the area of assignment to take action to

continuously improve procedures, services, and support to schools and work locations.


For 2015-16, total expenditures for the Payroll Department were approximately $1.26 million, reflecting

a 9.7 percent decrease from the prior year. The Department’s largest expenditure is for Support Personnel

Salaries. The Department’s second largest expenditure is in Health Insurance, followed by Retirement and

Social Security. Non-personnel costs for the Payroll Department represent less than 1 percent of total

expenditures. This has been consistent for the past three years.

Table 2.16. Payroll Department Expenditures, 2011-12 through 2015-16


100 Salaries $942,350 $980,221 $1,019,243 $1,087,547 $983,076


300 Purchased Services $1,223 $2,987 $8,391 $3,752 $227


600 Capital Outlay $6,248 $375 $31,807 $1,134 $2,155

700 Other $324 $988 $921 $951 $1,203

Total $1,194,708 $1,234,304 $1,342,622 $1,394,971 $1,259,713

Source: HCPS Five-Year Expenditure and Staffing Data


Four HCPS payroll efficiency measures were analyzed in comparison to the CGCS annual survey22:

Payroll cost per $100,000 spend

Payroll cost per paycheck

Paychecks processed per FTE per month

Percentage of paychecks that are direct deposit

For 2013-14 (the most recent data available) HCPS was in the lowest (best) quartile for the first two

measures, and was in the second best quartile for the third and fourth measures. Since 2013-14, HCPS has

increased the percentage of paychecks paid via direct deposit to 99 percent.

Payroll Processing

Currently the district is on a bi-weekly payroll schedule, however, payroll is also processed the last day of

the fiscal year. The current payroll processing schedule was adopted during the implementation of Infor,

the district’s ERP system, and has not been altered since. Currently full-time hourly employees, such as

custodians and bus drivers, are paid as salaried employees and report exceptions to the 40-hour week as

permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Part-time hourly employees, such as substitute

custodians and after-school child care workers, are paid by the hour and report actual time worked. The

22 Managing for Results, October 2015, Results from Fiscal Year 2013-14, Council of Great City Schools


time-keeping system currently being utilized is Kyle’s Time System Software, or KTS, and was developed

in house.

Payroll processing begins on Wednesday night of the off-week when scheduled time is pushed and

adjustments are made the following morning. Full-time salaried and full-time hourly employees are

required to fill out time exception forms, whereas part-time hourly employees complete time sheets.

Some time sheets are approved by direct supervisors, but not all. After supervisor approval (if required),

the timesheet/exception form is forwarded to the Principal for approval. After Principal approval,

timesheets must be entered by the Principal’s secretary by noon on the following Monday.

Principals and secretaries both verify and approve before submission and the payroll specialists ensure

that reports come in on time. On Monday evening, time records are imported into Infor by the IT

Department. After all records are imported, reports are generated and analyzed, including exception

reports, however, no comparison to prior payroll is made. Exceptions must be resolved by Tuesday at

3pm. A personnel action history report is also generated and manually compared to Payroll. Payroll is

processed Tuesday afternoon and takes approximately 10 hours to run. Check runs are made Wednesday

morning, however, payroll is about 99 percent direct deposit. Final payroll reports are reviewed

Wednesday to identify potential errors. Although errors are not tracked each pay period, the Payroll

Manager estimates about 45 errors per year, or an average of less than two per pay period. Pay stubs are

posted to the employee portal on Wednesday afternoon.

The current payroll process is presented in Figure 2.9. Included in this map are numerical references where

the review team identified inefficiencies or control weaknesses. Each of these referenced items is

discussed further below the process map.


Figure 2.9. HCPS Current Payroll Process

Time or ExceptionForm

Employees complete time (or exception)

form

Secretary enters time data into

system

Supervisor Approval

Required?

Principal approves online

Payroll Department validates time

report submission

Payroll Department runs timekeeping

reports

Payroll Department analyzes and

resolves issues

Payroll Department imports into Lawson

Supervisor approves

onlineYes

KTSKTS

Hard copy reports

Payroll Department Runs Payroll Tests

Missing time report?

YesNotify

Secretary

KTSLawson

No

KTS

1

1 4

5

4

Payroll Department Runs Payroll

2

3

Source: Gibson Consulting Group, Inc. based on interviews with HCPS Payroll staff.

Process Assessment:

1. Manual timesheets. Currently employees complete hardcopy forms for reporting time and/or

leave. These forms are not consistent across employee groups. Further, the use of hardcopy forms

increases chance for error because the information is entered twice – once on the form and a

second time into the timekeeping system. This process also creates additional work in the payroll

process, as the secretary is performing duplicative entry of the same information as the employee.

2. Inadequate timekeeping systems. Both of HCPS time reporting systems, KTS (and TTS for

Transportation employees), are outdated. HCPS attempted to purchase a more current

timekeeping system, but after years of contract disputes this option was abandoned. Neither of

the current timekeeping systems interface with the Infor payroll system and are not directly

utilized by employees for entering time. This is a major process inefficiency that is contributing to

unnecessary work demands on the district’s clerical staff.

3. Inconsistent approvals. Currently some timesheets are required to be approved by Supervisors,

but not all. Supervisors should be consistently approving timesheets for all employees they

manage.


4. Late identification of exceptions. Currently exceptions are identified after all timesheets are

approved and entered. If last minute changes do occur, approvals typically do not occur.

Exceptions should be identified earlier in the payroll process through an integrated timekeeping

system (see 2 above) that alerts the employee, therefore saving time and leaving less margin for

error.

5. Hard copy reports. After all timesheets are entered, hard copy reports are generated and manual

analysis is performed by the payroll staff. Much of the analysis, and more analyses, could be done

electronically. For example, the current manual reports analysis does not include comparing the

current payroll to the previous payroll for reasonableness. The use of automated reports and

analysis combined with an integrated time system would allow for more efficient and effective

reporting and analysis.

Recommendation 2-15: Require all hourly employees to report hours worked.

Currently full time hourly employees are only responsible for reporting time exceptions. While this is

allowed by law, it does not represent an effective control for time management. Utilizing an active time

reporting system for hourly employees will provide more accurate time reporting, decreasing the

probability of incorrect reporting and over-accrual of time.

Fiscal Impact


Recommendation 2-16: Purchase software to streamline time reporting.

HCPS should purchase a single time reporting system that integrates with its payroll system. The KTS

timekeeping system was developed in-house, is written in an outdated programming language (COBOL)

and is poorly documented. The TTS timekeeping system is also home-grown. Both of these systems are

outdated should be replaced with a single system that interfaces with Infor. This will help streamline time-

keeping and payroll processing. Implementing a new timekeeping system will also allow HCPS to eliminate

the use of manual forms and reports.

Fiscal Impact

HCPS is planning to either upgrade its current Infor system or purchase a new ERP system. The cost of a

timekeeping system, including implementation costs, will be included in this procurement.

Recommendation 2-17: Implement additional controls over payroll review process.

Currently reports are analyzed before payroll is finalized and several important tests are performed.

Additional tests, such as the comparison of the current payroll to the previous payroll, is not performed.

This analysis and other analyses could be performed electronically to improve the quality and efficiency

of the payroll preparation process. Comparing current payroll to prior allows for tests of reasonableness


and accuracy. These additional analyses will decrease the likelihood of errors found in payroll before the

process is finalized.

Figure 2.10 presents a proposed payroll process, and assumes the purchase of a new integrated time

keeping system. Under this streamlined process, no paper forms are prepared as employees enter time

directly into the system. (Only salaried employees enter exceptions under the new process; all hourly

employees enter direct time.) Completed timesheets are electronically routed through the system for

approvals, and if time is not reported, notices are automatically sent to the employee to enter their time.

More analysis and more efficient analysis of timekeeping payroll reports can also be performed through

the use of current and integrated information systems.

Figure 2.10. Proposed Payroll Process

Employee enters time in the system

System sends notification for

missing time

Employee finalizes and signs online

Supervisor approves online

Principal approves online

Integrated Timekeeping

System

Payroll Department analyzes time data

Payroll Department resolves exceptions

Payroll Department imports time data

into Lawson

Payroll Department performs tests of

payroll

Lawson

Payroll Department runs payroll


Fiscal Impact


82

This page intentionally left blank.

83 Chapter 3 – Human Resource Management

Chapter 3 – Human Resource Management

Introduction

This chapter focuses on the review of the organization, management, and operations of the Hillsborough

County Public Schools’ (HCPS) Human Resources (HR) division and the involvement of its staff in meeting

critical personnel needs. Also included in this chapter are several recommendations related to the

district’s health insurance program, which is managed by the HR division.

Elementary and secondary education in all respects is a labor-intensive undertaking. While most public

and private organizations and businesses have 35 to 40 percent of their budgets tied to personnel and

benefits, the comparable number in public schools is, on average, more than double, between 80 and 85

percent23. Consequently, human capital management (HCM) or human resources is a critical function for

a school district. To be effective and efficient, school districts must hire the right number of employees

with the right qualifications and credentials to fill each position in the district. Further, employees must

be adequately compensated, given opportunities for training, and must have access to benefits and

services, including grievance and conflict resolution provisions, to ensure that morale and productivity

remain high.

The terms “personnel, human resources, and human capital management” are often used

interchangeably. Personnel management was historically limited to the performance of administrative

processes and procedures such as hiring and maintaining employee records. Today, personnel functions

have evolved into a broader category of services that are provided under a variety of complex

employment laws. HCM, the newest concept, is an approach to employee staffing that perceives people

as assets (human capital) whose current value can be measured and developed and whose future value

can be enhanced through investment.

At HCPS, the investment in human resources represents more than $1.3 billion or 80 percent of the

district’s 2015-16 General Fund actual operating expenditures. The district has more than 27,000 full-

time-equivalent employees, more than one-half of which are teaching positions, and more than 60

percent that are instructional positions.24

The district’s overall ratio of students to staff was 7.78 to 1 in 2015-16, increasing from 7.42 to 1 in 2011-

12. This shows that HCPS has fewer employees relative to its student population than it did five years ago.

Figure 3.1 presents the district’s student to staff (full-time equivalent (FTE)) ratio for the past five years.

23 Noelle, E. AASA White Paper: School Budget 101. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org 24 HCPS five-year staffing and expenditure history


Figure 3.1. HCPS Student to Staff Ratio, 2011-12 through 2015-16

Source: HCPS five-year staffing and expenditure history

Compared to its Florida peer districts, however, HCPS has more employees relative to its student

population. Figure 3.2 compares the HCPS total student to staff ratio to Pinellas, Palm Beach, Duval, and

Orange County School districts for the most recent year available. Again, the lower the ratio, the more

employees a district has relative to its student population. It is important to note that there could be

factors, such as the level of outsourcing or use of contracted services instead of employees that affect

these comparisons.

Figure 3.2. Student to Staff Ratio Comparisons, HCPS and Florida Peer Districts, 2014-15


The Phase I report issued in spring 2016 showed three areas where HCPS had more staffing than either

industry standards or its Florida peers – clerical staff, teachers, and custodial staff. These areas likely affect

the HCPS overall ranking above among its peer districts.

7.42 7.32 7.14 7.68 7.78

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

8.018.45

10.35

8.17.68

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pinellas Palm Beach Duval Orange Hillsborough


The responsibility for human resources management at HCPS falls under the Division of Human Resources.

The budget for this division is spread among multiple responsibility centers, described as site codes (94xx)

in the district’s accounting system. Table 3.1 presents a five-year expenditure history of the HCPS HR

organization. Division expenditures (excluding other expenditures charged to the HR Division) have

increased from $9.6 million to $11.5 over the past five years, an increase of 19.6 percent. The largest

increase is from 2013-14 to 2015-16 of 12.6 percent. Most of the 2014-15 increase in spending for both

Personnel Services and Personnel Services ISC is attributed to the partial funding of the salaries of the 160

peer evaluators.

Table 3.1. HCPS Human Resources Expenditures, General Fund, 2011-12 through 2015-16

Site Description (Responsibility

Center) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

2015-16

(unaudited)

9410 CHIEF HR OFFICER $578,117 $644,517 $729,090 $638,198 $591,137

9415 SERVICE & SUPPORT DEPT $500,616 $605,224 $671,321 $732,652 $572,455

9425 PERSONNEL SERVICES $1,757,935 $1,894,555 $1,739,235 $2,251,444 $2,530,809

9427 PERSONNEL SERVICES ISC $345,447 $1,463,451 $1,774,715

9430 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS $2,324,853 $2,487,480 $2,629,496 $2,299,888 $2,667,809

9440 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS & RISK

MGT $2,332,509 $1,982,082 $1,817,750 $1,860,224 $1,427,228

9443 SAFETY OFFICE $2,150,653 $2,018,954 $2,110,537 $2,080,038 $1,978,788

9450 EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DEPT $6,910 $9,132 $22,459 $10,741 $2,148

Total $9,651,594 $9,641,944 $10,065,335 $11,336,637 $11,545,090

Source: HCPS Five-Year Expenditure and Staffing History


Cost efficiency measures for the HR area were compared to the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) data

reported from other large urban school districts in the U.S for the most recent year available. Figure 3.3

presents the HR Cost per District FTE averages for the lowest and highest quartile, and the overall median.

HCPS, at $504 per FTE, is close to the median spending level.


Figure 3.3. HR Cost per District FTE, HCPS and CGCS, 2013-14

Source: Managing for Results in Americas Schools, Council of Great City Schools, 2015

The HR Division administers three negotiated employee union contracts with three organizations: The

Hillsborough County Teachers Association (HCTA), the instructional union the Education Support

Professional (ESP), the para/clerical union and the Hillsborough School Employees Federation (HSEF),

referred to as the Blue Collar Contract for auxiliary personnel. Certain provisions of these agreements,

such as compensation and benefits, are negotiated annually. Contract terms are negotiated less

frequently.

HR regularly monitors compliance with federal and state legal requirements, especially in regard to

Affordable Care (ACA), medical leave, wage and hour compliance, unemployment compensation,

discrimination, and equal employment. For example, ACA compliance is audited monthly through

cooperation with HCPS Information Technology to identify employees who have met criteria based on

required measurement periods. Unemployment compensation is monitored through a contract with

DeGroot Management Services. Employee Benefits collaborates with Aon Consulting Group and with the

Florida Educator Risk Management Association (FERMA) for updates on federal and state legal

requirements. The district also has contracted with KPMG for audit, tax, and advisory services as well as

industry insight to help negotiate risks. There have been no recent inquiries or audits from either U.S. or

Florida governmental entities.

Teacher Pay Programs

HCPS has been on the forefront of teacher performance pay among Florida school districts for 15 years.

Despite the loss of private grant funding at the end of 2016, plans are to continue teacher performance

pay. At the time of this report, the draft handbooks for both the instructional employee performance pay

for 2016-17 and the teacher evaluation handbook had not been finalized through negotiations with the

teacher’s union nor approved by the HCPS Board.

$378

$647

$514 $504

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

CGCS Low CGCS High COGCS Median HCPS


In 2010-11, the Florida Department of Education began transforming its teacher evaluation system

requiring that Florida Districts use systems of educator evaluation that included student achievement

growth measures as well as some teacher performance pay plan. The 2011 Florida legislature passed a

law requiring that teachers in Florida be evaluated using student achievement data. Thus began Florida’s

teacher evaluation reform efforts. Two years earlier, in 2009, HCPS was chosen for a Bill and Melinda

Gates Foundation seven-year grant for implementing a locally-designed program called “Empowering

Effective Teachers” (EET) which sought to pay teachers for performance instead of longevity. Over the life

of the grant, which ends in 2016, HCPS received $80 million from the Gates Foundation.

Work began in 2010 to use the grant in developing and implementing EET which local leaders, teachers,

principals, and the district’s union leaders believed to be superior to Florida’s ultimate evaluation reform

package and requirements. A year later, after HCPS launched its project, the Florida Legislature through

Senate Bill 736 phased out teacher tenure and tied pay to supervisor evaluations and student test scores.

Hillsborough County was given partial dispensation by the FDOE because EET program was already

underway, and, unlike the state program, EET had a third component – peer evaluation. In 2015-16, the

District had assigned 160 peer evaluators.

While the initial intent of ETT was to pay teachers based on performance instead of seniority, the actual

Hillsborough pay plan does both. According to the published teacher compensation plan, teachers move

up on their base salary schedule every three years, and, if they score high enough in the ratings system,

they also get bonus pay. HCPS’ new schedule (P &Q) moves teachers up the pay scale only after they earn

an effective or a highly effective evaluation score.

The peer evaluation component, as it turns out, has caused the most controversy among teachers and

other school and district leaders. Peer evaluators who came from the teaching force to serve two-year

assignments before returning to the classroom often have stayed on in that role for three or four years.

In focus groups, teachers told the review team of their perceptions that these peers, because of these

long-term assignments, were functioning more as administrators than peer teachers. Some

administrators, on the other hand, claimed that the longer experience made them better peer evaluators.

District leadership believed that improved achievement of both teachers and students would result from

revamping the peer evaluator model. In October 2015, the HCPS superintendent formed a committee of

teachers, district leadership and union membership to design a transition away from the Gates program

to a new initiative that is within available or projected funding.25 The charge that the Superintendent gave

to the committee included:

Review all components of our current evaluation and teacher support system.

Develop possible models for teacher support to include:

Non-evaluative systems of support by colleagues.

25 HCPS


Fully-released intensive system of support for teachers who need it the most such as brand new

teachers, new teachers to HCPS, and struggling teachers

Job-embedded professional development.

Site-based Teacher- Talent Developers (at 58 sites) who support both students through great

instruction and teachers through timely observations and feedback.

Model and/or Demonstration Classrooms where our most effective teachers can share best

practices with other colleagues.

Identify a Peer and Mentor from the committee to serve as a liaison between Peers/Mentors and

the committee.26

As a result of the work of the committee (Teacher Talent Development Committee), the draft plan for

performance pay for HCPS includes both FDOE requirements as well as local, additional incentives. The

focus according to the plan is teacher talent development and job embedded professional development.

The changes also removed 265 peer evaluators and mentors and created 115 new positions known as

“instructional mentors,” whose assignment is to provide full-time assistance to new teachers and

struggling teachers. The changes also created 101 “teacher talent developers” or “teacher leaders” who

spend half their work day as classroom teachers and the remaining time working with teachers. Many of

the former peer evaluators and mentors applied for one of the new assignments.27

The expected outcomes of this new plan include:

To understand the clear and compelling district vision for developing a culture of professional

learning in every school that capitalizes on teacher leadership as a driving force behind capacity

building.

To learn ways to determine the greatest professional learning needs and wants of teachers based

on the needs of their students and their own learning goals.

To develop a common language of best practices, strategies, and models of job-embedded

professional development and high quality professional learning that will yield the greatest results

in each school.

To develop a system of support and a clear plan that will provide fluid and “just in time”

professional learning for staff using the strengths-based resources in each school.

Actual compensation and the total fiscal impact of the revised plan for performance pay have not been

finalized by HCPS because of ongoing negotiations with the teachers’ union.

26Ibid. 27 Draft of 2016-17 Instructional Employee Performance Pay Handbook


Commendation 3-1: The district’s written teacher recruiting plan is both productive and creative.

The Applications and Recruitment Department in HR’s Personnel Services annually conducts a recruitment

season review which assesses results and informs the strategic recruiting plan for the subsequent

recruitment season. The plan:

Uses data and analyses of past results as well as projections of future vacancies.

Incorporates the district’s emphasis on recruiting and hiring a diverse work force.

Provides district executive recruiters and principals the ability during job fairs to bind (or to get a

signing commitment) teachers, especially in high needs areas, to ultimately be contracted to teach

in HCPS.

The Applications and Recruitment Department updates and maintains data in its own website, a sub-

section of the district’s website: TeachinTampa.com. Teach in Tampa is the marketing brand and theme

used in all of its publications, advertisements, banners, and other media including social interactive feeds

such as Facebook and Twitter and video presentations on YouTube. The Teach in Tampa website, launched

in November 2014, provides a teacher-focused recruitment portal that markets Tampa and Hillsborough

County as an attractive place to teach. The results of a new-hire survey of teachers shared with the review

team revealed that 75 percent of respondents heard about HCPS from internet postings or employee

referrals.

In the 2015 recruitment year, the successes of recruitment planning showed that over 5,000 teacher

applications were received, increasing applicant volume by 55 percent over the prior year. The

Department was able to build a pool of approximately 3,000 active candidates by the first day of school

and 1,324 teacher vacancies and been filled by the first day of school despite last minute resignations and

broken contracts.28

The Recruitment Season Review, published by the HR Division in September 2015, shows that the

demographics of new hires in the 2015 hiring season more nearly match that of current teachers and

moved the district closer to the demographics of its students. To reduce attrition of teachers and to ensure

the applicant pool is reflective of the diversity of HCPS students, the adjusted recruitment plan showed

that the 2016 recruiting season would be:

Focusing on attending career fairs across Florida and immediately surrounding states.

Strengthening partnerships with local teacher education programs and those programs providing

alternative routes for teacher certification.

Investing in tools that maximize the cost per applicant ratio.

Over representing in media and marketing schemes the already diverse teachers and students in

HCPS.

28 Statistics excerpted from a PowerPoint presentation to the HCPS Board, September 25, 2015


The Recruitment Season Review lists specific successes of new recruitment strategies that include:

Posted and maintained over 250 job advertisements on university career and employment

websites.

Coordinated a series of Twitter feeds and Facebook announcements to publicize application

deadlines and recruitment events.

Coordinated cultivation phone calls with prospects and candidates in high need subject areas.

Implemented prospect tracking systems to measure the effectiveness of recruitment efforts.

Also included in the 2015-16 Recruitment Plan are the Diversity Recruitment Strategic Plan and the 2015-

2016 Teacher Recruitment Marketing Plan, authored in cooperation with HR by the district’s Strategic

Marketing Department.

Additional success can be attributed to the use of HR Partners, generally former HCPS principals, as

primary recruiters at out-of-district job fairs. After interviewing and identifying acceptable candidates, the

Partners have the ability to give commitment letters (contract to follow upon actual assignment) on behalf

of the district to bind applicants to a job in HCPS.

Commendation 3-2: The Program to Attract and Train High (PATH) quality and exceptional teachers for

students with disabilities, although housed in Professional Development, has become a major source

for HR’s filling special education vacancies.

Project PATH is an alternative certification training program funded by a Transition to Teaching grant from

the U.S. Department of Education. The grant provides financial assistance and support for Exceptional

Student Education (ESE) teachers from non-traditional backgrounds who teach in a high needs school

while earning their professional certification through HCPS’ Alternative Certification Program (ACP). In

short, Project PATH:

Impacts significantly the availability of ESE teachers for hire through Human Resources.

Recruits individuals with non-education degrees and facilitates certification for ESE teachers.

After signing a commitment or promissory note declaring their willingness to complete the program,

participants selected for Project PATH receive two financial incentives. The first is a scholarship to cover

the ACP fees paid in advance upon acceptance into the program. The second is awarded after participants

complete the three-year requirement in ESE in an HCPS high needs school. This award is designed to

reimburse participants for the cost of taking and passing each state certification exam.

In 2015-16 PATH had 15 participants in the HCPS paraprofessional to teacher program where they earn a

bachelor’s degree. Potentially 13 of them will be ESE teachers of record in the 2016-17 school year. Also,

45 teachers that are enrolled in or have completed the PATH program are teaching in HCPS. There will be

23 scheduled to begin teaching in 2016-17 and another 17 are interviewing for ESE positions to begin in

August, 2016.


Commendation 3-3: The HCPS Employee Benefits Department provides individual, one-on-one

counseling to employees who are considering retirement.

Long-time support employees assigned to HCPS Employee Benefits help employees to understand their

options and the procedures to follow in electing to retire. Other information shared includes retirement

benefits, requirements for retirement, and assistance with completing and submitting paperwork with

local and state retirement agencies. On a regular basis, HCPS employees eligible for retirement are

scheduled for group meetings conducted in the Benefits building. After a general orientation, those

attending are scheduled to meet one-on-one with an in-house retirement advisor. These individual

meetings generally last for about one hour. These retirement-election meetings are offered in addition to

those conducted regionally by the Florida Retirement System.

Considering that, for example, 652 HCPS employees retired in 2014-15, the individualized counseling and

assistance provided for retirees are beyond expectations or requirements.

Human Resources Operations

The Division of Human Resources is led by a Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) who reports directly

to the district’s Chief of Staff. At the time of the review, HR had 132 FTE positions. Except for three

vacancies, all the allocations were filled. The current HR organizational structure (excluding secretarial

staff) is presented in Figure 3.4. The numbers in parentheses display the number of positions at that level

or beneath that level in the organizational structure.


Figure 3.4. HCPS Division of Human Resources Organizational Chart

Chief Human Resources Officer

Prof Stds Investigator (2)

Manager/InvestigatorProfessional Standards

Prof. Stds. 3 Comm Investigator

Prof Stds Investigator (2)

General Manager Employee Relations

Manager Services & Support

(8)

Dept. Manager Services & Support

(2)

General Manager Professional Standards

Personnel Analyst II Certification (7)



Head Custodian II ISC Facilities (8)

Clerk I (2)

General Manager Employee Benefits/

Insurance

Accountant IV (1)

Risk Mgmt Analyst II (1)

Dept. Manager (8)

General Manager Personnel Services

Customer Service Manager (23)

Customer Service Manager Applications/

Recruitment (9)

Customer Service Manager Applications/

Recruitment (2)

Customer Service Manager (1)

HR Partners (6)

Fingerprinting (6)

General Manager Performance

Evaluation

SupervisorPerformance

Evaluation (1)

SupervisorPerformance

Evaluation (1)

Instructional Mentors (125)

Director Safety & Risk Mgmt

Asst. Mgr Enviro Inspector (6)

Safety Specialist I-Claims (6)

Occupational Health Nurse (2)

Safety Specialist I-Transp (4)

Safety Tech I (1)

Safety Tech II (1)

Source: HCPS HR Division


The Office of Employee Relations in the HR Division administers three negotiated employee union

contracts with two organizations. The Hillsborough County Teachers Association (HCTA) is responsible for

the teacher contract and the Education Support Professional (ESP) contract. The Hillsborough School

Employees Federation (HSEF) is responsible for what is referred to as the Blue Collar Contract for auxiliary

personnel. Certain provisions of these agreements, such as compensation and benefits, are negotiated

annually. Contract terms are negotiated less frequently.

HR regularly monitors compliance with federal and state legal requirements, especially in regard to

Affordable Care (ACA), medical leave, wage and hour compliance, unemployment compensation,

discrimination, and equal employment. For example, ACA compliance is audited monthly through

cooperation with HCPS Information Technology to identify employees who have met criteria based on

required measurement periods. Unemployment compensation is monitored through a contract with

DeGroot Management Services. Employee Benefits collaborates with Aon Consulting Group and with the

Florida Educator Risk Management Association (FERMA) for updates on federal and state legal

requirements. The district also has contracted with KPMG for audit, tax, and advisory services as well as

industry insight to help negotiate risks. There have been no recent inquiries or audits from either U.S. or

Florida governmental entities.

Recommendation 3-1: Reorganize the Human Resources Division.

The current HCPS HR organization structure does not represent a logical alignment of functions, the span

of control at the CHRO level is excessive, and position titles and responsibilities vary widely among second

line management positions.

In terms of an organizational design for HR, logical alignment of functions speaks to whether the

aggregation of responsibilities makes sense and can be suited to the particular skill sets of leadership

positions. A review of the current HR organization (see Figure 3.4 above) shows that all but two of these

carry the rank and title of General Manager, and the compensation scheduled for the position are

generally the same. One position, currently held by a non-educationally certificated individual, is assigned

the title of Director (shown at the same horizontal level on the organizational chart) as the General

Manager positions. Another direct report is Manager – Professional Standards Investigations, a rank

below that of General Manager.

Nine positions are direct reports to the CHRO yet three of the positions carry the same position title and

their job responsibilities are essentially the same. This span of control is larger in number than what is

typically found in companies or school districts with thousands of employees. Although no perfect ratio

exists, span of control is critical in understanding organizational design and the behaviors within an

organization, such as the approach used to interact with employees and the effectiveness of

communication between each level with an organization. A wide span of control increases the number of


interactions between the CHRO and her direct reports, an approach which could cause the CHRO to

become overwhelmed but can also provide more autonomy.29

Table 3.2 shows the current primary responsibilities and HR functions of each HR executive position. Some

functions assigned to one position should properly be assigned to another. For example, educator or

teacher certification management and oversight is assigned to a position whose responsibilities are mainly

employee discipline. Certification generally is a critical function of personnel services.

Table 3.2. HCPS Executive HR Positions and Primary Responsibilities – April, 2016

Executive HR Position Current Primary Responsibilities

Chief Human Resources Officer HR executive leadership team

Formal investigative team

Professional Standards team reviews

Litigation involving districtwide employees

Employee terminations, non-re-nominations

Administrative trainings

Teacher Pipeline training to become administrators

General Manager, Employee Relations Chief negotiation and contracts for three employee unions

Salary settlements, if challenged, for administrators and non-

represented employees

Employee work calendars, negotiated work days, and

paid/non paid holidays

Facilitation of formal grievance process

Lawsuit resolution log

EEOC charges of discrimination

ADA requests for accommodations

General Manager, Professional

Standards (3)

Employee disciplinary procedures and hearings

Reception of Initial reports of employee misconduct

Educator certification

Ethics, progressive discipline, and professional standards

training for district leaders

General Manager, Employee

Benefits/Insurance

Employee insurance and enrollment

Retirement plans and programs

Insurance carriers, vendors, and products

Unemployment compensation

Wellness program

General Manager, Personnel Services Departments within Personnel Services:

Applications and Applitrack

Teacher Recruiting

New employee on-boarding and processing

Fingerprinting

Personnel Services

29 Span of control: What factors should determine how many direct reports a manager has?, April 25, 2013, downloaded from www.shrm.org


Executive HR Position Current Primary Responsibilities

Pools, surpluses, transfers, supplemental pay

Leaves, FMLA

Florida Department of Education reporting

HR Partners

Kelly Services for teacher substitutes

Employee contracts

Employee handbook

Employee work attendance

In-service training related to personnel services for

administrators

General Manager, Performance

Evaluation

Professional employee evaluation systems

Talent development initiative

Instructional mentors

Support for instructional positions new to the district

Administrators’ training for evaluation systems

Performance Pay system management

Teacher Induction Program (TIP)

Administrative Calibrations

Administrative Trainings – “Providing Effective Feedback”

Director, Safety and Risk Management Safety policies and programs for safe, accident-free

workplace

OSHA and other state and local compliance

District’s self-insurance and other risk management

programs

Workers’ compensation

District Fire Marshal

Industrial accident investigation of causes

Safety inspections

Manager, Professional Standards

Investigator

Formal investigations of employee misconduct

Review of arrest records of prospective employees

Training staff who conduct formal investigations

Liaison with local law enforcement agencies

Source: Gibson Consulting Group - Compiled from job descriptions, interviews, and onsite observations

Although this chart does not show the number of individual positions, there are four reporting directly to

the CHRO that are titled “Professional Standards” – three General Manager positions and one Manager

(investigator) position. The fundamental responsibility – employee discipline – of the three General

Managers is the same.

A review of the primary responsibilities and functions of each of the HR executive positions (listed above)

shows that some positions carry more work load, require the supervision of more HR assigned employees,

and oversee more sub-departments. The responsibility and impact for critical decisions are also greater.

For example, the position of General Manager – Personnel Services, oversees five areas and supervises

directly or indirectly the work of 32 employees. On the other hand, one of General Manager for


Professional standards supervises one employee, a secretary position. Another General Manager for

Professional standards has six custodial positions (ISC) reporting to it and a secretary.

Other executives are currently assigned responsibilities unrelated to their positions, job titles and job

descriptions. In one case, an executive who moved to a different position because of promotion kept part

of the responsibilities from the old job. The job description for General Manager – Professional Standards

does not list overall district educator certification and renewals as a responsibility, yet one of the three

positions is assigned that responsibility.

In addition to overseeing the work of the General Managers, the Director of Safety and Risk Management,

and the Manager of Investigations, the CHRO accepts individually the responsibility of reviewing and

approving decisions and recommendations made by the Office of Professional Standards team and

investigators. The CHRO also does not designate responsibilities involving personnel or employee-related

litigation, terminations, non-re-nominations, and administrative trainings which includes teachers who

are in track to become administrators.

The current organization of HR places the Department of HR Services and Support, a department whose

responsibilities are clearly personnel services oriented, under the supervision of the General Manager –

Employee Relations. The principle work of the Department is employee records, both electronic and

paper; verification of employment; electronic data management systems and development of new HR

technology; and correspondence with other districts and the Florida Department of Education in regard

to transferring work experience. None of this actual work is commonly associated with Employee

Relations.

Figure 3.5 presents the recommended organizational structure. The major elements of the organizational

realignment are described below:

Reduces the span of control of the CHRO from nine (9) direct reports to five (5) and balances the

level of responsibility under second General Manager and Director positions.

Realigns Professional Standards, Investigations, and Performance Evaluation under Employee

Relations; positions downgraded from General Manager to Manager.

Redefines manager positions under Employee Benefits.

Redefines manager positions under Personnel Services.

Removes ISC custodial positions from HR (see related recommendation in Chapter 6 – Facilities

Management regarding the proposed management approach for all district custodians).

Removes the instructional mentors from the HR organizational chart (already planned by HCPS).


Assigns a minimum of two current and appropriate HR executive staff members experienced in

work flow processes and mapping to an HR Systems Development unit with a Team Leader (see

related recommendation later in this chapter).

Other HR positions may need to be redefined and realigned under the proposed management positions.

The shaded boxes (blue) below represent positions that have either been realigned and/or redefined.

Figure 3.5. Proposed Organizational Alignment for HCPS HR

Chief Human Resources Officer

General Manager Employee Relations

Manager - Professional Standards (2)

Manager Performance

Evaluation

General Manager Employee Benefits/

Insurance

ManagerCustomer Services

Insurance

ManagerCustomer Services

Leave, Unemp. Comp.

General Manager Personnel Services

ManagerOperations

Manager Services and

Support

ManagerHRIS and IT Support

Manager - Applications, Recruiting and

Onboarding

HR Partners (6)

Fingerprinting (6)

Director Safety & Risk Mgmt

Asst. Mgr Enviro Inspector (6)

Safety Specialist I-Claims (6)

Occupational Health Nurse (2)

Safety Specialist I-Transp (4)

Safety Tech I (1)

Safety Tech II (1)

ManagerInvestigations

HR Systems Development Team

Leader



Table 3.3 provides more detail of the realigned duties and responsibilities of each HR administrative

position.

Table 3.3. Recommended Duties and Responsibilities of Re-Organized Administrative Positions

Administrative Position Recommended Re-Organized Responsibilities

(Not ranked by importance)

CHRO Oversees four direct reports

Litigation involving districtwide employees

Employee needs forecasts and plans

Personnel Policies

Training on new laws and administrative

codes

Other administrative training

General Manager, Personnel Services Employee recruitment

Interviews, selection, onboarding,

fingerprinting, and orientation

Employee retention and exit interviews

Transfers and resignations

Employment verification

Employee records

Florida Department of Education reports

Educator certification and re-certification

HRIS and IT systems and Applitrack

Partners

General Manager, Employee Relations Labor Negotiations

Compensation Plan

Employee complaints and grievances

EEOC, 504, Title IX, and other compliance

issues

Professional Standards adherence

Investigations

Employee Performance Evaluations

Pay for Performance Program

Job Descriptions

Teacher attendance at work issues

Employee Handbook

Personnel Policies Input for Board Review and

approval

General Manager, Employee Benefits Employee Insurance

Retirements and retirement accounts

Leaves/Absences/FMLA

Worker’s Compensation

Employee Wellness

Director, Safety and Risk Management Accident-free work place

Safety inspections


Administrative Position Recommended Re-Organized Responsibilities

(Not ranked by importance)

Risk assessment and management programs

OSHA

Occupational Health

District fire marshal


This reorganization will help current HR planned efforts and goals to:

Streamline current operations and procedures.

Eliminate redundancies in transactions.

Reduce the number of positions needed by HR.

Facilitate more effective interaction and transactions among HR’s largest customer/consumer

groups, i.e., principals, transportation, student nutrition services, IT, and payroll.

Facilitate addressing high turnover areas among support staff assigned to provide customer

services.

Fiscal Impact

This recommendation includes not filling three current vacancies and eliminating the positions entirely:

Supervisor, Performance Evaluation

HR Partner (1 position)

Customer Services Manager, Services and Support

It also recommends eliminating one executive level position:

General Manager – Professional Standards

Additionally, it recommends downgrading three General Manager positions to Manager:

General Manager – Professional Standards – two current positions

General Manager – Performance Evaluation


Table 3.4. Estimated Savings from Reorganizing the HR Division

Savings Factor Positions Salary Fiscal Impact

Not Filling Current Vacancies and Eliminating the Positions

Supervisor, Performance Evaluations 1 $86,164 $86,164

HR Partner 1 $119,930 $119,930

Customer Service Manager, Services and

Support 1 $72,875 $72,875

Subtotal 3 $278,969

Eliminating One Executive Level Position

General Manager, Professional Standards 1 $116,221 $116,221

Subtotal 1 $116,221

Downgrading General Manager Positions to Manager1

General Manager, Professional Standards 2 $34,132 $68,264

General Manager, Performance Evaluation 1 $34,132 $34,132

Subtotal 3 $102,396

Grand Total 7 $497,586

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (expenditure data; staffing data)

Table Notes: 1 Salary calculation is the difference between HR General Manager position salaries (average $116,221)

and Manager position salaries (average $82,089); May not sum to total due to rounding; Excludes benefits;

Not filling the three current vacant HR positions would save the district approximately $278,969.

Eliminating one General Manager position would save about $116,221. Downgrading three General

Manager positions to Manager would save approximately $102,396.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Reorganize the HR Division. $0 $0 $497,586 $497,586 $497,586 $497,586


Recommendation 3-2: Upgrade HR management job descriptions to require HR experience and

certification.

None of the HR management job descriptions, including the CHRO, require HR experience or HR

certification. As a result, among the 13 current HR leaders and executives, none had prior professional

work experience in HR organization and management before they were selected for their current

positions; however, both the CHRO and the General Manager, Personnel Services, are currently working

on SHRM Certification at the University of South Florida. Virtually all of them came to the division’s

executive positions directly from assignments as principals, peer evaluators, or other key leadership

positions in other HCPS divisions. Collectively, the average length of time these executives have been

assigned in their current position is less than 2.5 years.


The current job description requirements for all HR management or executive positions are very similar:

Education: A master’s degree. Degree or formal training in Educational Leadership preferred

Experience: Ten years of increasingly responsible experience in human resources or

administration of educational programs, with three years of related management or supervisory

experience required. Experience in public school administration, public school district

administration; or other large diverse organizations preferred

Certificates/Licenses/Registrations: Florida Professional Educator Certificate: Educational

Leadership, School Principal, or Administrator and Supervision

The preferences for educational leadership over human resources leadership and experience does not

reflect best practice. Best practices for the HR leadership positon would typically include a master’s degree

in human resources management, professional HR certifications and licenses such as SPHR or SHRM-PM30,

and at least 10 to 12 years’ experience as an executive in the HR department of an educational or other

organization. Other key management positions should also require HR experience and HR certification.

Upgrading the HR management positions to require previous HR management experience and

professional HR certifications would provide several benefits to HCPS:

Attract candidates who will not require excessive “on-the-job” training once they have been hired.

Recognize professional HR expertise as an asset for more effective HR functions and operations.

Reduce reliance on HCPS as a sole source for its HR executives.

Provide fresh ideas and suggestions for HR operations, functions, and HR technology needed for

achievement and success.

Fiscal Impact


Recommendation 3-3: Re-engineer HR systems and procedures.

The Human Resources Division uses a large amount of paper and manual processes.HR employees are

more comfortable with paper, and therefore, they have done little to change the status quo with regard

to how information travels throughout the district and the extent to which all stakeholders in critical

decision making are involved or need to be. The HR team is working to move from a paper based manual

system to a more automated system. For example, Applications and processing have within the last year

moved to a totally automated system. Paper-based systems are hugely inefficient, as they require more

energy to move, to manipulate, to analyze, and to archive. The review team estimates that 35 to 40

30 Senior Professional in HR (SPHR) or Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) Certified Professional SHRM-CP


percent of the HR administrative workload is wasted on the inefficiencies inherent in paper-based

systems. Until recently, some electronic forms, such licensed personnel applications and employee

beneficiary declarations, were printed from the system, routed for manual processing and approvals, and

filed away in file cabinets and archival boxes.

Further, too little time has been spent analyzing and assessing HR functions that are duplicative among

top HR administrators’ responsibilities. Often an HR executive internal transfer or promotion within the

division means that some responsibilities of the old position move with the administrator to the new

assignment. As a result, some positions have more daily transactional responsibilities than others.

HCPS uses paper forms, called “yellow cards” – to organize teacher information and track assignments.

Similarly, employees declaring benefits and requesting payroll deduction agreements previously had to

use paper forms. HR moved to an automated benefits and beneficiary system approximately 5 months

ago. Sending teacher experience documentation to other school districts is also a paper intensive process.

At the time of the onsite review, HR was beginning to implement a process by which principals and other

hiring managers can transmit their recommendations for hire to HR electronically.

Becoming paperless and completely digitizing all employee records are long-term goals of the division.

However, there is no written plan, project implementation, or deadlines that would lead the way toward

achieving it. Going paperless is a planned process that takes time and effort, and requires dedicated staff

resources, and all current HR staff members are consumed with daily transactional responsibilities.

HCPS should create an internal development team by creating three new positions to be filled by certified

HR career professionals to lead this effort as well as any other HR process initiatives. Designed to serve as

the transformational arm of the CHRO, rather than a transactional function, the HR development team

should be comprised of three newly-hired, outside-the-district HR system analysts with career HR

experience and certification working as executive leaders in large public and private HR organizations.

These new positions will need to be posted both locally and nationally. The focus of this development team

should include:

Mapping critical HR functions.

Integrating effective business processes into digital and electronic data management systems.

Writing a plan containing the steps and deadline dates when HR will become at least 95 percent

paperless.

Ensuring that goals and strategies identified in the HR strategic or long-range plan are data-driven,

realistic and that accomplishments are reported.

Designing and implementing an HR performance measures plan to identify targets and goals and

consistently to gather data and report results.


The development team’s work schedule should regularly involve meetings with designated lead persons

among the district’s principals, Information Technology (IT), Lawson HRIS, and other appropriate

stakeholders from Transportation, Maintenance, and Student Nutrition Services as the Development

Team explores and develops work flow processes for critical HR functions.

The structural analysis of an HR process flow (such as a principal’s recommendation to hire cycle),

distinguishes how work is actually done from how it should be done and what transactional functions a

system should perform from how the function should be built to perform those functions. The resulting

graphic representation allows all users and observers to “walk-through” the whole process and see it in

its entirety.

Fiscal Impact

The base salary of each of the three positions should be posted at close to $120,000 annually in order to

attract the most capable and experienced candidates.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Hire an HR Development

Team $0 $0 ($360,000) ($360,000) ($360,000) ($360,000)


Recommendation 3-4: Develop and analyze HR performance measures.

The new 5-year HCPS Strategic Plan developed during 2015 contains a goal area related to “Talent

Management.” Underlying objectives relate to teacher effectiveness, leader effectiveness, teacher

retention, leader retention, professional development, and diversity. Through a Balanced Scorecard

approach, performance measures will be tracked to evaluate progress against the objectives.

The Talent Management goal area in the Strategic Plan lists two objectives and eight performance metrics

that relate to the goal and mission of the HR division. The objectives are:

Recruit, support, and retain a highly effective and diverse work force

Develop, recognize, and reward employees

The metrics listed that intend to support the objectives are:

Teacher effectiveness

Leader effectiveness

Teacher retention

Teacher vacancies/fill rate

Professional development

Diversity in school staff

Employee empowerment


However, the Plan itself does not include the details, resources, or tools to be used in reporting these

measurements or metrics.

Historically, the HR Division of HCPS has not consistently tracked, monitored, or reported performance

measures. This responsibility should be assigned to the new HR Development Team. Beyond those

measures developed for the strategic objectives, the HR Division should develop additional measures to

evaluate efficiency and effectiveness in all areas of their operation. Development of these performance

measures will prompt the development of performance targets, which can be used to continuously

improve HR operations. Measures can be qualitative (survey response rates regarding customer

satisfaction) as well as quantitative (ratio of total employees to HR employees, average time between

manager/principal recommendation date and hire date). Performance targets and actual performance

against those targets should also be a component of HR management performance evaluations. Following

are examples of HR performance measures that HR should consider:

Number of district employees per FTE human resources employee

HR Department cost per district employee (FTE)

Number of employment applications processed per FTE

Average days from position vacancy to recommendation by hiring manager

Average days from recommendation by hiring manager to start date

Non-certified teachers as a percentage of total teachers

Turnover rate for teachers by campus

Teacher vacancies unfilled on the first instructional day for students

New teacher turnover rate (one year or less)

Turnover rate for non-teachers

Low income/high minority campuses compared to teachers’ experience

Percentage of customers extremely satisfied with HR customer service

Percentage of teachers by ethnicity, compared to percentage of students by ethnicity

Teacher absentee days per year, by campus

Substitute costs per year, by campus (dollar amount and percentage of salaries and wages)

Benefits cost as a percentage of total salaries and wages

Fiscal Impact



Recommendation 3-5: Modify the districtwide performance evaluation system for non-educationally

certificated employees to align actual job duties with performance measures.

The performance evaluation system currently in use for non-teacher employees is limited to each HCPS

clerical, technical, and manual employee meeting with his or her immediate supervisor or principal and

reviewing the rating or ranking of evaluation items on a standard and uniform printed document during

the month of April of each year. The review team saw no evidence that performance planning (i.e., pre-

evaluation conferencing at the beginning of the evaluation year and subsequent ongoing coaching, follow-

up, measuring progress, self-assessment, and feedback) was a characteristic of the evaluation system for

HCPS support personnel. In limited instances some supervisors ask employees to provide a written self-

assessment of their work to be shared during the April evaluation conference. Since the HCPS evaluation

instrument itself is uniform or similar in specific content for all support employee work groups, seldom is

there a correlation between the duties and responsibilities listed in the employees’ job descriptions or the

actual work that is done and the rated items on the evaluation form.

A major goal of performance planning is the supervisor and the employee to explicitly identify the link

between the employee’s job performance and the objectives and mission of the Department/school and

district. Such alignment helps the supervisor and employee prioritize the employee’s work and establish

performance standards specific to the job that will be monitored through the evaluation year.31

Generally, the components of an effective Performance Plan cycle include:

Performance and development planning conference

Goal setting

Establishing parameters of success in achieving the individual goals

Coaching and ongoing feedback

Mid-year review

Self-assessment and input from stakeholders/customers served

Self-assessment discussion

Written review of performance32

At the beginning of the evaluation or appraisal period, the supervisor and employee in a conference

review the job responsibilities as outlined in the job description, identify performance objectives and

district/school/departmental objectives, decide upon projects, and discuss standards of performance.33

31 How to Establish a Performance Improvement Plan, 9/16/2015. Society of Human Resource Management. Downloaded from www.shrm.org. 32 Note that standard formatted or pre-printed evaluation instruments or appraisal tools are not compatible with this specific component; a separate individual written account is required instead. 33 ibid.


Successfully linking the evaluation system with the actual duties and responsibilities required of a job will

require:

Modifying all job descriptions for all jobs in the district to include specificity in regard to actual

work or hands-on tasks that is required for an employee in specific jobs or positions.

Involving both departmental supervisors and work line individual employees currently working in

the job in writing the duties and functions to ensure that they are specific, accurate, reflective

and up-to-date.

Matching job codes with job descriptions.

Removing all archaic or obsolete job descriptions from data bases.

Eliminating standardized or formatted evaluation forms and formats.

Structuring individual job evaluation reviews so that performance measures are tied directly to

the work the job requires.

Fiscal Impact


Health Insurance

HCPS offers health insurance to its employees. Under the program, employees may choose one of five

programs through Humana. One of the plans is offered free of charge to the employees; four other plans

require employee contributions. Table 3.5 presents a summary of the insurance programs available to

HCPS employees.

Table 3.5. HCPS Health Insurance Programs and Enrollment, 2015

Program 2015 Enrollment

(employee count) Employee Contribution?

Humana Staff – PPO 4,413 Yes

Humana HMO Select 2,210 Yes

Coverage 1st (Local) 10,258 No

Coverage 1st (National) 2,558 Yes

HDHP NPOS Network 48 Yes

Total Employees Participating 19,487

Total Employees

Percentage Participating

25,170

77%

Source: HCPS spring 2016


Out of all 25,170 employees in the district, 19,487 or 77 percent participate in one of the above health

insurance programs.

In FY 2016, the district incurred $147.8 million for health insurance from all funding sources with $126

million supported by the General Fund. Figure 3.6 presents a five-year history of the district’s health

insurance expenditures.

Figure 3.6. HCPS Health Insurance Expenditures, 2011-12 through 2015-16 (in $ millions)

Source: HCPS Five-Year Expenditure and Staffing History


The responsibility of the district with respect to health insurance programs falls under the Chief Human

Resources Officer. The district uses a health insurance consultant to assist with the bidding and evaluation

process for health insurance, claims analysis and reporting, and advising district management on health

insurance strategies and plans.

Each of the major union agreements (The HCTA Teacher and Support Professional contracts and the Blue

Collar contract) have provisions for providing health insurance to union members.

Recommendation 3-6: Consider converting current employee health insurance program to a self-funded

program.

HCPS has a fully-insured health insurance program available to its employees. Under a fully-insured

program, the insurance carrier takes on all the responsibility for claims, administrative costs and the

program’s risk. HCPS periodically goes out for bid for its fully-insured program, and Humana has been the

carrier running the program for HCPS since 2012.

Under a self-funded health insurance program the employer provides health insurance to employees with

its own funds. In a self-funded health program, the employer assumes the direct risk for payment of the

$125.0 $122.7 $123.7

$136.5

$147.8

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk


claims for benefits. The terms of eligibility and covered benefits are set forth in a plan document similar

to those found in a typical group health insurance policy. Unless exempted, such plans create rights and

obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

There are several advantages of a self-funded health insurance program:

Lower cost of operation. Employers often find that administrative costs for a self-funded plan

through a Third Party Administrator (TPA) are lower than those being charged by a carrier under

a fully-insured program.

Elimination of carrier profit margin and risk charge. The standard profit margin and risk charge

of an insurance carrier are eliminated for the bulk of the plan.

Cost and utilization controls. A TPA may have available several programs (i.e., hospital bill audits,

large case management, preferred provider networks (PPO), and detailed reports) that an

insurance carrier would not be able to provide.

Increased cash flow. The employer's cash flow is improved when money formerly held by the

insurance carrier in the form of various reserves is now available for use by the employer.

Control of plan design. The self-funded employer has the flexibility in the design of the benefit

plan. State regulations mandating costly benefits are avoided because self-funded programs are

subject to (or protected by) ERISA. Employers also are excluded from some of the requirements

of the Affordable Health Care Act with respect to required coverage.

Administration tailored to the employer's needs. The employer has the choice of third-party

administrators, each of whom can design a service plan to meet the employer's needs.

A self-funded plan should be more cost-effective than a fully-insured plan due to the elimination of many

expenditures associated with a fully-insured plan and the potential of direct savings to the employer from

better than expected claims experience. However, it is possible self-funding may not reduce costs at all.

In this context, the employer must also consider the following potential disadvantages:

Risk assumption. The employer assumes the risk between the expected claim level and the Stop-

loss coverage level.

Provision of services. The employer must provide for the services an insurance carrier would

normally provide. This is accomplished by contracting with a TPA.

Asset exposure. The employer's assets are exposed to any liability as a result of legal action

against the self-funded plan.

Claim fluctuation. Monthly claim costs can vary, verses fixed monthly premiums on a fully insured

case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act


Employers may mitigate the financial risk of self-funding claims under the plan by purchasing Stop-loss

insurance from an insurance carrier or through a TPA. These policies typically provide for risk retention

limitations both on a specific claim and aggregate claims basis, thus limiting the organization’s financial

risk. An important aspect of self-funded group health plans lies in the requirement that the employer

remain liable for funding of plan claims regardless of the purchase of Stop-loss insurance.

One of the factors limiting the ability of HCPS to evaluate this option is the lack of sufficient claims data

analysis. While reports are obtained from the insurance consultant, they are not at a sufficient level of

detail to support the necessary analysis to evaluate the feasibility of a self-funded program. If the district

proceeds with a self-funded program, more in-depth analysis will need to continue (by the consultant and

by district staff) since HCPS will be liable for claims. HCPS should direct its insurance consultant to evaluate

the potential cost savings of a self-funded program, including a comprehensive analysis of claims data.

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time although savings are anticipated. The feasibility study

conducted by the district’s insurance consultant should include a cost-benefit analysis.

Recommendation 3-7: Implement changes to HCPS health insurance programs.

There are several changes recommended to the current health insurance program. These are listed below.

Some of the changes may require negotiation with the employee unions.

Reduce number of health insurance plans offered to employees. HCPS has one program – the

HDHP “high deductible” plan – that has only 48 employees participating in the program. Many of

the costs of administering the program are fixed and are not reduced because of lower program

participation. HCPS should consider eliminating this program and allowing employees to select

from one of the other programs.

Evaluate and communicate the effectiveness of the wellness program. HCPS uses the Vitality

Program offered by Humana as its wellness program. It is not effectively communicated

throughout the district, participation is not tracked, and the potential savings that could be

achieved is neither known nor calculated. Humana has contractually committed to give HCPS a

$4.5 million bonus annually if the district achieves 35 percent participation in the wellness

program. HCPS needs to be much more proactive in defining and communicating its wellness

program to its employees, and track the participation in order to be eligible for the bonus.

Implement patient advocate. A patient advocate is an employee or contractor who assists

employees and their dependents with health insurance matters. For example, patient advocates

can be used to find the best service provider and “shop” expensive medical services, such as an

MRI, to save money for both the employer and employee. The industry estimate for return on

investment in a patient advocate is 2 percent to 5 percent of health insurance costs which

translates into $2.7 million to $6.8 million annually. However, in a fully insured plan, the actual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_risk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_loss_insurance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_loss_insurance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_companies


savings would not be realized by HCPS. A comprehensive analysis would need to be completed to

determine savings based on the type of program and possible utilization by employees.

Eliminate payments to employees for opting out of the health insurance program. HCPS pays

$900 annually to those employees who do not select one of the five available insurance programs.

This is significantly less than what the district would pay if they did participate (minimum annual

employer cost on the default plan is $6,636). Employees opting out are required to spend the

amount on specific voluntary pre-tax insurance products or a Flexible Spending Account. If the

credit placed in the FSA is not used during the year that money is forfeited back to the district. In

FY 2015, 4,037 employees opted out, resulting in an additional cost to the district of $3.6 million

(4,037 x $900 = $3,633,300). Further, the district’s insurance consultant earns commissions on the

voluntary benefits, but not the FSA funds (See separate recommendation in this section regarding

consultant contracting.) HCPS should phase out payments to employees over the next three years.

These payments are not required in the 2016 employment contracts.

Convert payment mechanism to insurance consultant from a fixed fee plus a commission to a

fixed fee only. HCPS currently has consulting agreements with AON to provide insurance

consulting services to the district. The consultant model is an effective model for both finding the

best providers and for controlling costs, in that broker commission expenses are reduced or

eliminated. Under the existing contracts for voluntary benefits, AON is paid a percentage of the

total premium. Under the voluntary benefits contract, AON receives a 10 percent fee based on

the total premiums for dental and vision coverage. These commissions are paid out from

employee contributions and not incurred by HCPS. Through its next procurement of insurance

consulting services, HCPS should require the compensation to the insurance consultant to be

based on a fixed fee only. This will eliminate any real or perceived bias towards a particular

insurance carrier by the consultant.

Fiscal Impact

For several of the above strategies, estimates of cost savings or financial benefits are provided. To be

conservative, the lowest end of the cost savings range is applied. The following financial benefits can be

estimated at this time:

Wellness Program: $4,500,000 annually

Opt-out Payments: $3,633,300 annually

Total: $10,833,300 annually


Savings are assumed to begin during the 2017-18 school year.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Implement changes to the

current HCPS health

insurance program.

$0 $0 $10,833,300 $10,833,300 $10,833,300 $10,833,300


Recommendation 3-8: Conduct dependent eligibility audit.

The district’s health insurance program covers HCPS employees and eligible dependents. However, in the

past five years, no audits have been conducted to verify the eligibility of dependents participating in the

district’s health plans. Such audits would ensure that overpayments due to claims by ineligible claimants

are not being incurred. Ineligibility may occur due to employees not dropping their dependents when they

reach age, adding dependents when they are born, or changes in marital status. Based on industry

experience, a dependent eligibility audit could save the district up to 5 percent of health insurance costs,

or approximately $6.8 million. The district should conduct these audits every three to four years. Many

vendors bill for these audits based on a percentage of savings, so the district would not need to go out of

pocket for the cost of the audit.

Two approaches can be applied in conducting these audits, a negative confirmation and a positive

confirmation. These are explained below:

Negative confirmation – communications are sent to employees and updates are requested, or

confirmation that nothing has changed.

Positive confirmation – proof of eligibility is of all dependents is required.

The negative confirmation is less aggressive and should be employed in the initial audit since an audit has

not been conducted recently. In subsequent audits a positive confirmation can be applied.


Fiscal Impact

A 5 percent savings (of the $6.6 million premium paid currently for dependents), or $330,000 can be

achieved. It is assumed that the dependent eligibility audit will occur during 2016-17 and that savings will

be achieved beginning the following year. Companies providing these services typically charge a

percentage of the savings, so no out-of-pocket cost will need to be incurred by the district.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Conduct dependent

eligibility audit. $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000


113 Chapter 4 – Technology Management

Chapter 4 – Technology Management

Introduction

The use of technology has enabled school systems to enhance operational, instructional, and business

efficiency and effectiveness. Technological advances in hardware and software, combined with

increasingly affordable pricing, allows school systems of all sizes to use information systems to perform

vital functions. An effective information system provides many benefits, including more efficient

operations through speed of processing, increased management information and analysis to support

decision making, the ability to more seamlessly integrate programs, and provide highly efficient

communications systems. The importance of and subsequently the investment in technology is increasing

with technologies such as cloud computing, wireless, mobile, and smart devices.

In Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS) the Information Technology (IT) Department serves the

district’s instructional as well as operational technology needs. The Department is managed by the

General Manager of IT and this position reports to the Chief of Staff. IT has the following teams to support

the district.

IT Compliance – Provides oversight for all aspects of compliance within the Department

IT Security & Privacy – Provides accountability and governance over the district’s IT security and

privacy

IT Architecture & Integration – Designs IT systems architecture while ensuring proper alignment

with the district’s operational and business strategy

IT Business Solutions – Maintains and supports the district’s core and line-of-business

applications

IT Infrastructure & Shared Services – Maintains and supports the district’s IT operations including

the responsibilities of Customer Service and Support and the Data Center

IT Instructional Technology – Coordinates with Curriculum and Instruction and the district’s

schools

IT Web Applications & Data Analytics – Develops, administers, and supports the technologies

that enable data-driven decision-making within the district

The Department serves more than 200,000 students in 250 schools. It supports more than 14,000

classroom instructional staff and overall a staff of 26,000 with approximately 190 IT Department

employees.


Figure 4.1 shows the IT Department’s general fund expenditures from 2011-12 thru 2015-16. The

technology expenditures include the following budget sites:

Assessment and Accountability

Chief Information and Technology Officer

Technology Call Center

Information Services

Technology Repair

Closed Circuit TV and Local Area Network

Figure 4.1. IT General Fund Expenditures (in $ millions), 2011-12 through 2015-16

Source: HCPS five-year staffing and expenditure history with site codes 9359 Chief Info &Technology Officer, 9314

Assessment & accountability, 9367 Technology call center, 9750 Information services, 9837 Technology repair, and

9841 CCTV/LAN


The biggest increase was from $21.2 million to $25.7 million in 2014-15.The increase in 2014-15 was

primarily due to the following:

A $1.6 million increase for computers and devices purchases with State Digital Classroom Plan

funds

Approximately $1.4 million spent on student assessment software and platform

Increased staffing expenditures based on technology assessment recommendations made in a

consultant report

Figure 4.2 shows technology expenditures as a percentage of overall district general fund expenditures

over the past five years.

$23.88

$21.40 $21.23

$25.77$24.14

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Mill

ion

s


Figure 4.2. IT Department Expenditures as a Percentage of Overall Expenditures, 2011-12 – 2015-16

Source: HCPS five-year staffing and expenditure history with site codes 9359 Chief Info &Technology Officer, 9314

Assessment & accountability, 9367 Technology call center, 9750 Information services, 9837 Technology repair, and

9841 CCTV/LAN


One benchmark available for comparison of technology expenditures as a percent of overall expenditure

is the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS), a national organization representing the needs of large, urban

public schools. The member school systems have student enrollments ranging from 35,000 to 700,000

students. A 2015 CGCS report, which used data from the 2013-14 school year (the most recent available)

included key performance measures and the results from 61 member school systems in various areas,

including information technology. According to that report school system technology expenditures as a

percentage of overall expenditures ranged from 0.5 percent to 6.8 percent of the operating budget with

a median measure of 1.7 percent. The HCPS level of 1.4 percent ranks in the lowest quartile of the results.

This shows that HCPS spends less on technology than the average urban school district.

In order to establish better transparency and to improve overall IT operations and security, the HCPS IT

Department was subjected to an independent assessment by an outside technology consulting firm –

Sunera. This assessment was conducted in 2013 and resulted in 126 recommendations, covering all major

technology areas. These areas included IT Governance, Application and Infrastructure, Security, and

Operations and Continuity.

Since a thorough assessment was already conducted, the review team did not want to replicate this work

but rather verify the status of the Sunera report recommendations. In order to gather information and

determine the status of each recommendation, the review team reviewed documents, interviewed key

staff members, and made on-site observations to obtain evidence related to implementation of each

recommendation. In addition to determining the status of each recommendation, the review team

highlighted the key recommendations from this report that are key to the Department’s future success.

1.66%

1.47%1.36%

1.53%1.44%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16


The major areas covered by the Sunera report were:

IT Governance – includes IT alignment, resource management, IT value delivery, risk

management, and performance measurement.

IT Application and Infrastructure – includes application portfolio analysis, application and

infrastructure performance sustainability and availability, change management, and system

development life cycle.

IT Security – includes network, server, application, data and physical security, user administration,

anti-virus, threat, vulnerability and password management, security awareness, and data disposal

and destruction sections.

IT Operations and Continuity – encompasses system and data backups, incident and problem

management, audit logging, incident response, disaster recovery, and IT asset management areas.

The 2013 Sunera report contains 126 findings and recommendations. The original report assigned high,

medium, and low priorities to each recommendation. HCPS has made progress on many of the

recommendations, but still has much work to do. Further, some of the recommendations from the Sunera

report are sound in principle but may not be feasible considering the fiscal impact of implementation and

HCPS’ current budget situation. These recommendations include implementing a district wide virtual

desktop infrastructure and a dedicated quality assurance function for data security and development.

Figure 4.3 presents the priorities and the review team’s assessment of implementation status of all 126

recommendations as of April 2016. It is important to note that the Sunera recommendations were

scheduled for a three phased implementation approach starting in fiscal year (FY) 2014-15


Figure 4.3. Recommendation Implementation Progress by Priority

Source: Sunera IT assessment Report, December 2013; Gibson Consulting Group, Inc., April 2016

Figure 4.3 shows that the Department has completed 48 percent of the recommendations from the

Sunera report while actively working on 34 percent. Approximately 18 percent of the recommendations

have not been acted on. While the majority of recommendations have been implemented or are in

process, there remains a significant amount of work ahead to fully implement the recommendations from

this report.

Based on the review team’s assessment, there are several key recommendations from the Sunera report

that are critical to IT’s long-term success. These recommendations and their status are discussed briefly

below:

The district has implemented several high priority recommendations including establishing

various IT governance councils, reorganizing the IT department, and developing an educational

data warehouse to establish a single accessible and highly available data source to store and link

student and employee data.

There are several high priority recommendations that the Department is in the process of

implementing. Perhaps the most important is adopting an IT service model which embraces


commercially available software or software as a service (SaaS) for core district systems. The

district has developed customized software in-house that resides on aging technology platforms.

In order to support aging software and platforms, the Department must utilize staff with skillsets

that are increasingly difficult to find. Additionally, the Department cannot easily leverage staff

knowledge in other more current software and platforms. The Department is working to replace

in-house aging systems with commercially available software.

Another key recommendation that is in process is to create a formal project management office

(PMO).The district hired one project coordinator position under this function and selected project

portfolio management software to manage projects. Considering the size and the number of

projects for the district, the Department is planning to add more staff and resources to this

function.

Other key recommendations in process include:

Establishing and publishing a formal IT service catalog

Developing a formal change management process

Establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPI) , scorecards, and dashboards to evaluate

the performance of IT at a strategic and tactical level

One important recommendation that the Department has acted on is to communicate internal

Service Level Agreements (SLA) to departments and staff.

Since each organizational unit within IT was responsible for implementation of recommendations

applicable to their respective area, there was not a single source of up-to-date information about the

status of each recommendation during this review. The review team recommends that the IT Department

create a project and assign a project manager or single contact within the IT Department responsible for

updating the status of all recommendations made in the Sunera report and report back to an IT steering

committee and key stakeholders at least quarterly.

The remainder of this report provides more information on the status of all recommendations made in

the Sunera report. The report numbered the recommendations based on phase, priority, and major area.

Since the suggested implementation phase dates have passed, the review team grouped the

recommendations based on major area. As a result, the recommendation numbers in the remainder of

this report are not sequential.

IT Strategy and Governance

There are total of 35 recommendations made in the Sunera report regarding the IT governance area. Out

of these 35 recommendations 26 were identified as high, eight medium and one low priority. The review

team’s observations and documents show that the district has completed 16 of the recommendations.

While 13 recommendations are in progress, the work has not started on six recommendations. Table B.1


in Appendix B lists all recommendations made in the IT Strategy and Governance area and provides the

assigned priority, status at the time of this review, and the district’s response and timeline for completion

of each recommendation.

The Sunera report grouped IT governance recommendations in the following sections:

IT Alignment

IT Resource Management

IT Value Delivery

IT Staffing and Skill Sets

IT Performance Measurement

IT Risk Management

Each is discussed in more detail below.

IT Alignment

The HCPS IT Department made progress in this area. Not only did the IT Department align their IT strategy

and plans with district strategic goals but also established various councils charged with increasing

transparency, communication, and accountability among department divisions and IT stakeholders. The

district should continue to fill the empty council seats and communicate the value and the function of

these councils to participants outside the IT Department participants.

The Sunera report found IT operations to be deficient in several areas, and as a result it recommended

that the district outsource its core systems (i.e., Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)), using “Software as

a Service” model. The Department has adopted the service model recommendation with refinements and

is in the process of implementing it. They are working with their current ERP systems vendor, Infor, to

eliminate system customizations so the Department can upgrade the system and possibly have the vendor

host the application for them. The Department bid out the bulk student scheduler application and is

considering a hosted solution for the application as well.

One of the key high priority recommendations made in the Sunera report was establishing, defining, and

publishing a formal IT service catalog. The district has created a draft IT service catalog and is planning to

fully implement this recommendation in the 2016-17 school year. This is a high priority recommendation

and the resulting value it will generate will go beyond IT and benefit the HCPS community as a whole. The

IT service catalog should include not only services that IT provides but also tools, applications, and

software that the district has. The service catalog should be published such that users can access the

services and tools by category or by user type. For example, a student or a teacher can browse the IT

service catalog and discover the services and tools that the district’s IT Department offers to them (e.g.,

wireless device support, available instructional technology, etc.).


IT Resource Management

Based on the recommendations from the Sunera review, the district has reorganized the IT Department,

defined pay scales, and adjusted departmental salaries. The Department also started developing and

implementing an internal IT training program for its staff employees.

As part of the districtwide new budgeting process initiative, the IT Department was developing its budget

to ensure that departmental expenditures are aligned with the HCPS’ overall strategy.

The review recommended a formal IT resources planning process for the Department so that it transforms

itself from a reactionary/“putting out fires” mode to a more proactive mode. The key components of an

IT resource planning process include project portfolio, technology infrastructure, operational support, and

maintenance and staffing. These components should drive the IT resource planning process. At the time

of this review, the Department had not started implementing this recommendation. Adequate staffing of

the PMO office is needed to fully implement this recommendation as the Department has one project

coordinator.

The Sunera report indicated that the Department has an aging workforce and it is critical that they develop

succession plans in order to retain skillsets, competencies, and capabilities within the organization. While

evidence shows that the Department is working to rectify this. Switching and using applications that are

not heavily customized, using hosted application solutions, and the consolidation of technology platforms

will make sustainable succession planning possible for the Department.

One recommendation that the district has not started in IT resource management is re-evaluating the re-

adjustment of the balance allocation between instructional and operational IT funds. The Sunera report

found that the funds for instructional IT is proportionally larger than operational IT. The operational IT

function provides infrastructure that is the foundation for the successful implementation of instructional

technology. By allocating appropriate funds to operational IT, the district will be able to support

technologies like cloud based computing, personalized learning environments, and robust network

bandwidth for secure digital curriculum. In return, this will make instructional technology more effective

and help improve academic success for students.

IT Value Delivery

IT Value delivery is one of the IT governance focus areas that looks at the values and benefits that IT is

delivering to the district. Below are the statuses of the Sunera report recommendations regarding this

area.

The district changed the title, function, and the staff of the previous business process improvement

function which was one of the recommendations of the review.

The Sunera review made several high priority recommendations regarding portfolio project management.

The review team also views this as a critical and high priority need for the district. The district has created

a project management office group in the organizational structure under the IT Department; however the


district has not filled positions for this group with the exception of one project coordinator position. As

the Sunera review indicated, most IT projects are managed by individual IT divisions without following a

standard portfolio project management methodology which makes managing, prioritizing, and assigning

resources to projects that span across multiple division and departments very difficult. The newly created

project coordinator position is working on developing a formalized portfolio project management

approach and prioritizing all current projects but efforts are in the early stages and far from complete.

Through the newly created IT Governance councils, creating, changing, prioritizing, and evaluating IT

projects would bring visibility and ownership of these projects beyond IT to all aspects of the district. The

district should assign the necessary resources to implement all portfolio project management related

recommendations in the Sunera review. These recommendations are critical to the success of HCPS

especially considering the district is looking at a major enterprise resources planning system upgrade or

implementation in the near future.

The Sunera review recommended that the IT Department define and communicate formal Service Level

Agreements (SLAs) for all its services to district staff. The Department has not started implementing this

recommendation. This should also be a critical component of the IT service catalog and IT’s key

performance indicator to measure the performance of the Department. While developing SLA’s, each

division within the IT Department should work with its customers in the district so the SLA is a

collaborative effort of IT divisions and their customers. However, it is important to consider the available

resources the IT division has before developing and committing to an SLA.

IT Staffing and Skill Sets

While the Department made changes to the employee job descriptions to accurately reflect job

requirements and qualifications, they have not started the implementation of the recommendation

regarding creating and using IT position-specific performance evaluation forms to enhance the employee

evaluation process in the Department. The IT Department should work with the Human Resources

Department to create and implement department-specific employee evaluation forms.

The Department has not started implementing the recommendation regarding adopting a time

tracking/portfolio management application to account for IT personnel utilization. This recommendation

will be an important component of the formal portfolio project management effort. It will provide critical

data on who in the IT Department is spending how much time on which project.

The Department is making various levels of progress on the remaining recommendations in IT staffing and

skill sets. All IT-related purchases have started to be reviewed by the Instructional IT and Architectural

Review councils.34 The Department is using staffing companies to fulfill hard to find IT positions with a

“contract to hire” method with a favorable financial impact to the district. As the Department is utilizing

all available methods such as training, transitioning, and outsourcing for IT personnel needs, this is an

ongoing process for the Department. Lastly, the recommendation regarding re-distributing and re-

34 Though not directly related to staffing and skill sets, this recommendation appeared in this category in the Sunera report.


purposing full-time equivalents in the IT Department will be achieved when and if the district successfully

eliminates various aging technology platforms, which is discussed in the “IT Alignment” section of this

chapter.

IT Performance Measurement

The Sunera review report recommended establishing formal Key Performance Indicators (KPIs),

scorecards, and dashboards to evaluate the performance of the Department from a strategic and tactical

level. The Department has been tracking certain KPI’s that are part of the annual data the district reports

to the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS). Although these KPI’s are typical IT industry KPI’s, they are not

specific to the HCPS IT Department’s operations or district strategic goals. The district is in the process of

developing KPIs that are tied to specific strategic objectives of its departments. This effort, combined with

those for reporting to the CGCS will generate KPIs, scorecards, and dashboards that will help the

Department measure and improve its performance. Finally HCPS should communicate these KPIs,

scorecards, and dashboards to other HCPS departments for increased transparency.

IT Risk Management

The Department has developed a computer security incident response plan which includes

legal/regulatory requirements to define and document data breach and communication procedures.

In addition to the district’s information security-related policies, the Department has developed,

documented, and distributed procedures regarding information security which was included as a

recommendation in the previous review.

The Department has created a security audit checklist which includes information that all new and re-

negotiated information systems and security service related contracts will have explicitly defined SLAs and

“a right to audit “clause.

The last recommendation in this section was for the district to conduct an enterprise–wide IT risk

assessment an annual basis. Based on interviews with departmental staff, they are reviewing and planning

the necessary resources to be able to conduct an assessment during the 2016-17 school year.

IT Application and Infrastructure

The Sunera review of IT application and infrastructure resulted in 26 recommendations. Ten were

classified as high priority recommendations, 14 were medium priority, and two were considered low

priority. The current review team concluded that the district has fully implemented 13 recommendations

while nine remain in progress. The district is either still considering whether or not they will implement

and/or has not started work on the remaining four recommendations in this area.

Table B.2 in Appendix B lists all recommendations made in the IT application and infrastructure area and

provides the assigned priority, status at the time of this review, and the district’s response and timeline

for completion of each recommendation.


The report grouped IT application and infrastructure recommendations into the following sections:

Application Portfolio Analysis

Application and Infrastructure Performance

Change Management and Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC)


Application Portfolio Analysis

The Sunera report recommended that the district develop and implement an application portfolio

management (APM) program and restructure the current application portfolio to better align with the

district’s strategic vision and service model. The district indicated that the newly formed governance

councils are reviewing these recommendations and developing an action plan for 2016-17. The decision

will be affected by the direction and steps the district and the Department take regarding the IT service

model and the technology platforms they support.

As discussed previously in the IT governance area regarding the IT service model, the Department is

working on converting on-premise applications and their technology platforms to vendor hosted or

“software as a service” solutions, as suggested in the Sunera report.

The report also recommended adopting a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) in conjunction with bring

your own device (BYOD) initiatives to provide more devices to the hands of HCPS students and staff. The

district completed a VDI proof of concept project and concluded that a VDI solution is not a cost effective

solution considering the low cost of devices that can be purchased with educational discounts. The

Department should continue to research alternative ways to get more devices into the hands of students

in cost effective ways as changes in this technology are happening rapidly. The report did not include a

fiscal impact related to this recommendation so it is not possible to compare the IT Department’s

conclusion with Sunera’s recommendation in terms of cost.

Regardless of how HCPS acquires devices for its students, whether through VDI, BYOD, or district

purchased devices, it will involve setting a robust secure wireless technical infrastructure for the entire

district and extensive teacher training on delivering curriculum in a device agnostic environment. HCPS is

making progress in this regard but does not have a comprehensive districtwide project with milestones,

deliverables, and dates to indicate when this initiative will be complete. The Department should work with

other involved departments, through councils, to define and create a detailed project plan to provide

HCPS’ students greater access to devices that they can use anytime and anywhere.

Application and Infrastructure Performance

The Sunera report recommended that the data center cabling be reorganized. Instead of reorganizing the

existing data center’s cables, HCPS moved to a new data center where cables are organized. The district

also procured and implemented a secondary core switch to reduce the load on the current core switch

and to provide redundancy.


The report also recommended that HCPS modernize or replace the district’s existing email system, First

Class, due to issues with its mobile platform operating system. The district moved the First Class email

application from one that was in-house to a managed cloud service provider’s under the premise that it

will be backed up and maintained with redundancies. The district should define the email application

requirements, including operation system and neutral mobile access, and evaluate the application that

best fits their need in the future.

The Department is evaluating the utilization and performance of the mainframe to determine capacity

and processing requirements as the Sunera report recommended. The IT Department is looking for ways

to eliminate applications or functionalities that the mainframe provides and move to a cost effective cloud

based or on-premise server based solutions. At the time of the current review, the Department was in the

process of evaluating student bulk scheduling cloud and on-premise server based software solutions to

reduce the need for the district’s mainframe.

One of the high priority recommendations made in the report was to establish a single, authoritative,

accessible, highly available data source to store and link student and employee data. The district is

addressing this recommendation with their educational data warehouse staffed with dedicated staff and

outside consultants. The district’s educational data warehouse currently operational but like all other data

warehouse projects, it will never be complete as more data becomes available and user data needs

change, the data warehouse project grows and evolves.

HCPS indicated that they are planning to implement the recommendation related to allocating secondary

network interface cards (NICs) on servers to a backup or storage network during fiscal year 2017-18. The

Department is in the process of implementing a single, authoritative authentication source (e.g., LDAP)

which leverages the Active Directory domain to authenticate users and redesign and readdress remote

site networks in a more scalable, secure fashion as the report recommendation indicated. The Department

has fiscal year 2016-17 as a target to complete the implementation of this recommendation.

Change Management and Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC)

The Department has implemented the following recommendations in the section of change management

and SDLC:

A formal process that ensures all changes are tested in a non-production environment.

A formal process that ensures application developers do not have administrative access to

production code environments.

A formal process that ensures all application code changes are reviewed using a

manual/automated process prior to deployment to production.

Develop a formal application developer training program to ensure all developers are trained in

secure coding techniques at least annually.

Formalize and require Quality Assurance (QA) and User Acceptance Testing (UAT) processes for

all applicable changes in development activities.

Develop a standardized Request for Change (RFC) form.


Consider implementing a QA/UAT automated testing tool.

While application developer training will be an ongoing activity for the Department, the other

recommendation processes are documented and underway.

The review team saw evidence during this review that the Department is in the process of developing a

formal enterprise–wide change management and system development life cycle (SDLC) process. They

developed these in the Web Development and Analytics and the Human Resources and Business System

areas of the IT Department. The Department estimated that they will be able complete developing these

processes in the remaining areas in 2016-17.

Although the Department assigned an estimated timeline on each of the following recommendations, at

the time of this review, implementation had not begun.

Develop a Change Approval Board (CAB) (FY 16-17).

Implement an "independent verification and validation" process into the SDLC for large IT projects

(FY 16-17).

Implement a formal process to ensure that production data is expunged, masked, or de-identified

prior to use into a non-production (e.g., development of testing) environment (FY 17-18).

Evaluate alternative project portfolio and change management solutions to replace MantisBT (FY

17-18).

The only high priority recommendation in this group was to develop a change approval board. The

Department should implement this recommendation first as it is essential for implementing the other

change management related recommendations.

IT Security

There were 44 recommendations made in the Sunera report related to IT security. Of the 44

recommendations made, 8 were classified as high priority, 18 as medium priority, and 18 as low priority.

Observations made and documents reviewed during the current review indicate that the district has

completed implementation of 23 recommendations. While 13 recommendations are in progress,

implementation has not started on eight recommendations though the Department is planning to do so.

Table B.3 in Appendix B lists all recommendations made in the IT security area and provides the assigned

priority, status at the time of this review, and the district’s response and timeline for completion of each

recommendation.


The report grouped IT security recommendations into the following sections:

Network Security

Information systems and server security

Application security

Data security and administration

User administration

Password management

Threat and vulnerability management

Anti-virus management

Security awareness

Physical and environmental security


Network Security

The Department has completed implementing the following network security related recommendations

made in the Sunera report.

Configure all network devices to use secure, remote administration protocols.

Update configuration guides and standards to ensure that Cisco network devices use "level 5"

encryption for storage of local authentication credentials.

Re-configure the TippingPoint IPS system to inspect traffic into and out of the least trusted

network security zones.

Develop a high-level, current, and comprehensive network diagram that accurately depicts all

segments of the District's network.

Review and maintain network diagrams to ensure they accurately reflect the current state of the

network.

Develop a formal process that ensures all firewall rule set changes are approved, tested, and

documented.

Assess firewall configurations for approved ports, protocols, and services at least semi-annually.

Develop and publish a formal wireless policy that defines authentication and encryption

requirements.

Remove legacy network devices from the environment.

Update configuration guides and standards to require strong cryptography and authentication for

all remote administration services.


IT Department staff should continue to review and update those recommendation that require ongoing

support. The Department is in the process of implementing the following recommendations and expects

to have implementation completed during the 2016-17 school year:

Implement a secure wireless network in accordance with the prospective wireless policy.

Develop and implement procedures for identifying and removing rogue wireless networks within

the District's facilities on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly).

Develop and maintain configuration standards for network devices that define required security

parameters.

Implement a formalized program to ensure that firewall and router rule sets are reviewed on a

routine basis (e.g., semi-annually) to investigate and restrict/remove overly permissive and

extraneous rules.

The Department has not begun implementation of the recommendation related to deploying a Central

Authorization and Authentication Cache (e.g., RADIUS, TACACS) Server to integrate with a central LDAP

authentication system. The Department is scheduled to complete this recommendation in the 2017-18

school year.

Information Systems and Server Security

HCPS implemented a recommendation to improve network security by ensuring strong cryptography and

authentication was utilized in remote administration services.

In order to address security concerns regarding site-based domain controllers, the Sunera report gave the

Department two alternative solutions to implement: (1) Either replace the site-based domain controllers

with read-only domain controllers or (2) implement a virtual desktop infrastructure solution. While during

this review the IT Department indicated they are reviewing these options, the Department does not

believe they have the necessary funding to implement either solution in the near term. The district should

allocate funds to implement this recommendation in the 2016-17 school year.

Although the Department indicated that they are planning to implement the recommendation to formally

document and periodically review (e.g., annually) minimum security baselines for each major operating

system type in 2016-17 fiscal year, implementation had not started at the time of this review. This is high

priority recommendation that the Department should address no later than 2016-17.

Application Security

Use and enforcement of strong cryptographic ciphers (e.g., 128 bits or greater) on public web servers was

a Sunera report recommendation for increased application security. The Department is in the final phase

of testing for full implementation of this recommendation.


Sunera also recommended that the Department develop and implement a formal application scanning

program that requires all internally hosted applications to be scanned on a regular basis (e.g., quarterly)

and prior to deployment into the production environment for possible security related vulnerabilities. The

Department is planning on implementing this recommendation during 2016-17 work has not started yet.

The application developer security training recommendation made in the IT Application and Infrastructure

section of this chapter will help to enhance application security for the district.

Data Security and Administration

The Department is working on implementing the following recommendations related to data security and

administration. These recommendations are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2016-17.

Augment configuration standards to require that sensitive data at rest is encrypted with strong

cryptography.

Restrict local and domain administrator account access on critical databases to only respective

DBAs.

Evaluate current systems to determine what datasets should be encrypted at rest and ensure that

strong cryptography (128 bits or greater) is enforced.

Enforce full disk encryption on laptop computers issued to departments that interact with

sensitive data (e.g., PII, HIPAA).

At the time of this review, the Department had not begun implementation of the following

recommendations:

Document database security configuration baselines.

Review all instances to ensure user credentials are encrypted with 128 bit encryption or greater

during transmission.

Augment database configuration standards to require that user’s credentials be encrypted with

128 bit or greater encryption during transmission.

Data security and administration is a growing concern for school districts nationwide with growing usage

of cloud based services for data-related activities. Heightened awareness and concern by the public –

specifically students and their families – regarding safe keeping of confidential and sensitive data has also

contributed to the increased importance of data security. The Department should expeditiously

implement all of the remaining recommendations regardless of the assigned priority.


User Administration

The Department has implemented the following recommendations related to user administration made

in the Sunera report.

Implement a formally documented process for requesting, logging, and approving user access

rights.

Assign user and service accounts to groups based on their respective roles (i.e., RBAC).

Implement a formal process that requires system owners to conduct periodic (e.g., quarterly) user

access reviews to identify excessive/ inappropriate access, inactive accounts and terminated

users.

The following recommendation is in the early stages of and scheduled to be completed by the end of

2016-17.

Ensure that all systems which must be accessed from the internet are positioned within a DMZ,

or less trusted network.

The Department is reviewing the recommendation to conduct a comprehensive review of all local,

domain, enterprise, and schema administrator accounts within the Windows environment to determine

its feasibility. This recommendation will make ensure that all unnecessary administrative accounts are

disabled or removed. The Department is planning on implementing this recommendation during the 2016-

17 school year.

Password Management

The IT Department has completed the recommendation to enforce the LAN Manager Authentication level

policy and require the use of NTLMv2 for the transmission of Windows passwords. The Department

indicated that they are identifying and removing all shared administrative accounts on critical systems as

the recommendation suggested. This and the recommendation to review and update of all critical

systems' password parameters to ensure that configurations are in-line with industry best practices are

now part of the Department’s ongoing password management activities.

Threat and Vulnerability Management

The Department has completely implemented all recommendations related to threat and vulnerability

management. Below is the list of recommendations made related to this area:

Implement a formal vulnerability management program.

Develop, document, and implement a formalized security patch program.

Execute internal and external vulnerability scans on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly).

Execute internal and external penetration testing on a routine basis (e.g., annually).


Anti-virus Management

The Sunera report included three recommendations related to anti-virus management including:

Centralize the deployment, configuration, and administration of all anti-virus management into a

single department /function.

Configure the Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) application to retain relevant anti-virus logs

for at least 365 days, with a minimum of 90 days readily available for review.

Integrate Mac OS based systems into the current SEP anti-virus system to provide central

management of anti-virus clients on Mac OS based systems.

The Department has implemented all three recommendations.

Security Awareness

Based on the Sunera report recommendation, the Department has implemented a formal security

awareness training program and indicated that this training program will be an ongoing activity

throughout the school year.

Physical and Environmental Security

According to the Department, the recommendation to adjust ventilation within the primary data center

to ensure that air temperature and humidity is consistently distributed throughout the raised floor space,

is addressed with HCPS’ move to a new data center with adequate ventilation capability.

IT Operations and Continuity

The review of IT operations and continuity by Sunera resulted in 21 recommendations. Two

recommendations were assigned a high priority, 12 were considered medium priority, and seven were

classified as low priority. During the current review, it was concluded that while the district has

implemented eight recommendations, eight recommendations are in progress, and the district is either

still considering whether or not they will implement and/or has not started work on the remaining five

recommendations in this area.

Table B.4 in Appendix B lists all recommendations made in the IT operations and continuity area and

provides the assigned priority, status at the time of this review, and the district’s response and timeline

for completion of each recommendation.

The report grouped IT Operations and continuity recommendations in the following sections:

System and data backups

Incident and problem management

Audit logging


Incident response

Disaster recovery

IT asset management


System and Data Backups

The IT Department has implemented the recommendations regarding regular back-ups of the district’s

email system and performing periodic restores from tape for open systems (e.g., AIX and Linux).

The HCPS IT Department is in the process of implementing the recommendation to evaluate third-party

vendor contracting opportunities to maintain secure off-site storage of backup tapes in a location that is

at a sufficient distance (e.g., 50 miles) from district facilities.

The Department has not started implementing the following system and data backup recommendations:

Evaluate the current backup strategy to assess the legal and business requirements pertaining to

the retention of data as well as the data recovery objectives of the organization.

Identify and encrypt all sensitive backup media.

Both recommendations have a target completion timeline of 2016-17.

Incident and Problem Management

Implementation of the recommendation for a centrally located dashboard that projects an accurate

maintenance schedule for major systems, including a categorization of all outages with slight refinement,

has been completed. The maintenance information is published and discussed in weekly IT staff meeting.

The Department has also started to monitor customer and call center performance indicators on a regular

basis

In an ongoing effort, the Department is working on expanding the utilization and adoption of Symantec

Service for service request tracking, as well as change management tracking and documentation.

Audit Logging

The Department started configuring audit logging for the applications, hardware, data storage, and

network devices associated with critical/sensitive data. The Department indicated that this is an ongoing

process for their divisions.

The Department is evaluating vendors and working on securing funding to acquire and implement a secure

and centralized log collection appliance.


The key recommendation made related to audit logging was to develop a program to ensure that audit

logs are reviewed/monitored on a daily basis. The Department has not started to implement this

recommendation but are planning to do so during 2016-17.

Incident Response

The recommendation to develop a computer incident plan and perform annual testing of the plan has

been implemented by the Department as part of the security incident plan.

Disaster Recovery

While the Department is working to implement several disaster recovery related recommendations, such

as evaluating options for disaster recovery sites and augmenting current disaster recovery documents to

include detailed recovery procedures for all critical systems, the disaster recovery recommendations

related to the district’s mainframe system are connected to which IT service model the district chooses

(discussed previously in this chapter) and how long the district will continue to use a mainframe as a

mission critical platform.

The Department indicated that they have conducted a formal enterprise wide business impact analysis

for disaster recovery and conduct functional tests of the disaster recovery plans on an annual basis

IT Asset Management

The Department has adopted the recommendation to use Symantec Altiris as a centralized system to

track, monitor, and assess the district’s IT assets portfolio. The Department is liaising with other district

departments such as fixed assets determine the resources needed to implement the recommendation

related to tracking assets valued under $750. The review team agrees that it may be difficult to predict

the amount of resources needed to implement this recommendation, especially given the size of the

district; therefore a detailed cost analysis should be conducted before deciding whether to implement

this recommendation.

133 Chapter 5 – Transportation Management

Chapter 5 – Transportation Management

Introduction

The Hillsborough County Public Schools’ (HCPS and/or the District) Transportation Department (the

Department) is responsible for home-to-school transportation for general education students and special

needs students in Hillsborough County. The Department is also responsible for student transportation for

summer programs, school activities, educational field trips, and extracurricular activity trips for all schools.

Additionally, the Department is responsible for vehicle maintenance for the fleet of school buses and the

for the district’s general services vehicles.

This chapter provides seven recommendations in the areas and transportation employee management,

routing and scheduling, rider eligibility and fleet management. Most of the information and

recommendations contained in this chapter were presented in the Phase I report in spring 2016. This

Phase II report includes additional background information, supplemental information on

recommendations made in Phase I, and presents an additional recommendation.

The transportation function at HCPS is a massive operation with an annual budget of $70 million. The

District operates a fleet of 1,409 buses and 980 driver route assignments each day. In 2015-16, HCPS

provided home-to-school transportation for 86,402 students each day, or approximately 41 percent of

the student population.

The Florida Department of Education (DOE) funding formula for student transportation provides funds to

school districts in Florida based on each district’s pro-rata, or proportional, share of eligible transported

students. The formula includes an additional weight for students with disabilities requiring specialized

transportation services. In addition to students transported by public school buses, the funding formula

includes students transported to and from school on public transit. Adjustments to each district’s share

of state transportation funds are made for cost of living differences, the percentage of population residing

outside urban centers, and efficiency as defined by the average number of students transported per day,

per bus.

Each district determines the number of eligible transported students by recording the full-time-equivalent

(FTE) students transported on specific “count” days in each of four periods (July, September, February,

and June). HCPS earned state funding of $34,121,39935 in 2014-15 based on the previous years’ FTE

counts. State funds allocated to HCPS in 2014-15 represented 49 percent of actual HCPS operating

expenditures for student transportation. HCPS covered the remaining $35,836,236 (51 percent) in

expenditures primarily from the district’s General Fund.

35 FLDOE 2014-2015 Funding for Florida School Districts: Statistical Report.

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5423/urlt/Fefpdist.pdf



HCPS Transportation Spending

Over the past five years, transportation expenditures dropped, then increased starting in 2013-14. Over a

five-year period, expenditures have increased by 6 percent, or approximately 1.5 percent per year. Figure

5.1 presents a five-year spending history for the transportation function. These expenditures include

school bus transportation as well as vehicle maintenance for the district’s general service vehicles (white

fleet).

Figure 5.1. HCPS Transportation Function Operating Expenditures, General Fund, 2010-11 through

2014-15 (in $ millions)

Source: HCPS Five-Year Expenditure History, Function 7800 (Transportation Services)

Table Note: While 2015-16 unaudited data were made available, reported expenditures were significantly lower

than the prior year and could not be satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, 2014-15 expenditure data is the most

recent data used throughout this chapter.

In 2014-15, the total operating expenditures for the HCPS Transportation Department – excluding vehicle

maintenance for the white fleet – were $69,957,63536. These expenditures include $44 million for

operations, $22 million for school bus maintenance including fuel, and $3.8 million administration. In

addition, the Transportation Department incurred $10.8 million in capital costs, the majority of which was

for school buses. Table 5.1 presents a summary of HCPS Transportation Department operating and capital

expenditures for 2014-15.

36 Excludes Site Code 9799 Vehicle Maintenance for the white fleet

$69.3$67.1 $65.5

$68.5

$73.5

$0.0

$10.0

$20.0

$30.0

$40.0

$50.0

$60.0

$70.0

$80.0

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15


Table 5.1. HCPS Transportation Department Expenditures, 2014-15

Budget Category Amount Percent

Operations $44,047,917 54.5%

Maintenance (including fuel) $22,075,664 27.4%

Subtotal – Variable operating expenses $66,123,581 81.9%

Administration $3,834,054 4.7%

Total Operations and Capital Expenditures $80,760,490 100.0%

Bus vehicle capital $10,398,068 12.9%

All other capital $404,787 0.5%

Total Operations $69,957,635 86.6%

Total Capital $10,802,855 13.4%

Source: HCPS expenditure data, 2014-15

The district’s cost efficiency in transportation is better than most urban school systems in the U.S. Based

on the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) most recent performance benchmark survey, HCPS ranks in

the lower (more efficient) quartile for cost per mile and cost per rider. HCPS also ranks in the highest (best)

quartile for daily runs per bus, indicating a productive use of the fleet. However, in the comparing the

average age of the bus fleet, HCPS is in the highest (lowest performing) quartile. The district has taken

steps since 2013-14 to replace buses (see capital expenditures above). Table 5.2 compares HCPS to

selected CGCS median measures for 2013-14, the most recent data available.

Table 5.2. Comparison of HCPS Performance Measures to CGCS, 2013-14

Budget Category HCPS CGCS Median

Cost per Mile $3.20 $5.31

Cost per Rider $606 $1,077

Daily Runs per Bus 5.07 4.36

Average Age of Bus Fleet 12.7 years 9.0 years

Source: Managing for Results in America’s Great City Schools, Council of Great City Schools, October 2015

Transportation Department Organization

The HCPS General Manager for Transportation is responsible for a staff of approximately 1,650 (filled and

vacant positions) who work in five functional areas: operations, administration, routing and planning,

training and safety, and vehicle maintenance (fleet management). Figure 5.2 is an illustration of the

organizational structure and staffing levels for the Transportation Department.


Figure 5.2. HCPS Transportation Department Organization and Staffing

Administrative Manager

Field Support Supervisor (9)

Operations Manager

Training and Safety Manager

Fleet Manager

General Manager

Routing and Planning Manager

Clerk III (9)

Field Compliance Inspector (20)

School Bus Driver (969)

Bus Attendance (307)

Administrative Supervisor

Senior Administrative Services Specialist (2)

Administrative Services Specialist

(10)

Routing and Planning Supervisor

Routing and Planning Analyst (4)

Routing and Planning Specialist

(7)

FTE Specialist (3)

Training and Safety Supervisor

Training and Safety Specialist (5)

“Behind the Wheel” Driver Trainer (25)

Secretary

Property Supervisor

Fleet Shop Manager (2)

Service Writer

Fleet Shop Supervisor (6)

Facility Maintenance (3)

42 Positions

Warehouse and Purchasing Supervisor

18 Positions

Source: HCPS Transportation Department

HCPS manages and operates most transportation services in-house. The Department does contract

transportation service in situations when the travel is a long trip for a single student, and a private

transportation provider can operate the trip at a lower cost. The largest functional division within the

Transportation Department is operations. Each of nine field support supervisors is responsible for

transportation services in one of nine areas. Areas 1-8 supervise transportation in designated geographical

areas of the county; Area 9 supervises transportation for the district’s magnet school program.

The second largest functional division is fleet management. The fleet manager is responsible for vehicle

maintenance for school buses and the white fleet, and facility maintenance for the Transportation

Department. The Transportation Department employs 38 mechanics and technicians for bus maintenance

and 17 for white fleet maintenance. Several service writers and data clerks organize and document vehicle

maintenance work orders.

Staff in the routing and planning division manage the Department’s student data, bus routes, state data

reports, and prepares changes to the routes per requests and policy. The routing and planning manager

works with a supervisor to monitor staff divided into three functional areas. The four routing and planning

analysts perform advanced investigations to forecast future bus and route needs, recommend adjusted

bell times, and identify program costs. The seven routing and planning specialists perform routine routing


tasks for general education and exceptional student education (ESE) transportation, organize contracted

supplemental transportation services, and file hold harmless agreements. Hold harmless agreements are

required for HCPS buses to access private, gated communities, necessary at times due to the walk-to-bus

stop distance policy. The third functional area of routing and planning consists of three FTE specialists.

These three positions monitor special transportation needs established in individualized education

programs (IEPs) and collect and report data for quarterly FTE student counts to the Florida DOE.

Training and safety staff coordinate new driver training, existing driver continuing education and training,

incident-related driver re-training, and provide on-the-street spot checks as needed. Five specialists

conduct classroom training. Twenty-five experienced drivers provide behind-the-wheel training and also

drive assigned bus routes.

The administrative manager leads 13 staff to provide administrative support to all divisions of the

Department.

Technology and customer service report directly to the general manager for Transportation. Two

technology positions provide information technology support. Two customer service liaisons and four

phone representatives receive customer feedback from both schools and parents. The Department uses

software to support bus routing and scheduling, and for vehicle management and maintenance.

Operations and Maintenance Facilities

The transportation function operates from four primary facilities, plus dedicated training space at a fifth

facility through a contract with a community technical college. The physical layout of the transportation

function is described below:

40th Street Facility

The 40th Street Facility, located at 2920 N. 40th St, Tampa, Florida, is the base for vehicle

maintenance for the white fleet. The facility is considered adequate in terms of both vehicle

storage capacity and maintenance facility space. Mechanics at this facility work a single shift

during normal weekday business hours.

Harney Road Facility

The Harney Road Facility is located at 9455 Harney Rd in Thonotosassa, Florida. The facility is the

headquarters for the Transportation Department and includes the offices for operations

supervision for Areas 3, 4, 7, and the magnet program. The facility also houses administrative,

routing and planning, customer service, technical support, and fleet management functions. The

Department completed a new administrative and training building in spring 2016. The Harney

Road vehicle maintenance building include a fueling station, bus wash equipment, 20 permanent

vehicle maintenance bays, and eight outdoor, covered vehicle bays. Harney Road vehicle

maintenance personnel operate two shifts and provide road-call support and vehicle

maintenance from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Harney Road has space to park approximately 300 school

buses. Much of the current space is dedicated to parking for spare buses.


Plant City Facility

The Plant City facility is located at 3102 N Airport Rd in Plant City, Florida. The facility is on the

eastern side of the county and includes both vehicle parking and maintenance functions. The

office for Area 6 is located in another building 3.1 miles away at 703 N Thomas St, Plant City,

Florida. Area 6 and other area routes operate from the Plant City facility. The facility has space for

parking 180 buses and an outdated maintenance facility. HCPS completed maintenance facility

renovations during 2015-16 and the facility has eight maintenance bays. The Plant City

maintenance facility runs a split shift and is open from 5:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Parking and drainage

improvements are scheduled to be complete before the start of 2016-17. The expanded parking

area will have the capacity to park 350 school buses.

East Bay Facility

The East Bay Facility is located on the campus of Eisenhower Jr High School and East Bay High

School at 7620 Big Bend Rd in Gibsonton, Florida. The facility is the district’s most centrally located

transportation facility. Offices for Areas 5 and 8 are located on-site. The facility has several

maintenance bays and portable buildings for area offices. The East Bay maintenance facility

operates a split shift and is open from 5:00 AM to 7:00 PM, similar to Plant City. East Bay can

accommodate parking for as many as 200 school buses if distributed across the campus.

The Area 1 supervisor is located on the campus of Ballast Point Elementary in southwest part of

the region, and the Area 2 supervisor is located on the property of an HCPS general maintenance

facility, in the central west of the county.

Training Facility

The Transportation Department has dedicated office and classroom space on the HiTEC Campus-

Aparicio-Levy Technical Center. Office space includes desks for each trainer and storage for

materials. Classroom spaces include typical modern college features, such as row table-desks,

comfortable seating, white boards, and projectors with screens. Five school buses are parked on-

site overnight and used regularly for training. The district’s 25 behind-the-wheel driver trainers

use their regular route bus to provide training. The Department intends to maintain the training

space on the Aparicio-Levy campus for the foreseeable future.

Recommendations

Transportation Employee Management

Transportation Department area supervisors each have a clerk and one or more field compliance

inspectors to assist in oversight of drivers and bus attendants. The district authorized 1,234 driver

positions for 980 route assignments during 2015-16. However, during the year HCPS employed 969 bus

drivers and 307 bus attendants. Accordingly, there were not enough drivers to fill all 980 route

assignments, and there are no extra drivers to fill routes when drivers are absent. Each area office

supervisor oversees an average 108 drivers and 34 bus attendants.


Recommendation 5-1: Implement a timekeeping system for school bus drivers to report actual time37.

HCPS does not require a school bus driver to report actual time worked each day and therefore,

compensation is not based on actual time. A bus driver’s pay is based on a time report completed by each

bus driver and approved by a supervisor once per school semester. The bus driver’s record of hours

worked is the time driving a school bus including travel time to and from a route, time transporting

students, and time between scheduled trips. Each HCPS school bus driver is paid an hour each school day

for time not driving a school bus. The one hour is intended to cover pre- and post-trip inspections, fueling

and sweeping the bus, and filing required reports such as passenger counts. The additional hour

represents 180 hours paid time per year per bus driver for duties not driving a school bus.

After the initial time report, a bus driver’s record of hours driving the school bus is revised if the route

changes or if the bus driver reports an exception on any day. Use of exception reports for time reporting

introduces the risk of error.

HCPS should implement a timekeeping system for the school bus drivers to report actual time worked

each day. The district has invested in upgrades to the existing routing and scheduling software that can

include a mobile application that uses cell phones or computer tablets to report and record bus driver

work schedules in real time. The bus drivers have the ability to use a cell phone or tablet keypad on each

bus to enter an identification number that interfaces with the payroll system. The system will then record

the actual time and physical location of the bus driver and bus (using the existing bus global positioning

system).

Fiscal Impact

Transportation industry standard practice for scheduling the bus driver report allowance (e.g., time for

sign-in, vehicle inspection, pull-out and filing reports) is between 10 and 15 minutes.38 Assuming the

report allowance twice per day, the total estimated time per day is 20 to 30 minutes. HCPS bus drivers are

also tasked with fueling the bus every few days. An estimated 40 minutes per day (20 to 30 minutes plus

10 minutes additional report allowance) means at least 50 minutes per week for fueling the bus. Using an

average of 40 minutes per school day, reported directly through a timekeeping system, will generate

savings of over $1.26 million annually for non-driving duty time. However, this adjustment would need to

be negotiated in the subsequent Blue Collar Contract. Table 5.3 presents the details of this calculation.

37 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 38 Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 135: Controlling System Costs, Chapter 5, pages 5-

08 and 5-14 includes estimates for run cutting (driver scheduling) for 10 to 15 minutes report allowance at the

start of a run for sign-in, inspection, pull-out, and report time.

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/161864.aspx

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/161864.aspx


Table 5.3. Estimated Savings from Actual Time Reporting by Bus Drivers

Savings Factor Amount

Drivers, 2014-15 1,012

Estimate 20 minute reduction in paid hours per bus driver per day 0.333

School days per year 180

Reduction to total annual hours 60,659

Hourly direct wages 2014-15 $18.35

Ratio for benefits for Social Security/Medicare and retirement only 1.133525

Annual savings (includes payroll taxes for Social Security/Medicare) and

retirement) $1,261,724

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (Payroll by Job Code - Reg and OT with Staffing Levels; expenditure data)

An investment will need to be made for the procurement, implementation, training, and any ongoing

maintenance fees associated with a new timekeeping system. The fiscal impact of this investment cannot

be determined until the district issues a Request for Proposals.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Require school bus

drivers to report actual

time.

$0 $0 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $1,261,725

Total $0 $0 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $1,261,725


Recommendation 5-2: Reduce driver absenteeism39.

HCPS school bus drivers work 180 days over a 10-month calendar. HCPS provides a benefit of one day per

month paid time off for personal leave (including sick leave). The absentee rate for the district’s school

bus drivers is high.

In 2014-15, the average number of absences for any reason (including sick leave, personal leave, family

leave, worker’s comp, etc.) was 2.35 absences per bus driver per month and the average duration of each

absence was 5.76 hours. Ninety-five percent of all absences were paid time off. The annualized time off

per bus driver was 135.36 hours40 resulting in an absentee rate of 13 percent41.

39 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 40 (2.35 absences per month x 10 months x 5.76 hours) 41 (2.35 absences x 10 months = 23.5 annualized absences divided by 180 school days = 13 percent)


With 980 scheduled bus driver assignments, the HCPS Transportation Department needs 127 substitute

bus drivers42 to cover for absences, or a total bus driver pool of 1,107 bus drivers43. The number of bus

drivers available to work varies monthly; however, assuming 1,012 bus drivers (the number of drivers in

2014-15), approximately 95 school bus driver positions were vacant.

The Transportation Department does not have enough stand-by bus drivers to fill-in when regular bus

drivers are absent. When bus drivers and attendants are absent, the route has to be assigned to another

bus driver (who already has an assignment). This means routes operate behind schedule and students are

not delivered to school timely.

The HCPS policy to provide paid time off for personal leave in addition to sick leave44 may increase the

number of absences for bus drivers who work 10 months. The Transportation Department must pay for

the paid time off of the absent bus driver, the additional time of the bus driver to cover the route, and

any overtime charges. The Transportation Department is working to reduce absenteeism by training bus

drivers on the detrimental impact on the students and the Transportation Department when a bus driver

is absent from duty.

The HCPS Human Resources Division should also increase initiatives to recruit and hire new drivers to fill

bus driver vacancies. A sufficient number of substitute bus drivers will permit absences to be filled with

regular pay hours rather than overtime pay.

Fiscal Impact

If absentee events by bus drivers are reduced from 13 percent to 10 percent (18 average absentee events

per bus driver per year), this will result in 31,900 fewer hours required for duplicate pay, or a savings of

$665,594 (see Table 5.4). If any of that duplicate pay is at the overtime pay rate, the savings could be up

an additional $332,978.

Table 5.4. Estimated Savings from Reducing Driver Absenteeism


Absentee rate 13 percent 23.49

Absentee rate 10 percent -18.00

Fewer absences per bus driver 5.49

Hours average duration of absence 5.76

Fewer hours absent annually per bus driver 31.62

Bus drivers 1,012

Fewer hours absent annually 31,999

Bus driver average hourly rate $18.35

42 (980 x 13 percent) 43 (980 + 127 = 1,107 bus drivers) 44 Blue Collar Contract 2014-2017 Sections 21.2 and 32.1



Possible savings annually, direct labor only $587,190

Ratio for benefits attributable to Social Security/Medicare and retirement 1.133525

Annual savings (includes taxes for Social Security/Medicare and retirement) $665,594

Fewer hours absent annually 31,999

Additional savings per hour if replacement hours are overtime premium $9.18

Possible savings annually, direct labor only $293,755

Ratio for benefits attributable to Social Security/Medicare and retirement 1.133525

Annual savings including payroll benefits $332,978

Total savings direct labor plus overtime premium, including benefits $998,572

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (expenditures; Absenteeism – October 2015)


The five-year fiscal impact of this recommendation assumes full implementation in year one.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Reductions

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Reduce driver

absenteeism. $0 $665,594 $665,594 $665,594 $665,594 $665,594

Savings if replacement

hours are overtime

premium.

$0 $332,978 $332,978 $332,978 $332,978 $332,978

Total $0 $998,572 $998,572 $998,572 $998,572 $998,572


Recommendation 5-3: Reduce overtime for school bus drivers and vehicle maintenance staff45.

In 2014-15, the total HCPS payroll for bus drivers (including regular pay, overtime, training, etc.) was

$26,013,460. Of that total, overtime pay was $2,765,720, or 10.6 percent of total bus driver pay. The

overtime pay is for scheduled route time over 8 hours daily (over 40 hours per week), overtime required

when on-duty bus drivers operate longer assignments due to bus driver vacancies and absences, and

overtime for activity, field, and extracurricular trips. At $27.53 per hour of overtime46, the equivalent

overtime hours were 100,462.

A goal to reduce overtime by 40 percent will reduce overtime expenditures by $1,106,288 per year.

The Transportation Department has identified opportunities to reduce scheduled overtime pay for daily

home-to-school routes by pairing longer and shorter runs for more balanced scheduled time and by

45 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 46 ($18.35 x 1.5)


encouraging bus drivers to minimize time absent for personal time other than illness. The Transportation

Department’s initiatives have already resulted in lowering overtime pay. HCPS should continue strategies

to eliminate unnecessary overtime and reduce overtime pay for school bus drivers.

Fiscal Impact

Reducing or eliminating overtime on daily scheduled routes can save up to $581,490 in overtime pay.

These savings are premium pay only because the routes are still required but can be operated with straight

time pay.

Analysis of route schedules for student transportation between home and school and between schools

shows that 341 routes are scheduled for more than 8 hours each day. Assuming each route operates 5

school days per week, the routes are scheduled to require overtime pay for time over 40 hours per week.

The scheduled routes generate 277.24 overtime hours for bus drivers each day and 47.64 overtime hours

for attendants assigned to some of the routes. The annualized overtime hours are 49,903 for bus drivers

and 8,575 for attendants. While geographic location and student program placement may in some

circumstances, require driver/bus aide weekly assigned routes with overtime, the overtime schedules

generate additional expenses for the overtime premium. The 341 routes require $519,281 overtime

premium pay annually for bus drivers and $62,209 overtime premium pay annually for attendants,

including benefits. The total cost of scheduled routes with overtime is $581,490 annually (see Table 5.5.

Table 5.5. Annual Cost of Scheduled Routes with Overtime

Savings Factor Drivers Attendants

Daily route with scheduled overtime hours 277.24 47.64

School days 180 180

Annualized overtime hours on scheduled routes 49,903.2 8,575.2

Overtime premium per hour (direct labor rate x 0.50) $9.18 $6.40

Annualized payroll for scheduled route overtime hours $458,111 $54,881

Ratio for benefits for Social Security/Medicare and retirement

only 1.133525 1.133525

Annualized payroll including benefits for scheduled overtime

hours $519,281 $62,209

Total annualized savings in overtime premium $581,490

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (expenditures; Operator-Rider Paid Time - snapshot from area office files)

Further analysis of the same route schedules shows 373 routes are scheduled for less than 7 hours per

day. Drivers are paid any difference in scheduled hours and the 7 hour minimum guarantee per day. The

373 routes total 272.16 hours paid for time not scheduled. The 272.16 hours per day for each of the 180

school days totals 48,989 hours annually.

Because bus drivers are assigned to 341 routes that are scheduled for more than 8 hours each day, other

school bus drivers are paid a minimum 7 hours per day, and the minimum schedule for a field trip is 3


hours, many bus drivers accepting field, activity, and extracurricular trip assignments are paid at the

overtime rate. The Transportation Department assigns field trips based on seniority, not based on a bus

driver’s available time before reaching overtime status as specified in the Blue Collar Contract.

The Transportation Department can also identify savings by reducing overtime among vehicle

maintenance staff. In 2014-15, the HCPS vehicle maintenance personnel (non-supervisory maintenance

staff including mechanics, trade specialists, etc.) earned overtime pay of $515,474, or 19 percent of

regular pay $2,717,513.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Reductions

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Reduce overtime pay for

school bus drivers. $0 $581,490 $581,490 $581,490 $581,490 $581,490

Reduce overtime among

vehicle maintenance

staff.

$0 $515,474 $515,474 $515,474 $515,474 $515,474

Total $0 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $1,096,964


Routing and Scheduling

The Transportation Department follows board policy and state requirements regarding bus route design

and stop selection pursuant to Florida Statutes.47 To ensure compliance and to maximize efficiency, the

HCPS Transportation Department uses technology to collect accurate data, design efficient bus routes,

and safely carry out their mission. Routing and planning staff recently upgraded to the newest iteration

of EDULOG SQL, the routing and scheduling software. The Department anticipates the new system will

improve the ability to create accurate route alignments and determine safe bus stop locations for

students. The Department actively uses web-based tools to keep district staff and parents informed of

student bus assignments. All buses have an onboard global positioning system (GPS) and passenger

compartment cameras. GPS tracking is primarily used at the beginning of each year to verify driver routes

and paid time. However, the Department is working to implement a link between vehicle GPS units and

the routing and scheduling software which may eliminate paper-based time reporting. Real-time use of

GPS will enable more effective communication with parents and district staff.

Recommendation 5-4: Increase time between bell schedules48.

HCPS Transportation operates 980 school bus routes each day. Each route represents a required bus and

a bus driver assignment. Fifty-six percent of the bus routes (547 routes) are scheduled for three runs (or

tiers) each morning and afternoon. Of the remaining routes, 40.7 percent (399 routes) are scheduled for

47 Florida Statutes 1006.21 and 1006.22. 48 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS.


two tiers each morning and afternoon, and 3.5 percent (34 routes) are scheduled for one tier each

morning and afternoon. The current school bell times limit greater schedule efficiency.

General school bell times are 7:33 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for high schools, 8:00 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. for elementary,

schools and 9:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. for middle schools. There is not enough time between the bell

schedules for the high schools and elementary schools to optimize the number of bus routes required.

The buses on some routes cannot serve both a high school and an elementary school before the middle

school. The bell time for some schools, particularly magnet schools, vary from school to school, adding to

the challenges for the Transportation Department to schedule efficient routes.

The Transportation Department can influence but does not control the bell schedules. If the school district

provides more time between bell times, the Transportation Department could schedule more bus drivers

and buses for three tiers, reducing the total number of bus drivers and buses required to meet student

transportation requirements.

In order to improve student transportation productivity, HCPS should adjust the start and end times of

school each day to allow at least one hour between bell times for high schools, elementary schools, and

middle schools and limit variations on bell times for individual schools. Increasing the number of routes

with three tiers each morning and afternoon and decreasing the number of routes with two tiers or one

tier (by 77 routes49) will mean fewer bus drivers and buses can serve the same number of students.

Fiscal Impact

A net reduction of 77 routes could save HCPS approximately $2.4 million annually in bus driver labor. This

calculation is presented in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6. Estimated Savings from Staggering Bell Schedules – Bus Driver Savings


Guaranteed minimum paid hours daily per bus driver 7


Regular hours per year 1,260

Hourly direct wages, 2014-151 $18.35

Per bus driver, annual direct salary only $23,121

Net reduction to total routes2 77

Annual direct salary only (n=77 bus drivers) $1,780,317

49 In 2015-16, the Transportation Department scheduled 980 bus/driver assignments (routes) to operate 2,473 runs

in 3 tiers. Of the 980 routes, 547 buses operated 3 tiers; 399 buses operated 2 tiers, and 34 buses operated 1 tier

each AM/PM. The assumptions for 77 reduced number of bus drivers: Change from 547 to 700 buses operating 3

tiers (+153), from 399 to 170 buses operating 2 tiers (-229), from 34 to 33 buses operating 1 tier (-1). Net fewer 77

buses. The current 980 buses operate 2,473 runs, the revised assumptions = 903 buses operate 2,473 runs, or no

change in the number of runs.



Full benefits ratio, 2014-15 1.331234

Annual savings for reduced number of bus drivers (77) through additional tiering $2,370,019

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (Routes - Runs – Stops; expenditure data)

Table Notes: 1Excludes overtime and benefits; 2Net reduction to total routes results in a reduction in total bus drivers

and buses; May not sum to total due to rounding

On average, 26 percent of school bus routes are assigned an attendant to assist exceptional student riders.

If a similar percentage of the reduced routes also requires an attendant, HCPS would require 20 fewer

attendant positions (guaranteed 6 hours per day) representing $367,800 in annual savings, as reflected in

Table 5.7.

Table 5.7. Estimated Savings from Staggering Bell Schedules – Bus Attendant Savings


Assumed daily paid hours 6


Regular hours per year 1,080

Hourly direct wages, 2014-151 $12.79

Per attendant, annual direct salary only $13,813

Reduction in number of attendants required (26% of 77 routes) 20

Annual direct salary only, 20 attendants $276,264

Full benefits ratio, 2014-15 1.331234

Annual savings for reduced number of attendants (20) by additional tiering $367,772

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (expenditure data; staffing data)

Table Notes: 1Excludes overtime and benefits; May not sum to total due to rounding

The total estimated annual savings from this recommendation is $2,737,790.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Increase time between bell

schedules (bus driver savings). $0 $2,370,018 $2,370,018 $2,370,018 $2,370,018 $2,370,018

Increase time between bell

schedules (bus attendant

savings).

$0 $367,772 $367,772 $367,772 $367,772 $367,772

Total $0 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $2,737,790



Eligibility for Student Transportation

The Florida DOE reimburses school districts for a portion of the cost of student transportation for

Kindergarten through Grade 12 and ESE programs. A student’s transportation is eligible for transportation

funding if one of the following conditions are met50:

The student lives two or more miles from the school.

The student is classified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), regardless of distance (excluding gifted students).

The student/parent or infant is enrolled in the Teenage Parent Program (TAP).

The student is enrolled in a state-funded prekindergarten program (IDEA or TAP), regardless of

distance from home to school.

The student is a career or exceptional student being transported from one school center to

another where appropriate programs are provided.

Summer transportation funding is only available for eligible students requiring extended school

year services, as documented by their IEPs or by the Department of Juvenile Justice.

The student meets the criteria for hazardous walking as stated in Section 1006.23, F.S. Only

elementary school students are eligible for funding under the hazardous walking category.

Recommendation 5-5: Phase out courtesy transportation for secondary school students. 51

HCPS provides home to school transportation for 86,402 students. Approximately 74,000 (85.6%) of these

riders are eligible for state reimbursement. An additional 12,357 Grade 6-12 students – called courtesy

riders – are not. HCPS must incur the full cost of transportation for these student riders.52 Table 5.8

presents a breakdown of the student transportation at HCPS in 2015-16.

50 2015-16 Funding for Florida School Districts for Student Transportation

http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7507/urlt/Fefpdist.pdf 51 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 52 HCPS FTE reports to Florida Department of Education <140-FLDOE Rpt 3>



Table 5.8. Students Eligible for Transportation

Category of Student Rider 2015-16 Percent

Students using HCPS student transportation 86,402 100.0%

Regular student riders 58,429 67.6%

Hazardous K-6 student riders 11,695 13.5%

IDEA, IEP student riders 3,863 4.5%

TAP student riders 58 0.1%

SUBTOTAL – Students eligible for State funding 74,045 85.7%

Courtesy riders using transportation services 12,357 14.3%

Source: HCPS FTE 2015-16, Survey 3, Transportation Department data, February 2016

The HCPS Transportation Department is proposing to revise transportation practices to provide courtesy

transportation after routes for student riders living two miles or more from school are complete. This

means students requesting courtesy transportation will ride on the school bus longer or will have to wait

at home or school for a bus that has completed the regular run. A change in practice may discourage

current student riders who could walk to and from home.

The review team recommends a more aggressive approach. HCPS should discontinue providing student

transportation services to secondary students that are not eligible for funding from the Florida DOE. This

recommendation should be phased in over the next three years.

Fiscal Impact

The total operating expenditures for the Transportation Department in 2014-15 were $69,957,63553. The

total expenditures include $3,834,054 for administration (5%), $44,047,917 for operations (63%), and

$22,075,664 (32%) for maintenance (includes fuel). Administration expenses are considered fixed because

they do not change with the number of routes operated or the number of students transported. Operating

and maintenance costs ($66,123,581) are variable depending on the hours and miles required to operate

routes for student riders. Accordingly, the average variable operating and maintenance cost per student

rider to provide HCPS transportation was $765.30 in 2014-15.54 This amount is used as the basis for

calculating cost savings for this recommendation to phase out courtesy transportation.

Assuming courtesy transportation for 12,357 students is phased out completely over the next three years,

HCPS will save approximately $9.5 million annually upon full implementation (see Table 5.9).

53 Excludes Site Code 9799 Vehicle Maintenance for the white fleet 54 HCPS expenditure data, 2014-15


Table 5.9. Estimated Savings from Discontinuing Courtesy Transportation for Secondary Students


Courtesy riders, not reimbursed by Florida DOE 12,357

Goal to reduce courtesy student riders (100 percent) 12,357

Cost per student transported, calculated $765.30

Possible annual savings by discontinuing courtesy transportation $9,456,812

Sources: HCPS expenditure data spring 2016; FTE reports to Florida Department of Education (140-FLDOE Rpt 3);

Florida Department of Education (http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5423/urlt/Fefpdist.pdf page 33 for

2014-15 http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7507/urlt/Fefpdist.pdf page 32 for 2015-16)

The five-year fiscal impact below assumes a phase-in approach of 25 percent the first year, 50 percent the

second year, and full implementation by the third year.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Reductions

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Phase out courtesy

transportation for

secondary school

students.

$0 $2,364,012 $4,728,406 $9,456,812 $9,456,812 $9,456,812

Total $0 $2,364,012 $4,728,406 $9,456,812 $9,456,812 $9,456,812


Fleet Management

Recommendation 5-6: Require drivers to park school buses overnight at HCPS transportation facilities.55

The number of school buses in the HCPS fleet in 2015-16 was 1,409 buses. The total combined parking

capacity for school buses at the three transportation facilities is 850. The current facilities, even with

recent improvements, leave the district without parking capacity for 559 buses, or 40 percent of the

school bus fleet.

The current Blue Collar Contract 2014-2017 with the Employees Federation includes a provision regarding

overnight parking for school buses. School bus drivers hired prior to July 1, 2008 are allowed to park their

assigned school bus at home if a suitable parking location on school property is not available and if the

home parking location meets specified criteria. School bus drivers hired July 1, 2008 or later must comply

with Transportation Department direction regarding overnight parking of the school bus.

HCPS school bus drivers park their assigned buses overnight at home or in 100 different HCPS locations

across the county. Current HCPS practice is to permit school bus drivers to park the bus overnight at home

or a school close to home, without limitations on the date of hire. This practice increases time and effort

55 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. However, the fiscal impact for this recommendation was not included in the Phase I report.


by administration, operations, and maintenance personnel to track and manage school buses and bus

drivers and attendants. The practice also places school district assets at risk when schools buses are

parked at unsecured locations.

This section discusses an analysis of driver time studies in regards to overnight parking location for 2015-

16. The actual breakdown of overnight parking location by both Transportation Department area and type

of parking location is reported as Table 5.10 (number of drivers) and Table 5.11 (percent of drivers). The

data for these tables are based on 2015-16 driver time reports.

Table 5.10. Number of Drivers by Area and by Type of Overnight Parking Location

Source: 2015-16 Time Reports

Table Note: *Or other HCPS property

Approximately 200 drivers’ time reports indicated the driver’s overnight parking location was a

transportation facility (22 percent); about 180 drivers’ overnight parking location was home (18 percent);

and 581 drivers parked at a school site or other district property (60 percent).

Area

Drivers Parking

at HCPS Transp.

Facility

Drivers

Parking at

Home

Drivers

Parking at a

School*

Total Drivers

by Area

Area 1 6 0 61 68

Area 2 11 2 105 117

Area 3 34 8 101 143

Area 4 12 6 47 64

Area 5 3 23 57 83

Area 6 54 68 9 131

Area 7 38 26 45 108

Area 8 19 26 75 120

Magnet (Area 9) 32 21 81 134

Total by Type of Parking Location 209 179 581 969


Table 5.11. Percent of Drivers by Area and by Overnight Parking Location

Area Office

% Drivers

Parking at

Transp Facility

% Drivers

Parking at

Home

% Drivers

Parking at a

School*

Total Drivers

by Area

Area 1 9% 0% 91% 100%

Area 2 9% 2% 89% 100%

Area 3 24% 6% 71% 100%

Area 4 19% 9% 73% 100%

Area 5 3% 28% 69% 100%

Area 6 41% 52% 7% 100%

Area 7 35% 24% 42% 100%

Area 8 16% 21% 63% 100%

Magnet (Area 9) 24% 16% 60% 100%

Total by Parking Location 22% 18% 60% 100%

Source: 2015-16 Time Study Data Entry (percent of 969)

Table Note: *Or other HCPS property

During the fall 2015, the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) was invited by the district administration to

review the Transportation Department. A group including council staff and peer agency representative

conducted interviews with Transportation Department staff and visited facilities. The CGCS published

their findings in Review of the Transportation Program of the Hillsborough County Public Schools in

December 2015. The CGCS operations findings noted the Transportation Department facilities were

generally inadequate. The CGCS reported that unsecured bus parking lacks sufficient control, reduces

security, increases liability, invites potential worker compensation claims, creates service delays caused

by inoperable buses, increases maintenance costs due to logistics of shuttling buses to/from remote sites

(schools, homes), and exposes vehicles to vandalism.

HCPS should add bus parking facilities and require all buses to be parked there. Parking school buses at

HCPS transportation facilities will benefit supervision and operations, maintenance, and safety and

security. Each of these benefits is discussed briefly below:

Supervision and Operations

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will improve employee supervision and provide

the opportunity for better channels of communication between area supervisors and drivers and

bus attendants. Currently, supervisors do not have a daily opportunity for face-to-face

communication with drivers and attendants. Supervisors cannot know if the driver reports on

time or has a mechanical problem with the school bus until a delay has already occurred. The

supervisor cannot verify pre-trip vehicle inspections. If all drivers report to a transportation facility

to pick-up the bus before an assignment, the supervisor and drivers will benefit. Supervisor and

driver proximity will result in more effective and frequent communication. Closer supervision will


help managers to ensure compliance with district policy and monitor on-time bus pull-out so that

students are picked up according to scheduled times and delivered to school on time for classes.

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will enable the district to pay drivers for all hours

actually worked. Supervisors and drivers will be able to implement a more accurate time-

reporting system. Supervisors will know sooner if there is a problem with either employee or

vehicle and address the challenge a quickly as possible since staff and vehicles will be in proximity.

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will alleviate the negative impacts of unexpected

driver absenteeism and make it more convenient for another driver to take the route assignment.

For example, in May 2016, Area 6 had 38 occasions when a driver who parked at home or a remote

school was absent and the supervisor had to find a replacement driver and bus at the last minute,

often resulting in late service for the student riders. Separate recommendations in this chapter

address timekeeping, absenteeism, and overtime – the implementation of this recommendation

will improve the ability of the Transportation Department to achieve all three recommendations.

By strategically locating new facilities with adequate parking for school buses, the Transportation

Department will reduce operating costs through increased route efficiencies by minimizing the

distance between bus parking and first stop/last stop for routes.

Maintenance

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will help the Transportation Department reduce

expensive road-calls. Eighty-one percent of road-calls in 2015-16 were for buses that were not

parked overnight at a transportation facility. The most significant problems occur when a driver

has a mechanical problem with the school bus before service begins. If the bus does not start or

the bus has some other mechanical problem that makes the bus inoperable or unsafe, the driver

has to call for roadside assistance from vehicle maintenance. The time required by mechanics to

make road calls is unproductive, and road calls delay the driver from making on-time pick-ups at

bus stops. If the bus is declared out of service by the mechanic, the route is further delayed and

another bus and driver has to be assigned to the route. When school buses are parked at

transportation facilities, maintenance personnel have immediate access to expedite repairs and

can assign a different bus immediately.

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will help the Department to cost-effectively

provide preventive and scheduled vehicle maintenance. Operations personnel (supervisors, field

inspectors, clerks), routing analysts and schedulers, and vehicle maintenance personnel

(supervisors, mechanics, clerks) spend hours of time each day locating buses, assigning buses,

identifying spare buses, arranging for transfer of buses, and making road calls for buses parked in

remote locations. Too much of the time of bus drivers and administrative staff is spent finding

and transferring school buses, not transporting students.


Safety and Security

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will limit liability and risk associated with drivers

driving district vehicles on paid-time to and from their personal residence. Buses leaving facilities

will be using designated, planned routes designed to be safe.

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will improve security for HCPS personnel and the

vehicle assets. Buses parked at transportation facilities are protected from tampering and

vandalism. While some risk for such acts remains, the potential likelihood is reduced, and the

Transportation Department’s ability to respond is significantly improved. Existing facilities have

fences, gated access, and other security features designed to limit the likelihood and impact of

tampering and vandalism.

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will reduce the district’s exposure to worker’s

compensation claims. Parking spaces are prepared and maintained to be safe for boarding and

alighting. Parking school buses at transportation facilities also bring staff into closer proximity and

thereby increase the opportunity for a timely response to limit injury and, therefore, claims.

Parking school buses at transportation facilities will protect vehicle assets during extreme weather

events – limiting financial risk and vulnerability. Hillsborough County is located on the Gulf of

Mexico side of central Florida. The region experiences occasional hurricanes, tropical storms, and

more frequently heavy rain. Heavy rain can cause flash or regional flooding. Transportation

facilities are more likely to be adapted to mitigate flooding. Hurricanes and tropical storms bring

heavy rain and high winds. High winds may inadvertently damage a bus parked at a personal

residence because the locations may have trees and lower-grade structures in close proximity to

the bus. Transportation facilities are constructed to be resilient to certain levels of storms and

parking areas are free of vegetation and objects that become flying debris in high winds. In

extreme, forecasted events like hurricanes, parking school buses at transportation facilities will

enable the Transportation Department to park buses in concentrated blocks that limit bus window

and body exposure to damage.

The primary barrier to parking the entire school bus fleet at HCPS transportation facilities is inadequate

parking capacity. The three existing facilities used for bus fleet parking and maintenance are each fully

developed in terms of parking. Site expansion is not possible because each facility is land-locked by

adjacent uses. As a result, HCPS will need two additional transportation facilities in strategic geographic

locations.

An administrative barrier to parking the entire school bus fleet at HCPS transportation facilities is that

some drivers are allowed by the Blue Collar Contract to park their buses at home and the Transportation

Department honors the requests of other drivers to park buses at home. These terms would need to be

renegotiated during the next union contract discussions.


The short-term recommendation is for HCPS Transportation Department to maximize assignments for bus

parking at existing transportation facilities and appropriate district property and school sites that are

located to maximize proximity to transportation facilities.

The district can also immediately enforce the provision for drivers hired subsequent to July 1, 2008

without renegotiating the union agreement. Drivers hired prior to July 1, 2008 are eligible by the Blue

Collar Contract to park the school bus at home if a suitable parking location on school property is not

available. About 85 of the approximate 200 drivers approved to park at home at the beginning of the

2015-16 school year are included in this group. The Transportation Department can require bus drivers

hired July 1, 2008 or later to park at a transportation facility or other school property near a transportation

facility.

The longer term recommendation requires capital investment to develop new strategically located

transportation facilities capable of parking and maintaining all buses in the fleet. This recommendation

will require HCPS to invest in property and/or improve property (pavement, fencing, and lighting) to

provide appropriate parking for school buses. HCPS is currently improving land near the Plant City facility

for expanded bus parking and also recently completed maintenance bay improvements to the East Bay

facility.

Fiscal Impact

Estimated Capital Cost (one-time)

The cost of each new facility will vary based on land value. Facilities of the size needed require between

20 and 40 acres to accommodate staff parking, administrative space, maintenance space, bus parking,

and site development for drainage, etc. The cost per East Bay maintenance bay was about $225,000. The

cost per Plant City bus parking space (excluding land cost because existing HCPS property was developed)

was about $5,000. New transportation facilities will need to be sized to meet district needs in their

respective geographic location. However, a typical transportation facility may require about 30 acres and

include 10 maintenance bays and parking for 300 buses. The cost for such a facility is likely to fall in the

range of $4.2 million to $7.1 million56. To be conservative, the higher end of the range is used in estimating

the one-time fiscal impact. Assuming two facilities are developed, the total cost would be $14.2 million.

Estimated Annual Operating Costs

The additional operating cost is comprised of additional labor cost for personnel specific to the new facility

and ongoing expenses for utilities, grounds maintenance, and facility (equipment, etc.) maintenance.

Staffing assumes the Operations and Maintenance are already staffed to operate 980 routes and

maintenance the full fleet of buses. It is assumed that both divisions will move existing personnel to the

new facility. New personnel are specific to staff in an additional facility location. Table 5.12 includes

56 $1.9 million for land w/an existing building + $2.25 million for maintenance bay modifications + $1.5 million for bus parking = $5.65 million +/- 25 percent due to site cost variability and market conditions.


calculations and assumptions used to support the estimate of annual operating costs for the two new

facilities.

Table 5.12. New Transportation O&M Facility

Positions Salary 2014-15

Vehicle Maintenance

Supervisor, Shop, Fleet Maintenance and

Repair 1 $44,085

Clerk , Maintenance Unit 1 $28,646

Specialist 2, Equipment Parts 1 $29,356

Custodian 1 $19,297

Operations

Clerk 3 1 $26,888

Total Salaries $148,272

Full Benefits Ratio 2014-15 1.331234

Total Labor Cost ($197,385)

Source: HCPS

Estimated Annual Operating Savings

Implementation of this recommendation will help achieve savings identified in other recommendations

in this chapter. Additional savings for reduced deadhead time (non-route bus driving time) is also expected

to be achieved since bus drivers will not be driving buses to and from home or other remote parking

location. Table 5.13 provides the calculations supporting the savings estimate.


Table 5.13. Estimated Annual Operating Savings

Source: HCPS spring 2016; Gibson Consulting Group, Inc. calculations

Routes (bus and driver route assignments) 980

Assume percent of routes would be less deadhead per day based on

analysis 2015-16 time reports for Area 6

27 routes of 131 would be closer if assigned to existing facility

27 131 20.6%

Benefit existing

facilities All Areas

50 routes would have less deadhead if new facility strategically located New facility

Assume 2 new facilities 100 10.2% benefit

Total percent of routes that will see benefit if buses are parked overnight

at transportation facilities + 2 new strategically located facilities 30.8% Total

Assume miles less deadhead per day (parking to first stop AM; last stop to

parking AM; parking to first stop PM; last stop to parking PM) 4x/day 4 2 8 miles

Miles per day 2,416


Miles for school year 434,858

Assume benefit per new facility 50% 217,429

Vehicle

Maitenance

Cost

Average

Miles

per Bus

Savings for

Less Miles

Annual 2014-15 expenses per school bus for vehicle maintenance $15,267

Average annual cost for fuel per bus $5,286 12,611 0.4192$ fuel

Annual 2014-15 cost per school bus less fuel $9,981 12,611 0.7915$ maintenance

Per Mile 1.2106$ cost per mile

Estimated savings deadhead miles 217,429

Savings vehicle maintenance and fuel reduced deadhead miles 263,222$ savings

Savings for

Less Driver

Time

Average travel speed, calculated (miles per hour) 12.32

Divide speed into savings deadhead miles 17,648 hours

Driver, hourly direct salary only $18.35

Savings direct labor cost $323,849

Full benefits ratio 2014-15 1.331234

Savings driver time reduced deadhead miles $431,119 savings

Total Annual Savings Reduced Deadhead Miles per New Facility $694,341


Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Reductions

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Require drivers to park

school buses overnight at

HCPS transportation

facilities.

One-time facilities cost (2

parking facilities)

($14,200,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Estimated Operating

Costs $0 $0 ($257,385) ($257,385) ($514,770) ($514,770)

Estimated Operating

Savings $0 $0 $694,341 $694,341 $1,388,682 $1,388,682

Total ($14,200,000) $0 $436,956 $436,956 $873,912 $873,912


Recommendation 5-7: Reduce spares ratio for school bus fleet.

The Department maintains and manages 1,409 school buses57. The number of bus driver assignments each

day is 980 plus five buses dedicated to training means that 985 buses are in-service each day. Therefore,

the district currently operates with 424 spare buses, or a spares ratio of 43 percent58. The industry

standard for a spares ratio for student transportation service is 20 to 30 percent depending on the fleet

mix and the local operating conditions. There are three primary reasons for the large spares ratio at HCPS:

1. Florida law requires a school bus to be inspected every 30 school days. This requires a

minimum of 33 route buses59 to be available every day for inspection. Every bus driver must

have a spare bus when the route bus is scheduled for inspection.

2. The accepted practice of permitting school bus drivers to park buses at home or to park buses

at a school near home means the district’s assets are distributed around the county.

Management of a disbursed fleet requires a higher number of spare buses.

3. The average school bus fleet age is high, meaning buses are older and require more

maintenance for repairs. HCPS has purchased new buses to replace the oldest and least cost-

effective buses in the fleet.

HCPS recently purchased 200 buses, permitting replacement of the oldest buses in the fleet; however, the

replacement is one for one, spare buses were not reduced. The Transportation Department may be able

to reduce the total fleet by prioritizing buses for retirement that have high maintenance cost and low

average miles operated.

57 As of March 2016 58 (1,409 – 980 = 419/980 = 43 percent spares ratio) 59 (980 route buses every 30 days = 33 buses each day for inspection)


A change in the practice of school bus drivers taking the bus home or near home will reduce the number

of spares required. A smaller, newer fleet that is managed from a limited number of overnight parking

locations will require less maintenance for repairs and less staff time finding and shuttling buses from

location to location.

The Transportation Department enters every vehicle maintenance work order in a vehicle management

information system. The database allows HCPS to track school bus and white fleet maintenance

information in detail. Information can be retrieved for each of 1,446 school buses for 2014-15. The

information includes parts costs, tire costs, outsourced (vendor) expenses, and fuel dispensed.

Unfortunately the vehicle management information system does not produce reports that include

mechanic labor hours by vehicle. Without mechanic labor hours by school bus, the cost analysis is not

complete.

The 2014-15 database showed a total of 18,234,949 annual vehicle miles of service for 1,446 school buses

(the number of school buses for which the data appeared complete), or an average 12,611 annual vehicle

miles per bus. Assuming the average school bus is intended to operate 200,000 life service miles, the

average HCPS school bus should have a 15 to 16 year service life. The 1,446 school buses in the 2014-15

fleet database included 389 buses with over 16 years of service. If 200 of the oldest buses and/or the

buses with the highest maintenance cost per mile are replaced with new vehicles, additional buses may

be eligible to place in surplus if not required to maintain an adequate spares ratio.

The Transportation Department reported a total fleet of 1,409 school buses and 418 buses out of service

on an example day in March 2016 but did not provide information on the reason each of the buses was

out of service. Without this information, analysis of the requirements for spare buses is limited. In order

to develop the basis for determining an appropriate spares ratio, Table 5.14 highlights reasonable

assumptions for future spares requirement based on the assumption that all school buses are parked at

transportation facilities or designated nearby parking areas. Parking school buses at transportation

facilities will reduce the necessary spare bus fleet by about 129 vehicles – a 9 percent reduction in the

maximum fleet requirement.60

60 (1,409 – 1,279 = 130/1,409 = 9 percent reduced fleet size)


Table 5.14. Required Spare Bus Assumptions

Reason Buses Percent of Peak

Requirement

Peak Bus Requirement (including 5 buses for training) 985 100%

Buses for inspections 33 3.4%

Buses available for in service breakdowns 35 3.6%

Buses in minor repair 147 15%

Buses in major repair 50 5%

Buses out for vendor repair or warranty 30 3%

Total Spares 295 30%

Total Fleet with Spares 1,280

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016

Parking school buses at transportation facilities (see above recommendation) will also enable the

Transportation Department to operate with a lower vehicles spares ratio.

Fiscal Impact

Reducing the school bus fleet to a 30 percent spares ratio requires a total fleet of 1,280 buses61. Reducing

the spares ratio to 30 percent will reduce the fleet by approximately 129 school buses62. Reducing the

spare bus fleet by 129 buses can save $946,344 million annually plus one-time revenue for sale of surplus

buses of $258,00063.

When the analyses of vehicle maintenance costs are summarized at a high level, the review team expected

to see costs increasing and annual miles per vehicle decreasing as vehicles age. However, HCPS results

differ when the analysis is applied to more specific data by vehicle subfleet (group of buses with similar

characteristics). Some older vehicle subfleets are more productive (more annual miles per vehicle) at a

lower cost per mile than newer subfleets. Still, older vehicles should be replaced to ensure safety and to

increase the number of buses operating with clean fuels. However, the savings in maintenance cost with

a newer fleet will not include fuel savings because the buses will operate the same route miles.

The buses with the lowest annual mile of service should be retired (in addition to the 200 currently

scheduled for replacement). These are the buses in the fleet that are least productive and are likely less

reliable. At a minimum, this will reduce the time and expenses for 30-day inspections.

61 (980 daily route assignments + 5 training buses + 295 spares = 1,280) 62 (1,409 in March 2016 less 1,280 = 129) 63 (129 buses x $2,000 [estimated salvage value])


Table 5.15. Estimated Savings from Reducing School Bus Fleet Spares Ratio


HCPS Transportation expenses 2014-15 for maintenance $22,075,664

School buses in 2014-15 database *1,446

Annual 2014-15 expenses per school bus $15,267

Less – average annual cost for fuel per bus 12,611 average miles -$5,286

Annual 2014-15 cost per school bus less fuel $9,981

Reduce spare buses 129

Annual 2014-15 expenses per school bus for 129 buses with lowest

odometer miles reported in 2014-15 $10,880

Less – average annual cost for fuel per bus for 8,448 average miles

bus for 129 buses with lowest odometer miles reported in 2014-15 -$3,544

Annual 2014-15 cost per school bus less fuel $7,336

Annual savings by reducing spare bus fleet 129 buses $946,344

Sources: HCPS data spring 2016 (expenditures; ReqNo13-HCPS Bus Summary Costs FY2015

HCPS Outsourced Work Transportation FY 2014-2015; HCPS Fuel Costs Transportation

FY 2014-15; HCPS Transportation Tire Cost FY 2014-15)

* The 2014-15 vehicle database of 1,446 buses included older buses scheduled for replacement as well as new buses placed into

service during the year. The active fleet for 2015-16 was 1,409 buses.

Below is the five-year fiscal impact of implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation

One-Time

(Costs)/

Reductions

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Reduce spares ratio for

school bus fleet. $258,000 $0 $946,344 $946,344 $946,344 $946,344

Total $258,000 $0 $946,344 $946,344 $946,344 $946,344


161 Chapter 6 – Facilities Use and Management

Chapter 6 – Facilities Use and Management

Introduction

School facilities should be designed and maintained to provide an effective learning environment that is

educationally adequate to deliver the curriculum. Having suitable facilities requires good planning, which

is made possible by accurate measurement of school capacities and enrollment projections. There must

be good communication between facilities planning, design and construction, and facilities management.

Finally, processes to enable feedback from the operations and maintenance of facilities to planning and

design are important to enhance the quality of new and renovated schools.

Once schools are built, preventive maintenance (i.e., an ongoing plan for addressing annual maintenance

and operations) and a long-term capital improvement program are critical. One of the most important

aspects of maintaining facilities in the long-term is preventive maintenance. Beyond maintenance, an

aggressive energy management program is essential to minimizing utility costs and providing a sustainable

building environment. In addition, adequate custodial and grounds operations are necessary not only to

provide clean buildings and grounds, but healthy and suitable learning environments as well.

The scope of this chapter includes a review of the organization, staffing structure, models of operation,

policies, management practices, work order system, inventory and warehouse, custodial services, and

energy consumption. The review team conducted interviews, reviewed data and documents, assessed

processes and visited school sites to support the analyses and efficiency evaluation.

This chapter presents recommendations for facilities maintenance and operations for Hillsborough

County Public Schools (HCPS) and includes the following major sections:

School Size and Configuration

School Conditions and Capital Planning

Facility Asset Management Planning

Maintenance Operations

Custodial Services

Grounds Management

Energy Management


The HCPS Chief Operations Officer (COO) oversees the planning, design, construction, maintenance and

operations of school facilities. Three general manager positions report to the COO that pertain to this

chapter – Maintenance, Growth Management and Planning, and (Facilities) Planning and Construction.

The scope of this efficiency study focused on the facilities management activities listed above supported

by the General Fund.

Total spending on Maintenance and Operations, excluding custodial services, was $19.6 million in 2015-

16, down from 22.1 million or 11 percent since 2011-12. Table 6.1 presents a five-year expenditure history

for the HCPS Maintenance Division.

Table 6.1. HCPS Maintenance Expenditures, General Fund, 2011-12 through 2015-16

Expenditure Type

(Object) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

2015-16

(Unaudited)

100 Salaries $14,181,023 $14,485,982 $13,854,602 $13,719,615 $13,654,848

200 Employee

Benefits $4,424,636 $3,933,319 $4,004,719 $4,038,763 $4,145,148

300 Purchased

Services $1,406,528 $1,428,245 $837,350 $625,595 $724,971

400 Energy Services $818,982 $847,150 $770,124 $600,089 $438,313

500 Materials &

Supplies $591,507 $644,015 $614,649 $486,379 $322,798

600 Capital Outlay $519,149 $548,617 $249,360 $511,319 $278,251

700 Other $177,396 $73,681 $79,112 $75,196 $89,189

Total $22,119,222 $21,961,008 $20,409,917 $20,056,957 $19,653,517

Source: HCPS five-year expenditure and staffing history - site codes 9810, 9811, 9812, 9813, 9820, 9821, 9823,

9824, 9831, 9833, 9834, 9839, and 9840


As of April 2016, HCPS facilities included 139 elementary schools, four K-8 schools, 43 middle schools, 28

high schools, 6 alternative schools, 8 adult/technical schools, and various administrative/support

buildings. The total school and administrative support space currently in use throughout HCPS (including

portable buildings) is approximately 26.7 million square feet. Table 6.2 presents number and current

replacement value (CRV) of the HCPS facilities, by facility type, as of April 2016.


Table 6.2. Summary of HCPS Facilities

Facility Category Number Area (nsf)1 CRV2

Elementary Schools 139 11,581,103 $2,320 M

K-8 Schools 4 525,176 $105 M

Middle Schools 43 5,513,581 $1,075 M

High Schools 28 7,504,537 $1,631 M

Special Center/Alternative

Schools 6 229,402 $50 M

Adult/Technical Schools 8 558,112 $121 M

Total Schools 228 25,911,911 $5,302 M

Administrative Facilities 21 826,542 $243 M

Total Facilities 249 26,738,453 $5,545 M

Source: HCPS (GCG REQUEST 86 - Facilities Inventory.xlsx, 85 Gibson Consulting Request (Construction Cost).xlsx).

Notes: 1. Total school areas include portables.

2. Current Replacement Values (CRV) calculated based on the following standard unit rates:

Elementary schools - $189/gsf

Middle schools - $184/gsf

High schools - $205/gsf

Other - $277/gsf

GSF calculated based on definition of net and gross square footage per State Requirements for Education

Facilities 2014 prepared by the Office of Educations Facilities, Florida Department of Education.

School Size and Configuration

The HCPS Growth Management and Planning Department provides services related to the planning and

siting of new schools and related facilities, managing capacity at schools to ensure adequate space to

serve new residential development, and the purchase and sale of district real estate. The Department

responsibilities include:

Maintaining the inventory of school buildings and spaces (master plans)

Coordinating the acquisition and disposal of all real estate

Preparing leases and agreements

Coordinating with local governments on siting, construction, and permitting issues

Providing information on the availability of adequate school capacity to serve proposed

residential developments including School Concurrency requirements

Coordinating the preparation and adoption of the Five-year Facilities Work Plan

Working with developers and local governments to have school sites dedicated as part of major

residential developments


Working with local governments to co-locate school sites with complementary public uses

Periodically adjusting the attendance boundaries of schools

The HCPS Department of Growth Management and Planning has policies and procedures in place to

effectively manage educational and support space. Based on reviews of student enrollment projections,

existing school inventory and capacities, and a five-year facilities plan that includes some school additions

and limited new school construction, there is a sound plan in place to address projected modest growth.

Effectively managing a school district’s facilities requires a sound facilities planning process and the use

of rational school use, capacity, and design policies. The effective and efficient use of HCPS facilities

incorporates:

A detailed and accurate facilities inventory

Effective utilization of existing resources

Appropriate use of temporary buildings

Clear policies governing use of facilities, boundary changes, and consolidation

Valid demographic statistics and reliable estimates of enrollment trends

Established use rates and facility capacities

Understanding of educational program needs related to current schools and spaces

Rational school boundary and transportation analyses

The utilization of school space has changed dramatically over the past years in HCPS. Two decades ago,

HCPS was in a situation of severe overcrowding. Of the 150 schools at that time (1996), more than half

were over capacity with over a third being designated as “critically overcrowded.” Table 6.3 presents a

summary of critically overcrowded schools by school type in 1996.

Table 6.3. School Utilization (1996)

Facility Type Number of Schools No. Critically

Overcrowded

% Critically

Overcrowded

Range of Utilization

(% of Capacity)

Elementary Schools 107 32 30% 120% to 209%

Middle Schools 28 13 46% 124% to 176%

High Schools 15 7 47% 126% to 148%

Source: HCPS (Item 105 – Overcrowded Task Force Summary – MGT, 1997)

At that time there were also over 1,800 portable classrooms with more being recommended and delivered

at a rate of 125 portables per year.

Due to the overcrowded conditions, HCPS created an ‘Overcrowded Schools Task Force’ to make

recommendations to the school board addressing the conditions. The Overcrowded Schools Task Force

and subsequent policies had a significant impact over the next 20 years in dealing with the overcrowding

of school facilities. Past superintendents and chief operating officers also drove the reduction of the

number of portable classrooms and the move to more permanent modular units.


Today, based on the Florida Department of Education’s Educational Facility Inventory System (EFIS), which

includes the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) as well as other data resources, the number of

relocatable (portable) units has continued to decline to a current number of 68 units64. FISH is a

comprehensive facilities database maintained by the Florida Department of Education. It contains data

regarding school inventories (permanent and relocatable), total spaces, type of classroom, facility age,

and growth data.

Trends also indicate that HCPS has increased its school area to student ratio (sf/student) to 135.3

sf/student overall. The overall ratio is in line with state averages, although there is some variation by

school type. The national median school district ratios of school area to student enrollment compared to

HCPS ratios are presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4. School Ratios of Area per Student

Facility Type HCPS Actual National Average65

Elementary Schools 126.8 sf/student 120 sf/student

Middle Schools 146.1 sf/student 146 sf/student

High Schools 130.1 sf/student 163 sf/student

Source: Calculations based on HCPS data (REQ 86 – Facilities Inventory.xls, REQ 114D – School Enrollment 2015-15

(SP003)) and A4LE Calculating School Capacity: Local, State & National Perspectives, October 2007.

Best practices in determining school capacities have been researched and reported by the Association for

Learning Environments (A4LE; formerly CEFPI). School capacity is defined as the number of students that

can be reasonably accommodated by a school building and site. In determining optimal school capacity,

it is important to consider physical, operational and programmatic variables.

Physical variables include: school size, areas by type, site size and amenities, support facilities

(e.g., kitchens, cafeterias, multipurpose rooms, etc.), number and types of teaching stations,

building infrastructure, building and life safety codes.

Operational variables include: school utilization rates, efficiency of space use, operational policies,

staffing levels, funding structures, space management and scheduling, specialty academic and

program offerings, and operational budgets.

Programmatic variables include: educational program offerings, specialty programs, schedules,

extended use, community use, partnerships (i.e., off-site and distance learning), class sizes and

staff ratios.

Program capacity takes into consideration total student seats, support facilities, schedule flexibility,

program offerings, and utilization. Calculating accurate and suitable school capacities is critical to

distributing the right enrollment levels (right number of students) in each school, as well as planning for

schools to best accommodate projected enrollments. Optimizing utilization (the number of students

64 HCPS, School Land Inventory – 2016 (GCG Request 86 – Facilities Inventory.xlsx), “relocatable units”. 65 A4LE (formerly CEFPI) Calculating School Capacity: Local, State & National Perspectives, October 2007.


enrolled to school capacity) will minimize operational costs to the district. Other impacts of the school

capacity/planning process include: adjustment of attendance boundaries, minimization of overcrowding

and underutilization, maximizing educational resources, improved life safety and security, and

justification of school construction funding.

School sizes and configurations within HCPS are developed following HCPS Educational Specifications (Ed

Specs) and design guidelines.66,67 These guidelines are based on Size and Occupancy Design Criteria for

Public Schools in accordance with the Florida Department of Education Office of Educational Facilities

(2014).

The current capacities and utilization rates are calculated using two methodologies utilizing: 1) FISH

Guidelines, and 2) functional capacities based on available stations and space restrictions. The HCPS

Manager of Growth Management and Planning calculates both the FISH (design) capacity and functional

(operational) capacities for each school. The design capacity is equivalent to a ‘maximum capacity’ – the

total number of seats available in a school facility. The functional capacity considers teaching stations and

the desired number of students per classroom.

The functional capacity can vary within a school based on reconfiguration or reallocation of classroom

space to resource rooms or other functional uses. Many of the HCPS elementary schools have high

exceptional and special education (ESE) needs and have reallocated space, thus reducing the functional

capacity and increasing the utilization. Table 6.5 summarizes the current 2015-16 capacities and utilization

rates.

Table 6.5. School Utilization, 2015-16

Facility Type FISH

Capacity

Functional

Capacity Enrollment

% Capacity

(FISH)

% Capacity

(Functional)

Elementary Schools 110,475 94,362 91,297 83% 97%

Middle Schools 51,470 51,470 37,731 73% 73%

High Schools 62,048 62,048 57,689 93% 93%

K-8 5,564 5,564 4,808 86% 86%

Totals 229,557 213,444 191,525 83% (avg.) 90% (avg.)

Source: HCPS (REQ 114D - HCPS School Enrollment 2015-16 (SP003))

HCPS school functional capacities are within the range or above national benchmarks. Average national

utilization benchmarks for school capacities reported by A4LE are presented below:

Elementary schools – 95 to 100%

Middle schools – 70 to 85%

High schools – 80 to 85%

66 School District of Hillsborough County Prototype Schedule of Spaces – Elementary Schools (July 26, 2013), Middle Schools (February 3, 2014), and High Schools (May 6, 2016). 67 HCPS General Design Requirements (September 8, 2015).


School utilization rates can be increased by appropriate scheduling and efficient use of school space. The

tighter the scheduling of space the better the utilization rate for the school. Utilization rates should be

used in conjunction with design (maximum) capacities.

The HCPS Growth Management and Planning Department also maintains good procedures to manage

future school needs based on projected student enrollments. HCPS planners meet annually with the

County Planning Commission, School Board, and local city representatives to coordinate and base the

school facility plans and local government comprehensive plans on consistent projections. These student

projections include the use of statewide Capital Outlay full-time equivalent (COFTE) forecasts, district-

wide projections, impact of development trends, Inter-local Agreements, and concurrency service areas.

In 2005, the Florida Legislature passed legislation that requires adequate school facilities to be in place

within three years of construction of new homes. This concept is called “concurrency” and has been in

place in the County since 1990 for roads, parks, sewer, water, storm water and solid waste facilities.

Schools became part of that program in 2008 with the adoption of a school concurrency program. School

concurrency is determined when a development project reaches the point of a preliminary plat or multi-

family site plan or later in the development review process.

In order to implement the concurrency program, HCPS defines the geographic area that will "serve" new

developments. Individual school attendance zones are used to assess the impact of any new

developments. Any new development being proposed (at the subdivision and/or site plan stage) are

evaluated to determine if the three school levels (i.e., elementary, middle and high) that provide service

to the subject site have adequate capacity to serve the new development. The Growth Management and

Planning Department uses school concurrency tools, including the ‘student generation estimator’ to

evaluate the need for new space, schools or the re-allocation of space among existing schools.

Generation rates calculated by the estimator tool assume a certain percentage of students will go to the

charter schools in accordance with the HCPS open enrollment policy (School Choice). There are 47 charter

schools that draw students from the home schools within their designated boundary. The tool and

calculations adequately address this variable. Finally, any overcrowding at specific schools is addressed by

review and consideration of school attendance boundaries.

Figure 6.1 shows the projected student enrollment trends over the next decade. The trends indicate an

overall projected growth rate of 5.4 percent over the next five years and 1.3 percent thereafter. Overall,

this equates to about 24,000 new students by 2026-27.


Figure 6.1. Student Enrollment Projections (COFTE)

Source: FEA analysis of HCPS data (REQ 114C - Statewide Total COFTE 2016-17 to 2026-27)

The HCPS Five-Year Facilities Work Plan (2016-17 through 2020-21) lists three new schools and five school

additions opening within the next five years.68 The projects will add about 4,450 new student stations.

Additional schools and school additions proposed for the following five years will add another 5,300

student stations. Excess functional capacity in the existing schools provides the ability to absorb over

22,000 students.

Based on reviews of student enrollment projections, existing school inventory and capacities, and a five-

year facilities plan that includes some school additions and limited new school construction, there is a

sound plan in place at HCPS to address projected modest growth.

School Conditions and Capital Planning

School systems across the U.S. are facing the largest collection of aging buildings ever encountered.

Deferred maintenance backlogs continue to grow at unprecedented rates, and the toll it has taken on

facilities is reaching critical levels. A wealth of research and data are available supporting the need for

better facility capital investments and asset management.

The average age of HCPS schools and support facilities is approximately 49 years. Half of the facilities are

over 50 years old. In addition, there was a large building boom in Hillsborough County and a corresponding

increase in school construction approximately 20 years ago. With a large percentage of building systems

design life being 20 to 25 years, many of these systems are nearing the end of their useful service life and

in need of renewal.

Many HCPS school building systems are in need of maintenance, repair, or replacement as evidenced by

the $794 million backlog of deferred maintenance and capital projects identified by Facilities Operations.

68 HCPS (REQ 114A 5-year Facilities Work Plan 2016-17 through 2020-21)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Elementary Middle School High School Total


Deferred maintenance is a measure of major maintenance and repair (i.e., capital renewal) needs that

have accumulated over the life of the school and have been generally delayed due to the lack of funding.

This backlog of deferred maintenance can be reflected in an overall facility condition index (FCI). The FCI

is a national standard derived by dividing the total cost of facility deferred maintenance by the current

replacement value (CRV) of the schools.

According to APPA, the association for Leadership in Education, an FCI less than 0.05 is indicative of

buildings in good condition; an FCI between 0.05 and 0.10 is fair; and greater than 0.10 is poor. Based on

this scale, most HCPS buildings (individual schools and other district facilities) are in fair to poor condition.

Overall, however, the district has a 0.14 ranking indicating poor condition.

In a February 2011 report by the 21st Century School Fund, school districts across the U.S. had an estimated

$271 billion in deferred maintenance, averaging $4,883 per student. HCPS backlogs of deferred

maintenance are reaching this level with an estimated $4,145 per student. With a growing deferred

maintenance backlog, lack of preventive maintenance and major repairs will translate into growing capital

project needs where under-maintained systems can no longer function.

In the 2016 State of Our Schools; America’s K-12 Facilities report, the following national standards for

school facilities funding based on industry best practices were proposed.69 The percentages refer to

recommendations for percent of CRV that should be invested annually to maintain schools in good

condition.

2 percent of CRV annually for capital renewal of buildings and grounds systems, equipment

replacement, upgrades and major repairs (e.g., roof replacements, HVAC repairs, etc.).

1 percent of CRV annually for alterations to accommodate facility changes necessitated by school

design trends, changing educational models, and new classroom requirements.

1 percent of CRV annually for systematically reducing the backlog of deferred maintenance.

A level of 4 percent of the CRV is recommended and should be budgeted for capital renewal on an annual

basis. For HCPS, this would translate to approximately $111 million per year in school renewal investments

to maintain current levels of deferred maintenance and current school conditions. The reduction of

deferred maintenance and meeting the changing demands of educational environments would double

that rate of investment.

Current funding levels, based on the HCPS Five-Year Facilities Plan are listed in Table 6.6.

69 2016 State of Our Schools; America’s K-12 Facilities, prepared by the National Council on School Facilities (NCSF), The Center for Green Schools (USGBC), and the 21st Century School Fund.


Table 6.6. Comparison of Planned Capital Renewal Expenditures and Recommended Levels

Fiscal Year 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2020-21

Planned Expenditures $29,300,000 $35,100,000 $38,600,000 $40,000,000 $41,300,000

Recommended Level $110,900,000 $110,900,000 $110,900,000 $110,900,000 $110,900,000

Funding Gap $81,600,000 $75,800,000 $72,300,000 $70,900,000 $69,600,000

Source: HCPS (REQ 114A – HCPS 5-Year Facilities Work Plan 2016-17 through 2020-21 and REQ 114B - HCPS FY2015-

2016 Five-year Facilities Plan), 2016 State of Our Schools Report.

Recommendation 6-1: Dedicate a resource to manage an in-house Facilities Condition Assessment

program.

The goal of a facilities asset management program is to conduct facility condition assessments (FCAs) and

create a facility investment plan that is rational, repeatable, recognizable, and credible. To that end, the

State of Florida requires school districts to conduct an “educational plant survey” every five years to aid

developing plans to meet the needs of the student population, administrators, and staff. The survey must

be submitted to the Florida Department of Education (DOE) Office of Educational Facilities for review and

validation. According to the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF), Section 3.1, the following

information must be included in the survey:

Inventory – current inventory of all existing Board owned and long-term leased educational,

ancillary and auxiliary facilities and plants, including all satisfactory lease-rented, lease-purchased,

owned and rented relocatables.

Recommendations for remodeling, renovation, new construction, site acquisition, site

development and site improvement for existing and new educational and ancillary plants and

auxiliary facilities. Include the general location, capacity and estimated cost of work for each

project.

Student Population – An analysis using numbers provided by the Department, of the projected

capital outlay full-time student population (COFTE).

Facilities Lists – Statements of proposed types of facilities, grade structure and student capacity.

Capital Outlay Proposed Funding Plan – An analysis of expenditures and projected capital outlay

funds for grades kindergarten through 12 and vocational schools; millage necessary to raise the

required local contribution; tax levies on nonexempt property (millage); debt service obligations;

anticipated state funds; the amount of unappropriated and unencumbered capital improvement

funds available for construction at the time of the survey or other financial data as may be

relevant, such as trends in assessed valuation.


The district’s last educational plant survey was approved in 2014. The next survey is scheduled to be

conducted in 2019.70 The 2014 survey identifies capital needs, primarily as renovation and expansion

projects.

The current process of conducting facility condition assessments on a five-year cycle is fragmented and

not well documented. There are also multiple survey processes used to identify needs and compile

separate lists, which complicates the prioritization of facility needs. These factors inhibit the ability of the

district to provide accurate, complete, objective and credible data for funding capital renewal needs and

identifying how to best utilize existing funds. The district should update the FCA program or have a process

for reconciling the survey with the existing facilities data to allow for a comprehensive understanding of

needs and prioritization of those needs.

The 2014 Council of Great City Schools report, Reversing the Cycle of Deterioration in the Nation’s Public

School Buildings, provides recommendations for implementing a good FCA program. The program

includes the following steps:

1. Categorize facility needs based on sources of funding.

2. Prioritize needs based on safety, code compliance, preservation of assets and enhancements.

3. Select a uniform method of categorizing building systems (e.g., Uniformat/Uniformat II).

4. Create standard forms to be used by assessors.

5. Select schools to be assessed.

6. Identify the assessment team and required skillsets.

7. Provide assessors with detailed information.

8. Provide assessors with training and calibration to ensure equitable grading.

An opportunity exists for HCPS to continue build upon the established facility asset management program.

While there have been efforts to collect and maintain important facilities data, there are areas of potential

improvement to improve the accuracy and consistency of facilities data. These include: using a systems

approach in data collection, consolidating the identification and prioritization of a backlog of deferred

maintenance, calculation of relative school facility condition indexes, standardization of building system

classifications and inventory nomenclature, positioning of facilities condition needs, additional training of

staff regarding the importance and impact of the asset management program, enhanced equipment

histories to support decision making, and enhancement of the quality and repeatability of asset

management information.

For school districts with a large number of schools and total building area, conducting facility condition

assessments can be very labor intensive and costly. Outside consultants can typically be procured for

$0.12 per gross square foot (gsf) to $0.15 per gsf to conduct the condition assessments. Multiplying

$0.12/gsf times the HCPS total square footage (26.7 million gsf) equates to approximately $3.2 million to

conduct external FCAs. An alternative systems-based approach to identifying deferred maintenance could

be applied using internal staff much more cost-effectively. The systems approach to FCAs is based on

70 http://www.fldoe.org/finance/edual-facilities/reports-pubs-surveys/k-12-school-diss-fl-college-system-sur.stml


industry standards and meets the previously stated guidelines. The approach identifies building system

level needs by using parametric estimates to produce a macro-level of deferred maintenance costs and

FCIs for each school.

This approach requires a facility walk-through by personnel knowledgeable in evaluating building system

condition. Using standardized forms, generalized condition levels of major systems from new or excellent

condition (5) to not operational or unsafe (1) are determined, and repair costs are developed based on a

percentage of the current replacement value (CRV). Site systems and site utilities are typically evaluated

as separate systems.

There should be a dedicated facilities position to manage an FCA and asset management program for

HCPS. This resource could complete periodic systems-level FCAs, identify and prioritize requirements,

prepare the Five-year Facilities Plan, and coordinate with other aspects of a good asset management

program. It is important for this position to collaborate with the maintenance and operations activities

such as identifying critical schools, systems and optimizing the preventive maintenance program.

(Preventive maintenance is discussed later in this chapter.)

Fiscal Impact

The estimated fiscal impact of adding a dedicated position assumes a manager salary, pay grade 30, of

$57,692. With benefits at 28 percent of compensation, the total fiscal impact is $73,845 a year.

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Dedicate a resource to

manage an in-house FCS

program

$0 $0 ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845)


Facility Asset Management Planning

Recently published international standards define asset management as involving “the coordinated and

optimized planning, asset selection, acquisition/development, utilization, care (maintenance) and

ultimate disposal or renewal of the appropriate assets and asset systems.”71 The U.S. National Research

Council defines facility asset management as a systematic process of maintaining, upgrading, and

operating physical assets cost-effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business

71 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 55000 – asset management.


practices and economic theory and provides tools to achieve a more organized, logical approach to

decision making.72

Facility asset management can be described as the practice of making sound decisions regarding asset

disposition and when, where, and how to spend facility operations and maintenance, preservation, and

improvement resources in the most cost-effective way on assets that are retained. A cohesive facility

management plan with appropriate performance measures and metrics provides a framework to guide

those decisions related to caring for facility assets.

Recommendation 6-2: Develop a Facility Management Plan.

Maintenance Operations does not have a comprehensive facilities management plan to integrate the

functions of the Department and align its efforts with the HCPS 2015-2020 Strategic Plan. While the HCPS

2015-2020 Strategic Plan does not explicitly mention facilities, in the goal area of “Processes & Financials”

the district’s Strategic Plan Objectives tracks three objectives that relate to facilities management:

Increase energy consumption efficiency

Optimize percentage of utilized student stations

Increase number of days with optimal learning conditions73

While some parts of Maintenance Operations have developed handbooks or documented the individual

procedures that guide their work efforts, there is no overall plan that defines the full breadth and depth

of the Department’s activities nor a structure that ties various individual plans together to show how they

support the larger district mission. Facility management leaders in an educational environment must

develop strategies and plans that are consistent, clear, and well thought out.

The review team identified functional areas that would benefit from operational plans that better define

the processes and procedures within Maintenance Operations. For example, there are no documented

quality assurance procedures for oversight of work performed by contractors. Instead, supervisors with

the various maintenance departments are expected to know what contractors are working on in their

functional or geographic areas and oversee the execution and quality of the contractor’s work. This

approach has resulted in instances of contractors billing the district for work that was never performed

and poor craftsmanship in other cases. Given the size of the district and the amount of contracted work,

a more formalized, documented plan for controlling and overseeing contracted work is merited.

Another example where the lack of an operational plan negatively affects Maintenance Operations is in

the area of work management and control. There is no written plan that describes the district’s approach

for integrating planned maintenance activities, corrective maintenance, and customer requests. Without

such a plan, there are also no standard operating procedures for work performed within each of three

geographically-aligned maintenance departments. Each department determines how it prioritizes work,

72 National Research Council (NRC), 2004, Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management Strategies for the 21st Century, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 73 HCPS Strategic Plan Objectives 1516, Rows 93-95.


assigns a technician, and documents work completion. The lack of standard procedures across the three

geographical departments introduces risks for inconsistencies in levels of customer service and data errors

in the computerized maintenance management system.

The Maintenance General Manager should lead the preparation of a Facility Management Plan that

includes detailed operational plans describing how the Department will carry out its functions in support

of HCPS’ Strategic Plan. Examples of operational plans that should be developed include facility condition

assessment, management of contracted services, work control and management, inventory control,

energy management and sustainability, grounds operations, emergency preparedness and disaster

recovery, safety and security, and employee training and development. The plan should also describe how

Maintenance Operations intends to create value for its stakeholders and document how the organization

will respond to both external and internal factors. External factors may include economic, political and

social concerns. Internal factors may include talent pool, organizational culture, and the availability of

resources.

As part of the Facility Management Plan, the Maintenance General Manager should develop specific

objectives and initiatives that will demonstrate that the operational plans are being fully implemented.

These objectives and initiatives will provide accountability throughout the entire organization and should

be well understood by department managers, supervisors and staff. The objectives and initiatives should

then be tracked, measured and tied to improvement of facility management services for the district.

Educational organizations at the forefront of their communities have developed best practices by using

various approaches to develop and track key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring results. Any

performance management approach used should integrate financial and non-financial performance

measures to show a clear linkage between the district’s strategies and objectives and Maintenance

Operations’ objectives, initiatives, and metrics. An example list of potential KPIs is presented in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7. Example Key Performance Indicators

K-12 SCHOOL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)

Input Measures:

FCI of building inventory (% DM/CRV);

Maintenance staffing levels (# of FTEs);

Operations funding ($/GSF);

Baseline energy utilization index (EUI) /school; and

Capital project funding ($).

Process Measures:

Work orders by type;

Top 10 work order problem codes;

Staff utilization (productivity) rates;

PM completion rate (%);

Proactive maintenance (PrM) WOs generated;

PM / CM mix (%);


Utility cost/GSF ($/GSF);

Re-work percentage (%);

School safety inspection findings;

Work order turn-around time (days); and

Annual building inspections completed (%).

Outcomes:

Cost of operations ($/GSF);

Custodial inspection scores (#);

Change in FCI (%);

Trend in EUI per school

Customer Satisfaction (%); and

Budget Performance (%).

Source: Developed by Facility Engineering Associates

Fiscal Impact



The Maintenance Operations Department, part of the Division of Operations, falls under the responsibility

of the Chief Operations Officer. Maintenance is organized into nine departments or shops that report to

the Maintenance General Manager.

Air Conditioning & Energy Management (AC)

Communications & Electronics (CE)

Custodial Operations (CU)

Facility Maintenance Support (FM)

Logistics Operations (LO)

Maintenance Central (MC)

Maintenance East (ME)

Maintenance West (MW)

Sites & Utilities (SU)

Maintenance Operations provides maintenance and repairs for all district facilities and is organized by

function to deliver services across the entire district, with the exception of three Maintenance

Departments that are geographically aligned to East, Central, and West areas. Each functional and

geographic department is led by a manager who reports to the Maintenance General Manager. An

organizational chart for HCPS Maintenance is shown in Figure 6.2.


Figure 6.2. Organizational hart for HCPS Maintenance Operations

General Manager, Maintenance

Department Manager, Facilities

Maintenance Support

Department Manager, AC &

Energy Conservation

Department Manager, Sites &

Utilities, SNS Maintenance

Manager, Communications & Electronics, CMMS/

IT

Manager, Custodial Operations

Manager, LogisticsManager,

Maintenance WestManager,

Maintenance East

Manager, Maintenance

Central

Executive Secretary

12 Filled Positions 77 Filled Positions 85 Filled Positions 17 Filled Positions 10 Filled Positions* 60 Filled Positions 51 Filled Positions 40 Filled Positions 41 Filled Positions

Source: HCPS September 2015 (11- Maint Mgrs and Counts)

Figure Note: *Substitute Custodians not included

The Facilities Maintenance Support (FMS) Department conducts deferred maintenance inspections and

maintains a five-year plan for major repairs, manages a roofing inspection, maintenance and repair

program, oversees contracts for elevator preventive maintenance and certification, and retains the

services of architects and engineers for repair projects. The Department also works with the district’s

procurement staff to obtain and manage contracted services for the entire Facilities Maintenance

Division. Clerks in FMS assist with budgeting, accounts payable, and human resources duties. The FMS

Department Manager also serves as assistant to the General Manager of the Facilities Maintenance

Division.

The Air Conditioning & Energy Conservation Department maintains and repairs heating, ventilation, and

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, water coolers, and ice machines at all district facilities and oversees

contracted vendors that provide HVAC services. The Department also is responsible for district energy

conservation and energy management programs.

The Sites and Utilities Department provides general landscaping, athletic field and play court

maintenance, site and drainage repairs, pest control, collection of solid waste and recycling, maintenance

of exterior features such as fencing, signs and pavements, and oversees any contractors that provide these

services. The Department also operates and maintains water supply and wastewater treatment systems

at eleven schools not connected to municipal services, inspects all backflow preventers and fire hydrants,

and maintains equipment in support of the district’s Student Nutrition Program.

The Communications and Electronics Department is responsible for the maintenance and support of

systems across the district in the areas of telecommunication, fire alarm, security, intercom, video

surveillance, and access control. The Department also maintains equipment such as public address

systems, stage lighting, scoreboards, bells, and master clocks. The Department operates and maintains a

computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) in support of all facility maintenance functions.


The Custodial Operations Department works with staff and the head custodian at each school to maintain

building cleanliness, coordinate special cleaning, and respond to emergencies. The Department provides

janitorial training programs, works with suppliers to evaluate cleaning supplies, and repairs cleaning

equipment. The Department also manages the pool of substitute custodians that augments permanent

staff.

The Logistics Operations Department provides a variety of services for the district, some of which go

beyond traditional facilities maintenance functions. The Department orders, stores and delivers textbooks

and instructional materials, manages mail services, operates the district’s central warehouse, and

provides furniture repair and reuse programs. The Department directly supports the Facilities

Maintenance Division with purchasing and warehouse support for five maintenance departments (Air

Conditioning and Energy Management, Sites and Utilities, and Maintenance East/Central/West).

The geographically aligned maintenance departments, Maintenance East, Maintenance Central, and

Maintenance West, provide facility maintenance and repairs for building interiors in the areas of electrical,

plumbing, carpentry, floor coverings, painting, and locksmith services.

A summary of budgeted positions by maintenance department is shown in Table 6.8. The counts represent

budgeted positions for fiscal year 2015-16 and include assigned and vacant positions.

Table 6.8. Summary of Maintenance Operations Budgeted Positions, Fiscal Year 2015-16

Department Budgeted Positions

Maintenance Operations 141

Facilities Maintenance Support 12

Air Conditioning & Energy Management 91

Sites & Utilities 104

Communications & Electronics 18

Custodial Operations 2102

Logistics Operations 72

Maintenance East 45

Maintenance Central 44

Maintenance West 57

Total Budgeted Positions 667

Source: HCPS (11 - Count Sheet)

Table Note: 1Includes the Maintenance General Manager, nine department Managers, and other support staff. 2 Includes 200 Substitute Custodian positions (all other custodians are charged to the schools)

The five Facilities Maintenance departments that perform building maintenance activities (Facilities

Maintenance Support, Air Conditioning & Energy Management, Maintenance East, Maintenance Central,

and Maintenance West) are comprised of 254 budgeted positions ranging from the Department managers


to front-line trades workers. There are 198 trades worker positions that are responsible for maintaining

28,373,368 gross square feet (gsf) across 288 facilities.

The in-house workforce is supplemented by numerous contractors who perform a variety of maintenance

tasks totaling about 13 percent of facilities work orders, which results in an adjusted workforce size of 224

fulltime equivalents (FTE). The calculated maintenance ratio of 126,667 gsf per FTE is higher than the

typical range for educational facilities of 95,000-110,000 gsf per FTE that is observed in K-12 districts

across the country and far exceeds the staffing formula of 45,000 sf per building maintenance staff

suggested by the Florida Department of Education.74

HCPS spends considerably less per square foot on maintenance than the Florida state average, and this

gap has increased over the past five years. Table 6.9 shows that in 2014-15 HCPS spent 28 percent less

than the state average on a cost per square foot basis and 42 percent less than the state average on a

COFTE basis.

Table 6.9. HCPS Annual Maintenance Cost Comparisons

Maintenance Cost per GSF Maintenance Cost per COFTE

School Year Hillsborough State

Average

Percent Below

St. Avg. Hillsborough

State

Average

Percent

Below St. Avg.

2010-11 $1.01 $1.32 23% $153.29 $241.64 37%

2011-12 $0.95 $1.25 24% $145.21 $228.20 36%

2012-13 $0.98 $1.27 23% $146.28 $232.94 37%

2013-14 $0.95 $1.32 28% $142.30 $243.20 41%

2014-15 $0.96 $1.34 28% $142.76 $246.56 42%

Source: FEA analysis of Florida Department of Education, Florida School District Annual Plant Maintenance and

Operations Cost Information

For the 2014-15 school year, the district’s $0.96/GSF maintenance cost was the fourth lowest among the

13 Florida school districts with 10,000,000 or more gross square feet and the $142.76/COFTE maintenance

cost was the fourth lowest among all 67 Florida districts.

The lower investment in maintenance is reflected in lower customer satisfaction. A trend in customer

satisfaction survey results from the 2010-11 through 2014-15 school years shows that building occupants

are less satisfied with the services provided by Maintenance Operations than they were five years ago. In

response to the question, “How would you rate the services of Facilities Maintenance compared to 12

months ago?” respondents answered “Significantly Improved” or “Slightly Improved” on a decreasing

basis and “Slightly Worse” on an overall increasing basis. Table 6.10 presents customer responses on the

relative assessment of facilities maintenance over the past five years.

74 Florida Department of Education, Maintenance and Operations Administrative Guidelines for School Districts and Community Colleges, Chapter 6.5. (http://www.fldoe.org/finance/edual-facilities/maintenance-operations-administrative-.stml)


Table 6.10. Customer Satisfaction Responses

Percent of Responses (District Wide) to

“How would you rate the services of Facilities Maintenance compared

to 12 months ago?”

School Year Significantly

Improved

Slightly

Improved

About the

Same

Slightly

Worse

Significantly

Worse

2010-11 23.8 36.8 37.7 1.7 0.0

2011-12 19.7 38.9 39.7 1.3 0.4

2012-13 18.6 30.4 48.1 3.0 0.0

2013-14 18.0 28.3 51.1 2.1 0.4

2014-15 14.9 27.4 54.4 3.3 0.0

Data Source: HCPS (15 – Customer Service)

These findings were reinforced by school visits conducted by the review team. While interviews were

conducted with only a limited number of school principals, similar dissatisfaction was expressed.

Comments were made about the routine deferral of needed repairs due to the lack of funding and the

length of time for problems to be corrected. For example, one school visited has not had its exterior

painted since its original construction in 2002; the principal understood that appearance was a lower

priority than other needed repairs, but expressed concern that the dingy appearance does have a negative

effect on the learning environment. Another example cited was an interior location that took about a year

and a half to get its light bulbs replaced; the ceiling height was too high for the school’s custodians to

reach with a ladder so they had to rely on a maintenance request to obtain workers and a manlift to reach

the high ceilings.

Recommendation 6-3: Establish a Preventive Maintenance (PM) program manager position to oversee

an effective PM program.

One of the most important aspects of maintaining facilities in the long-term is preventive maintenance.

Preventive maintenance is a set of planned actions undertaken to retain an item at a specified level of

performance by providing repetitive scheduled tasks (e.g., inspection, cleaning, lubrication and part

replacement) which prolong system operation and useful life. Through preventive and predictive

maintenance, life cycle costs are reduced and the serviceable life of facilities is extended.

The HCPS’s maintenance program is insufficient to provide the long-term stewardship needed to preserve

the district’s facilities. Due to the aging facilities and increasing backlogs of deferred maintenance,

Maintenance Operations operates generally in a reactive mode, performing breakdown maintenance,

corrective actions, and responding to customer work requests. There are limited and only recent

documented preventive maintenance (PM) program job plans to set standards and provide processes for

ensuring PM completion. Maintenance managers reported that PM tasks get done “when they [the

workers] get caught up.” This is primarily due to a lack of dedicated staff and allocation of resources to

complete preventive maintenance.


Analysis of facilities work order data from the 2011-12 through 2014-15 school years shows that only 1.5

percent of work orders for building systems could be classified as some degree of planned maintenance.75

There has been some improvement in preventive to corrective maintenance ratios over the last few years

with the improved use of WebTMA to generate PM work orders. However, a review of the WebTMA data

still indicates only 14 percent of the Maintenance Operations staff labor hours are attributed to PM.

Figure 6.3. PM Work Order History and PM/CM Ratio

Source: FEA analysis of HCPS WebTMA data (Work Order Sort.xls)

While there is no universally accepted standard for the degree of preventive maintenance needed to care

for K-12 facilities, two sources provide some perspective on the importance of planned maintenance. First,

the Florida Department of Education states:

Planned maintenance, as opposed to responding to maintenance problems after they

occur, should be implemented as a proactive strategy by all administrators and

supervisors at Florida’s various educational facilities…The benefits of this approach are

numerous and proven to be effective in maintaining the general functional utility of

educational buildings on an ongoing basis.76

A second perspective comes from APPA: Leadership in Educational Facilities (APPA), an organization

whose focus is facilities in an educational environment. APPA’s Levels of Service help describe the

characteristics of a facilities maintenance program on a one through five scale. Their definitions for the

75 For this analysis, work orders (WO) were categorized with "WO Type Description" equal to Facility Assessment, Preventive Maintenance, PM Repairs, Project Work, and Planned Maintenance as being planned maintenance activities. 76 Florida Department of Education, Maintenance and Operations Administrative Guidelines for School Districts and Community Colleges, Chapter 6.2. (http://www.fldoe.org/finance/edual-facilities/maintenance-operations-administrative-.stml)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-Feb 2016

PM WO (count) PM WO (hours)


degree of preventive maintenance versus corrective maintenance at each level are shown in Table 6.11

and reveal that HCPS’ maintenance approach would be characterized somewhere between “Reactive

Management” and “Crisis Response” in its level of preventive maintenance.

Table 6.11. Preventive Maintenance for APPA Levels of Service

Level 1 2 3 4 5

Description Showpiece

Facility

Comprehensive

Stewardship

Managed

Care

Reactive

Management

Crisis

Response

Preventive vs. Corrective

Maintenance 100% 75-100% 50-75% 25-50% 0%

Source: Becker, T. and Bigger, A. (2011). Operational Guidelines for Educational Facilities: Maintenance (Second

Edition), APPA: Leadership in Educational Facilities

The common challenge many school systems face is how to break the cycle of reactive (corrective)

maintenance with limited resources to focus on more PM. With insufficient maintenance staffing levels,

HCPS is faced with the challenge of continuing to meet customer expectations for repairs while dedicating

resources to implement an effective PM program. In our experience, school facilities organizations that

have succeeded in doing this have invested in dedicated PM pilot programs and/or PM groups.

A dedicated PM manager can align a prioritized PM program with the critical needs determined by the

facility condition assessments in an overall facilities asset management program. Using the results of the

FCAs to prioritize schools by facility condition index (FCI) and criticality, a dedicated PM group can focus

limited resources (either internal staff or external contractors, or both) on the critical systems to extend

the life of schools and maximize reliability.

In almost all cases, experience has shown that a streamlined reliability-centered maintenance (RCM)

approach is most successful in school systems with limited resources. A streamlined RCM approach simply

consists of the optimal mix of preventive (PM), predictive (PdM), proactive (PrM) maintenance and run-

to-failure methodologies. The incorporation of predictive technologies, age exploration, failure modes

and effects (FMEA) analyses, business impact analyses and root cause failure analyses (RCFA) will make

best use of staff time and maximize the reliability of building systems. This will decrease building system

and equipment failures resulting in corrective maintenance (CM) work orders and eventually allow more

resources to be dedicated to PM. A recommended target would be for HCPS Maintenance Operations to

achieve a minimum mix of 50%/50% for a PM/CM ratio.

HCPS should hire a dedicated manager to accomplish the implementation of an effective PM/RCM

program and optimize the use of internal staff and contractors. The PM/RCM manager should also

collaborate with the FCA program manager, coordinate reconfiguration of WebTMA to measure success

of the PM/RCM program, implement predictive technologies and develop a training program for staff. The

PM/RCM program manager should also implement an RCFA program to investigate systemic failures and

design solutions to mitigate future failures.


Fiscal Impact

The estimated fiscal impact of adding a dedicated position assumes a program manager salary, pay grade

30, of $57,692. With benefits at 28 percent of compensation, the total fiscal impact is $73,845 a year.

Recommendation One-Time

Costs/Savings 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Dedicate a resource to

manage an in-house FCS

program

$0 $0 ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845)


Recommendation 6-4: Implement a maintenance staffing model based on trade-specific positions

instead of Multi-Trade Workers.

HCPS has adopted a model of classifying most of its facilities maintenance workforce as “Multi-Trade

Workers.” Of the 198 trades positions in the five departments performing building maintenance, 158

positions (or 80 percent) are categorized as Multi-Trade Workers. Few personnel have the trade-specific

licenses typically expected for electricians, plumbers, and other maintenance trades.

An example from a Multi-Trade Worker job description states that the employee’s specific duties include:

Perform and (sic) higher skilled repairs and adjustment to carpentry, plumbing, water lines,

electrical wiring and equipment, drywall, sheet metal, plastering, ceramic tile, furniture,

shelves, doors, door frames, masonry, glazing, windows, painting, fencing, irrigation,

landscaping, locks, roofing, HVAC and other related minor maintenance or repair to property

or machines/tools of various kinds.77

Given such a wide variety of maintenance duties, workers are more susceptible to being assigned to tasks

for which they are not fully qualified. They may not have the knowledge and experience to recognize and

mitigate safety hazards, which can result in severe injuries to themselves or anyone in their work area.

They are also more likely to lack sufficient technical expertise in an assigned task and thus produce lower

quality work in a less productive manner.

While classifying workers as Multi-Trade Workers can provide a degree of flexibility in assigning tasks to

an individual employee and in transferring or promoting workers within the organization, such an

approach introduces safety and quality risks to the individual and the district. The use of the Multi-Trade

Worker classification should be limited to a small percentage of the maintenance workforce that can be

used as part of team under the supervision of qualified, trade-specific workers.

In order to determine the right number of maintenance positions to retain as Multi-Trade Workers and

the appropriate classification of other positions by technical trade and skill level, the district should

conduct a comprehensive labor needs analysis that considers workload distribution by type of work, age

77 11 - 54757_Trades_Worker_10_Multi.pdf


and type of buildings, adequate supervision, and other factors that go beyond high-level benchmark

comparisons for staffing.

Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact for this recommendation reflects a one-time cost for outside assistance in preparing a

detailed labor needs analysis, plus internal staff time to rewrite position descriptions and reclassify

employees into appropriate positions. The potential costs for additional maintenance trade worker

positions are not included, as these cannot be estimated until the labor needs analysis is performed.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Implement a maintenance

staffing model based on trade-

specific positions instead of

Multi-Trade Workers

($75,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Recommendation 6-5: Increase the number of maintenance supervisors.

The negative effects of an overall low maintenance staffing level and the high use of the Multi-Trade

Worker designation are exacerbated by high staff to supervisor ratios. A trades worker to immediate

supervisor ratio of 10:1 is considerable reasonable and appropriate in a typical facilities management

environment. The HCPS supervisor to trades worker ratios in the five building maintenance departments

are shown in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12. Maintenance Worker to Supervisor Ratios

Department Trades

Workers

Line

Supervisors

Ratio

(Rounded)

Facilities Maintenance Support 5 1 5:1

Air Conditioning & Energy Management 66 4 17:1

Maintenance East 39 2 20:1

Maintenance Central 40 2 20:1

Maintenance West 48 2 24:1

Source: FEA analysis of HCPS data (11 – Count Sheets)

HCPS maintenance supervisors are expected to oversee the execution of work by the in-house workforce,

coordinate with and provide oversight of work performed by contractors across a district that spans

approximately 1,260 square miles, mentor and train the predominantly Multi-Trade Worker staff, and

perform normal administrative duties expected of all supervisors. In addition, multiple interviewees

indicated that maintenance supervisors spend a significant amount of their time chasing down

information from requestors that is necessary in order to set the priority for work orders and assign the

work to an appropriate worker. Given their span of control and long list of responsibilities, maintenance


supervisors have little time to plan, organize and control the work under their charge and instead spend

nearly all their time reacting to crises. As discussed in other recommendations, work processes suffer and

contractor oversight is lacking.

HCPS should add nine supervisory positions to be distributed across Air Conditioning & Energy

Management, Maintenance East, Maintenance Central, and Maintenance West so that a trades worker

to supervisor ratio of approximate 10:1 is attained in each department. If additional maintenance trade

workers are later added to the workforce as a result of the labor needs analysis, an appropriate number

of supervisors should also be added at that time to maintain adequate supervision.

Fiscal Impact

Fiscal impacts for this recommendation are based on an estimated salary and benefits cost for a

maintenance supervisor of $51,731, plus 28 percent for benefits. For nine positions the estimated annual

fiscal impact is $595,941 ($51,731 x 1.28 x 9).

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Increase the number of

maintenance supervisors $0 ($595,941) ($595,941) ($595,941) ($595,941) ($595,941)


Recommendation 6-6: Document and streamline facilities management processes.

There is a need to more fully document facilities management procedures and automate processes. It is

critical to have well-documented workflow processes prior to, or concurrent with, the implementation of

PM/RCM programs and work order management improvements. A well-structured facilities organization

coupled with efforts to improve processes will lead to the creation of generally effective and efficient

maintenance and operations processes.

There is an opportunity to improve work coordination and transitions, as well as HCPS facilities staff’s

understanding of expectations. This is where the documentation of standard maintenance processes can

really help. A number of efficiencies are typically gained through the training and communication of

enhanced and documented processes. First, and foremost it forces a critical and objective look at the

current way things are done. The benefits typically include:

Enhanced use of technology by identifying technology touch-points and requirements

Streamlined workflow – including automating processes

Understanding of better coordination and communication requirements between shops and

between supervisors and staff

Better understanding of expectations and focus on achieving them

Ability to generate more accurate and consistent performance measures

Reduced training requirements due to reduction in the number of process variations


Improved staff morale through fairer evaluations of performance

Creation of easier staff transition to other roles

The lack of formal and documented processes at HCPS appears to be in part the result of extensive

experience and long tenures of many of the facilities supervisors and managers. The success of the

informal processes that have served Maintenance Operations well in the past will be more and more

difficult to achieve as experienced personnel retire. It is also more important than ever today to be able

to truly take advantage of the technologies available.

The HCPS Maintenance Operations Department should formalize and document facilities planning and

maintenance procedures to ensure effective transfer of knowledge (and prevent the loss of institutional

knowledge) of operation and maintenance of the facilities. HCPS should consider developing process

flowcharts for the following:

Corrective maintenance (CM)

Preventive maintenance (PM)

Emergency response

Service requests/reimbursable services

QC and life safety inspections

Asset/equipment updates

Materials management

A sample workflow process chart (i.e., swim lanes chart) is shown at Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4. Sample Workflow Process Chart

Source: Facility Engineering Associates

If everyone understands the workflow processes, then the “why” behind inputting data into WebTMA

(the current CMMS) becomes much more relevant. Understanding the “why” greatly increases the odds

that people will do it; therefore, improving the accuracy of the reports and numbers coming out which in


turn leads to confidence in the performance measures being used to evaluate overall performance and

justify HCPS operations budgets and staffing.

Fiscal Impact

Fiscal impacts for this recommendation are limited to use of in-house resources, primarily staff time. The

implementation of formal and documented processes for facilities management is expected result in cost

avoidance from increased staff efficiencies coupled with lean process improvements, but they cannot be

explicitly quantified.

Recommendation 6-7: Use available data to analyze work order processes and improve worker

productivity.

HCPS uses a CMMS to track maintenance work orders. These information systems provide a rich data set

for analysis by managers to help in planning and evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the

maintenance work. Analysis of worker productivity can reveal opportunities for maintenance process

improvements, introduce more accountability into work practices, and reduce the need for additional

maintenance staff by increasing the output of the existing workforce.

Existing CMMS data is being used by some managers, particularly in Communications and Electronics

(C&E) and Sites and Utilities (S&U), to monitor processes and manage work. C&E metrics include

maintaining a goal of zero work orders over 30 days old, performing five inspections per month, and

increasing quality control inspections from 5 to 10 per month. In S&U, the number of work orders is

tracked by month and number of productive hours. These efforts, while admirable, have been developed

ad hoc and there is no overall plan for work management and control or productivity improvement within

Maintenance Operations.

The review team also analyzed district work order data from the CMMS. Figure 6.5 presents the

distribution of work orders (counts) by department/shop for the 12 months ending April 2016. This data

shows that the two largest volumes relate to general maintenance (e.g., plumbing, carpentry, electrical)

and air conditioning maintenance.


Figure 6.5. Number of Work Orders by Maintenance Operations Department

Source: FEA analysis of HSPC CMMS data

Figure 6.6 presents the distribution of work orders (counts) by trade for the 12 months ending April 2016.

AC - Air Conditioning CE - Communications and Electronics CU - Custodial Operations FM - Facility Maintenance Support FR - Furniture Repair LO - Logistics Operations MC - Maintenance Central ME - Maintenance East MW - Maintenance West PC - Planning and Construction SN - Student Nutritional Services SU - Sites and Utilities


Figure 6.6. Number of Work Orders by Maintenance Operations Department


Work order completion times were also analyzed. Figure 6.7 presents the number of work orders (WO)

completed in less than 30 days, 30-90 days, and greater than 90 days by department/shop. The two largest

consumers of work orders identified above also reflect the longer response times. General maintenance

and air conditioning maintenance have the highest number and percentage of work orders completed in

more than 30 days.


Figure 6.7. Work Order Completion Times


Interview with HCPS maintenance staff revealed conditions that reduce worker productivity and which

could be addressed through an analysis of and improvement to work order management processes. For

example:

The majority of the maintenance technicians are dispatched from one central location. With such

a large district, it can take many hours to drive to farther locales which reduces the number of

productive hours completing work orders that a technician can accomplish in a day. The district is

not currently tracking this “windshield time” or taking steps to minimize its impact on

productivity. It was reported that maintenance vehicles have global positioning system (GPS)

tracking installed, but that a very limited number of managers have access to the GPS data and

that union agreements only allow them to do so for disciplinary investigations and not for routine

management of work.

Data provided by HSPC shows that a majority of vehicles are over 10 years old, and it was reported

that breakdowns are frequent. Transportation does not typically provide loaner vehicles, so when

a maintenance truck is in the shop for repairs the worker normally assigned to that vehicle is

without most of his/her tools and parts and must share a vehicle with another trades worker.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Nu

mb

er o

f W

ork

Ord

ers

Number of WOsCompleted in > 90 days

Number of WOsCompleted in 30-90 days

Number of WOscompleted in < 30 days


Workforce productivity is reduced when two workers are dispatched to a task typically completed

by one worker or extra time is spent by the primary worker “chauffeuring” a passenger worker to

a second location.

Fiscal Impact

Improvement of worker productivity by implementing this recommendation will not translate to direct

cost savings, but will create more time for the performance of planned maintenance. Thus, while there is

no direct annual fiscal impact, the long-term value will be realized.

Recommendation 6-8: Enhance data standards and quality, data maintenance and configuration of

WebTMA to improve performance measurement.

The current CMMS in place at HCPS is WebTMA, version 5.1.09. The HCPS Maintenance Operations

Department has been using WebTMA since October 2010. Several modules are in use:

Base Module

Service Request

Materials Management

Time Management

Project Management

Contract Management

Report Writer

Custodial Management

mobileTMA Go

The relatively recent implementation and use of WebTMA has helped streamline the work request

process, allowing requesters to initiate their own requests. The Department is moving toward equipment-

based work orders, which will improve the district’s ability to identify, track, and plan for capital renewal

needs. There has been improvement in the acceptance and use of WebTMA as evidenced by improvement

of the utilization data and improved metrics. However, the equipment records and data maintenance

processes are in need of improvement.

For example, review of CMMS work order data for the 12 months prior to the site visit showed that a

significant percentage of work orders do not have labor hours assigned (Figure 6.8). This lack of data would

be an impediment to process improvements in work order management, such as improving worker

productivity.


Figure 6.8. Recording of Hours on Work Orders

Source: FEA analysis of HCPS CMMS data

To move forward with the improved utilization of WebTMA, the following actions should be taken:

Improve and document facilities data standards (including equipment nomenclature, attributes,

and building systems classifications).

Validate the equipment records and create records for all major maintainable assets.

Document and train staff on an asset update process to maintain accurate records.

Re-configure WebTMA work order codes to enable generation of the recommended performance

measures (e.g., work order type codes, problem and repair codes, status codes and priority

codes).

Fiscal Impacts

Fiscal impacts for this recommendation are limited to use of in-house resources, primarily staff time.

Recommendation 6-9: Consider implementing the use of procurement cards by technicians.

Current HCPS practices regarding warehousing of assets, materials, and supplies and supply chain

management are overseen by the Logistics Operations department. There is a central warehouse located

at 5715 E. Hanna Avenue in Tampa. The warehouse receives, distributes, and manages construction

materials, repair parts, educational materials. Five additional smaller warehouses which are aligned to

support maintenance activities.

168066321

1449

18861036

375935736

1

381212408

83284687

249

775279

3578150

291

19664411

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AC CE CU FM FR LO M(C,E,W)

PC SN SU

Work Orders with Labor Hours Work Orders without Labor Hours

AC - Air Conditioning CE - Communications and Electronics CU - Custodial Operations FM - Facility Maintenance Support FR - Furniture Repair LO - Logistics Operations MC - Maintenance Central ME - Maintenance East MW - Maintenance West PC - Planning and Construction SN - Student Nutritional Services SU - Sites and Utilities


The warehouse utilizes Lawson inventory management software to manage inventory. Parts and supplies

utilized for facilities related projects are also captured in the district’s CMMS, TMA. Logistics Operations

has captured its processes and procedures, particularly as they relate to inventory management utilizing

Lawson and TMA, in the Handbook for Warehouse Personnel.

Warehouse personnel are responsible for maintaining the inventory database and ensuring WebTMA is

updated. Specific responsibilities include:

Prioritizing requests

Regularly (daily) entering parts into TMA

Reviewing open purchase order reports and verifying deliveries have been completed.

Organizing and streamlining process related paperwork related to p-card transactions,

requisitions, returns, and adjustments

Maintaining item location records

Determining the amount of inventory to be stocked

Completing inventory counts twice a year

Assisting trades workers in inventorying truck stock

HCPS has established procurement guidelines for five categories of purchasing thresholds:

1. <$5,000 = Use good business practices

2. $5,000-$9,999 = Telephone quotes

3. $10,000-$49,999 = Written quotes

4. ≥$50,000 = Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal

5. Sole source/public notice = Sole Source Letter78

The requisition of parts for facilities personnel is governed by Logistics Operations through a request

process utilizing a stock transfer form. Unlike many school districts which allow technicians to procure

parts directly from vendors, HCPS requires technicians to coordinate procurement through Logistics

Operations. This has created a high degree of accountability of parts and materials, but can inhibit worker

productivity as it requires the intervention of warehouse specialists and storekeepers to procure and

release parts to technicians.

For example, if a worker responding to a service call at a remote location needs a part not stocked on his

or her vehicle and knows of a nearby outlet that may have the part, they must call a parts technician and

provide all descriptions and part numbers over the phone. The parts technician contacts the store or

supplier to place the order and provide purchasing details, and then the technician is notified to go pick

up the part. The review team learned of several accounts of how this process sometimes breaks down,

including:

78 14 – Logistics_Operations_Manual.pdf


Not being able to reach the parts technician who normally handles the location where the work

is being performed, and having difficulty getting a different parts technician to address the

worker’s need on the spot.

Errors when sending or receiving detailed parts information verbally, because the workers do

not have email or text capability when dispatched.

Not allowing the purchase of a part if it is an item is in stock in a maintenance warehouse. The

worker is expected to pick up the part from the warehouse the next morning and then return a

second time to complete the repair.

Implementing a method that allows technicians to more readily obtain parts can help improve both

productivity and response time. While the ability of technicians to obtain materials is not solely

responsible for a decrease in timeliness of response (discussed earlier in this chapter), it is a contributing

factor. The district already has a procurement card system employed which is robust and considered a

model for other districts. To improve worker productivity and timeliness of response, the district should

consider allowing technicians to procure parts using procurement cards. Purchases would still need to be

captured and coded by Logistics Operations to ensure inventory tracking and assignment of used parts to

maintenance work orders.

Fiscal Impact

Fiscal impacts for this recommendation are limited to use of in-house resources, primarily staff time.

Recommendation 6-10: Implement an employee training and development program for Maintenance

Operations.

Adequate training is an important part of a long-term workforce strategy, but Maintenance Operations

has no formal employee training and development plan. There is a recognized need for training, but

training ranges from very limited to non-existent. Changes in employee classifications to trade-specific

positions, adding more supervisors, and other recommendations for improvements identified throughout

this chapter drive the need for a documented training and development program and adequate funding

for training. Figure 6.9 identifies the types of training typically included in a comprehensive training plan,

as well as indications of how such training is generally delivered and who should receive it.


Figure 6.9. Example Employee Training Matrix

Source: Developed by Facility Engineering Associates

Dir

ecto

r of M

&O

Mai

nten

ance

Sup

ervi

sor/

Lead

HVA

C M

echa

nic

Elec

tric

ian

Plum

ber

Carp

ente

rM

aint

enan

ce G

ener

alis

t

Pain

ter

Gro

und

Crew

Lea

der

Gro

unds

Wor

ker

Cler

k

Onl

ine

Vid

eo

Peer

Del

iver

edO

utsi

de P

rovi

der

Asbestos Awareness l l l l l l l l l

Bloodborne Pathogens Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Combustible & Flammable Liquids l l l l l l l l l l l l

Confined-Space Entry l l l l l l l l

Hazard Communications l l l l l l l l l l l l l

HAZ-MAT Spi l l Prevention & Control l l l l l l l l l l l

Lock-out/Tag-out l l l l l l l l

Materia ls Handl ing, Storage & Use l l l l l l l l l l l l

Alcohol -Free Workplace l l l l l l l l l l l l

Back Injury Prevention l l l l l l l l l l l l

Bui lding Evacuation & Emergencies l l l l l l l l l l l l

Emergency Response l l l l l l l l l l l l

CPR Academic l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Disaster Preparedness l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Electrica l Safety l l l l l l l l l l

Eye Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Fal l Protection l l l l l l l l l l

Fire Extinguisher Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Fire Prevention Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l

General Construction Safety l l l l l l l l l l

General Fi rs t Aid l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Golf Cart l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Fortkl i ft l l l l l l l l l l l

Bucket Truck l l l l l l l

Job-Speci fic Equipment l l l l l l l l l l l

Hand & Power Tool Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Hearing Conservation l l l l l l l l l l l l

Ladder & Scaffolding Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Office Safety l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Cultura l Di fferences l l l l l l l l l l l l l

Personal Protective Equipment l l l l l l l l l l l l

Sexual Harassment l l l l l l l l l l l l

Sl ips , Trips , & Fa l l s Prevention l l l l l l l l l l l l l

H.S. Diploma/GED l l l l l l l l

Col lege Degree l l

Technica l Degree l l l l l

Electrica l - Master/Journeyman l l

Plumbing - Master/Journeyman l l

HVAC Certi ficate l l

On-the-Job l l l l

Department Procedures l l l l l l l l l l l l

Work Practeices - Time Management/Organizationl l l l l l l l l l l l l

Supervis ion l l l l

Employee Relations - Consel ing, Performance Evaluationl l l l

Work Order System l l l l l l l l l l l

Re

gula

tory

Ge

ne

ral T

rain

ing

Ce

rtif

icat

ion

/Lic

ense

sG

en

era

l Pe

rso

nn

el

Pra

ctic

es


Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact for this recommendation includes a one-time cost of $25,000 for outside assistance in

developing a training program, plus an allocation of $500 per year per Maintenance Operations employee

(467 positions) for additional training activities across the Department.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Implement an employee

training and development

program for Maintenance

Operations

($25,000) $0 ($233,500) ($233,500) ($233,500) ($233,500)


Custodial Services

The HCPS custodial services function is responsible for cleaning 21.6 million square feet in 215 schools,

and other non-school facilities. District-wide there were 1,412.5 school custodial positions in 2014-15,

representing a salaries and benefits investment of $31.4 million a year. Custodial services are included in

each school’s budget and the head custodian at each school is supervised by the principal or other school

administrator.

There is a central office custodial support function at HCPS that provides training, quality assurance, and

technical support to the schools. This function serves in an advisory capacity to the school principals and

administrators. The central office custodial function is led by a Manager of Custodial Operations that

reports to the General Manager of Maintenance. Three custodial supervisors and a recently added Central

Placement Specialist report to the Manager of Custodial Operations and they split up school support

geographically. The Central Placement Specialist is responsible for the maintenance and placement of the

custodial substitute pool.

Table 6.13 presents a five year expenditure history for the central office custodial function. All campus

based custodial staff, supplies, equipment and training costs are charged to the respective schools.


Table 6.13 Central Office Custodial Expenditures, General Fund, 2011-12 through 2015-16


(Unaudited)

100 Salaries $240,756 $250,132 $280,561 $345,113 $349,863



400 Energy Services $11,653 $13,664 $13,637 $11,401 $8,886


600 Capital Outlay $3,144 $2,908 $4,573 $9,395 $6,041

700 Other $12,281 $8,876 $7,521 $9,695 $10,173

Total $383,912 $386,934 $468,560 $546,933 $574,472

Source: HCPS five-year expenditure and staffing history.


Recommendation 6-11: Change custodial staffing formula and management approach to reflect

industry standards for efficiency. 79

The Planning Guide for Maintaining Public School Facilities, issued in sponsorship by the National Center

for Education Statistics and the National Cooperative Education Statistics System, establishes a standard

that a school custodian (night shift) should be able to clean between 28,000 and 31,000 square feet per

each 8-hour shift to keep school areas clean. The standard square footage allocation is best served by the

night custodial staff because the majority of their work is performed during hours when students are not

at school.

Additional custodians are needed during the day to open up the building, support cleaning during the

breakfast and lunch periods, be available for daytime restroom and spot cleaning, and other duties such

as event set-up and break-down. Because effective cleaning cannot be accomplished when students are

in school, most of the custodial time should occur after school hours. This is more challenging in smaller

elementary schools because at least one individual is needed during the day.

Overall, with day shift and night shift combined, many school systems are able to achieve an aggregate

coverage ratio of 22,500 square feet per custodial full-time equivalent (FTE). Because high schools are

larger and have larger custodial staffs, a smaller percentage of the custodial workforce needs to work the

day shift. The opposite is true for elementary schools. As a result, while 22,500 square feet per FTE should

be the overall target for productivity, this may vary by school type.

HCPC applies a complex formula for allocating custodial units, or FTE staffing, to schools. This formula uses

a point system that considers the school’s square footage, the number of rooms, and the number of

students, among other factors. Figure 6.10 presents an example of a custodian unit allocation worksheet

for 2014-15.



Figure 6.10. HCPS Custodial Unit Allocation, 2014-15

Source: HCPS 2015 Custodial Unit Allocation spreadsheet

The custodial unit allocation formula results in much higher staff levels (lower productivity) than what

industry standards would prescribe. Productivity across schools within the same school type (e.g., within

elementary schools, within middle schools, etc.) also ranges significantly. Figure 6.11 presents a scatter

diagram of custodial productivity by school for 2014-15. Each dot represents the productivity (square feet

cleaned per FTE custodian). None of the HCPS schools achieves the overall productivity target of 22,500

per custodian. The vertical blue line separates secondary schools from elementary schools. Points to the

left of the vertical blue line represent middle school and high school productivity. Points to the right of

the line reflect elementary school productivity. Some school sites (USF/Patel, Sullivan Partner) are not

staffed with HCPS custodians. Accordingly, they reflect no staff allocations and their square footage is not

considered in the global productivity calculations. These two schools are visually depicted at the bottom

of the scatter diagram with “0” productivity.

2014-2015 Custodial Unit Allocation Total Points Admin Adjustment:

Position Description

Head Custodian: Level 1

Crew Leader

Custodians

Total 2014-2015 Custodial Unit Allocation:

2015-2016 Custodial Unit Allocation

Custodia l pos i tion a l locations for your s i te are based on the fol lowing ca lculations :

1. Instructional Certi fied Units / 8 = Points

2. Students / 225 = Points

3. Rooms * (includes portables ) / 11 = Points

4. Square Footage of Bui lding ** / 15000 = Points

5. Unkept Grounds (Up to 10 acres) / 2 Points

TOTAL POINTS: AVERAGE POINTS:

6. Breakfast Program Students Points

HOST Program Students Points

Custodial Allocation Calculation = = Total Pts = Custodians

7. Adult Education Schools ADM = Custodians

8. Gasol ine Pump Attendant = Attendants

9. Adminis trative Custodia l Adjustments = Custodians

2015 Total Custodial Allocation: Custodians

Head Custodian: Level 1Head Custodian: Level 1 2015 Custodial Unit Gain / Loss:

allocation

1.00

0.00

3.00

144 0.25

4.00

0 0.00

62,057

0

6.74

3.02

9.00

53.89

680

99

40 0.18

0.00

4.58

4.004.83 0.80 4.04

0.00

0.00

4.14

0.00

22.90

4.00

0.503.70

20152014


Figure 6.11. HCPS Square Feet Cleaned per FTE Custodian, by School, 2014-15

Source: HCPS spring 2016 Custodial Unit Allocation spreadsheet

Based on the application of the above unit allocation districtwide, the current custodial productivity at

HCPS is 15,321 square feet cleaned per custodian.

The review team analyzed HCPS documentation, interviewed central office staff, and visited a sample of

school sites to better understand the custodial services function. Based on this information, the following

implementation strategies are critical to help ensure the success of this recommendation.

Head custodians currently report to school principals and the work schedules are established by

principals. Central office staff provide suggested guidelines for scheduling, however, it is

recommended that school head custodians report directly to a central office custodial function

through zone supervisors. This will provide appropriate technical leadership over the custodial

function and free up principal time to devote to instructional purposes. Under the new

organizational model the principal would be the customer and also provide input into the head

custodian selection, evaluation, promotion and termination decisions.

Because all head custodians will report to zone supervisors, more supervisors will be needed for

HCPS schools. It is expected that six additional zone supervisors will be needed. The resulting

zones would match the district’s eight existing geographic areas, plus one for non-school facilities.

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Global Target Productivity

Elementary SchoolsSecondary Schools


Additional zone supervisors will result in an annual investment of $367,49780 in salary and

benefits.

Additional quality assurance inspectors may be needed to observe the night shift custodial staff

at schools. This should be evaluated after the additional zone supervisor positions are filled.

Work schedules should be standardized by the central custodial function and applied at all schools

for each school type, adjusting only for differences in bell schedules.

Additional equipment will need to be purchased to support the efficient cleaning of schools. Some

schools visited use floor mops for hallway cleaning instead of riding auto-scrubbers. Most schools

visited also use upright vacuum cleaners instead of the more efficient backpack vacuums. While

the equipment purchased for each school should be need-based, approximately $250,000 a year

should be invested overall in equipment purchases.

Standard cleaning procedures and frequencies – including summer deep cleaning – should be

enforced by the zone supervisors and the head custodians at each school.

The substitute pool of custodial staff will need to be increased by 50 positions, particularly to fill

vacancies or to cover absentees at elementary schools, where the total custodial counts are lower

and the impact of a single vacancy or absent employee is greater. The estimated cost of increasing

the substitute pool is $1,050,000 a year (assuming base compensation of $21,000).

Fiscal Impact

The potential for savings is based on the application of a global productivity rate of 22,500 square feet

cleaned per custodian (compared to the current HCPS level of 15,321 square feet per custodian). This

represents a blended rate of 29,500 square feet per custodian for night shift (the middle of the industry

standard range for productivity) plus day shift staffing levels. Use of the 22,500 productivity rate would

result in a reduction of 450.7 custodial FTE positions. Table 6.14 presents the calculation of estimated

annual savings if the staffing formula is changed.

80 (6*$61,249.46 [average salary and benefits for zone supervisors])


Table 6.14. Estimated Custodial Savings from Changing Staffing Formula

Savings Factor 2014-15 Proposed

Total Square Feet Cleaned 21,644,402 21,644,402

FTE Allocation 1,412.7 962.0

Square Feet per FTE Custodian 15,321.3 22,499.4

Average Salary and Benefits $26,880 $26,880

Total Salaries and Benefits Cost $37,973,376 $25,858,560

Total - $12,114,816

Source: HCPS spring 2016 (Custodial Unit Allocation spreadsheet; expenditure data)

Formulas for elementary, middle and high schools may vary from the target district productivity (lower

coverage for elementary schools and higher coverage for high schools), but the net effect of formula

changes should achieve the 22,500 square feet per FTE target.

The fiscal impact in the table below assumes a two-year phase-in approach for the custodial formula and

increasing the substitute pool.

One-Time

(Costs)/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Change custodial staffing

formula. $0 $6,057,408 $12,114,816 $12,114,816 $12,114,816 $12,114,816

Increase number of zone

supervisors. $0 ($367,497) ($367,497) ($367,497) ($367,497) ($367,497)

Invest in additional

cleaning equipment. $0 ($250,000) ($250,000) ($250,000) ($250,000) ($250,000)

Increase custodial

substitute pool. $0 ($525,000) ($1,050,000) ($1,050,000) ($1,050,000) ($1,050,000)

Total $0 $4,914,911 $10,447,319 $10,447,319 $10,447,319 $10,447,319


Grounds Management

The district occupies 5,070 total acres across 249 parcels. Grounds are maintained by a combination of

contracted and in-house workforces. The Sites and Utilities Department within the Facilities Maintenance

Division is responsible across the district for mowing, landscaping, tree trimming, irrigation, athletic field

and track maintenance, fence and gate repairs, installation and maintenance of traffic signs, site drainage,

pavement maintenance and sweeping, solid waste collection, playground maintenance, pest control, and

maintenance and repair of equipment. The Sites and Utilities Department staff composition is summarized

in Table 6.15.


Table 6.15. Sites and Utilities Department Staff Composition

Staff Description Budgeted

Positions Comments

Administration

Manager

Clerks

1

3

Position allocated to 9811,


Sites

Assistant Manager

Supervisors

Landscape Crew Leaders

Equipment Operators

Equipment Mechanics

Welders

Multi-Trade Workers

1

3

2

27

7

3

19

6 vacant

3 vacant

1 vacant

4 vacant

Utilities

Assistant Manager

Supervisors

Backflow Preventer Inspectors

Water Plant Operators

Wastewater Plant Operators

Maintenance 3, Utilities

Commercial Food Svc Equip Maint

Student Nutrition Mech Trainee

Clerks

Pest Control Techs

Multi-Trade Workers

1

2

2

1

2

2

7

3

2

7

6

Hired as Water Plant Operators

2 vacant

1 vacant

2 vacant

Total Budgeted Positions 105 19 vacancies

Source: HCPS (11 – Count Sheet, 7 - Updated Org Chart - Sites and Utilities)

Higher levels of service in mowing, irrigation, aeration, striping, and schedule coordination are needed for

maintaining football, baseball, and softball athletic fields, which are found primarily at high schools. HCPS

has opted to execute those functions using its in-house workforce and equipment. Twelve “routes” of

three to five schools each, comprised of two or more high schools plus other middle or elementary schools

that are geographically near the high schools, are assigned to a worker for both athletic field maintenance

and general mowing and landscaping.

The Sites and Utilities Department provides the appropriate schools with a copy of “Baseball-Softball Field

Maintenance; HCPS - Guidelines, Procedures and Understandings,” a document that delineates the shared

responsibilities between Sites and Utilities Department and the onsite staff at schools with respect to

athletic fields. This proactive approach is noteworthy because it establishes service level expectations for

the tasks to be performed, describes roles and responsibilities for field preparation, and provides a

customer feedback mechanism through a pre-season maintenance checklist that is completed by school

staff.


Table 6.16 summarizes the analysis of data provided by HCPS that shows this staffing approach is

adequate, as the twelve zones are proportionally balanced for workload and individual worker

productivity. Mowing staff productivity typically fell in or near an acceptable 60-80 percent range.

Table 6.16. Analysis of In-House Mowing Routes

Worker Productivity

Mowing

Route

Route

Composition

Total Acres

Assigned Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Average

1 2 HS, 1 MS 155 81% 81% 81%

2 2 HS, 1 MS 146 Not Reported

3 2 HS, 2 MS 191 76% 17% 47%

4 2 HS, 1 MS, 1

ES 189 51% 81% 66%

5 3 HS, 1 MS 210 Not Reported

6 2 HS, 1 ES 102 Not Reported

7 2 HS, 1 MS 160 58% 57% 58%

8 2 HS, 1 MS 98 51% 70% 61%

9 2 HS, 1 MS, 1

ES 135 76% 75% 76%

10 2 HS, 1 MS, 1

ES 189 56% 75% 66%

11 2 HS, 1 ES 155 Not Reported

12 4 HS, 1 MS 143 84% 67% 76%

Source: FEA analysis of HCPS data (108 - Final Mowing Route Configuration After Phase 2; 89 - Facilities

Acres Maintained; 13 - Productivity Report Sites & Utilities 2015)

In addition to these grounds maintenance functions, the Sites and Utilities Department provides services

for water and wastewater treatment at 11 schools not connected to municipal services, backflow

preventer inspection, indoor gymnasium floor upkeep, and maintenance and repair of equipment

supporting the Student Nutrition Program.

For 191 locations without athletic fields, which includes nearly all elementary schools, most middle

schools, and all non-school district sites, twelve different contractors maintain grounds at an average of

fifteen sites each for mowing, edging, pruning, and other general landscaping services. HCPS has chosen

to compete the mowing work among smaller, multiple contractors so as not to have a potential single

point of failure for mowing, to align each mowing zone with a specific contractor for more effective quality

assurance oversight, and to increase contracting opportunities for small businesses in support of broader

district procurement goals. Personnel at the schools verify contractor performance and have access to an

online “Mowing Checklist” tool to report deficiencies, which are then routed to the Sites and Utilities

Department for follow up with the appropriate contractor as needed.


Recommendation 6-12: Perform a detailed assessment of existing grounds maintenance equipment and

create a plan to replace outdated equipment.

Sites and Utilities Department management reported that most of the grounds equipment was old and a

challenge to maintain. A review of work order data for repairs to lawn equipment and tractors shows that

from the 2011-12 through 2014-15 school years the number of hours expended per work order increased

each year, and by 65 percent over the 3-year period. For the partial year’s data of 2015-February 2016,

the hours expended per work order decreased slightly but remained high.

These results, shown in Figure 6.12, indicate that repairs are getting more complex and difficult as

equipment ages and serve to support management’s assertion that the in-house equipment is a challenge

to maintain. The district could not produce a current inventory of grounds equipment that provided

descriptive information including data of purchase.

Figure 6.12. Analysis of Equipment Repair Work Orders

Source: FEA analysis of HCPS data (101 – Maintenance Work Order Reports)

Outdated, non-working equipment can cause delays and impact the ability to meet customer

commitments. The district needs to inventory and assess the functionality of existing equipment and

create a long-term plan to replace equipment that has reached the end of its service life. The inventory

should be entered into the HCPS fixed asset inventory system and tracked on an ongoing basis. HCPS

should allocate funds in the annual budget to fully implement the equipment replacement plan.

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-Feb 2016


Fiscal Impact

The estimated cost of hiring an outside vendor to conduct the inventory and assessment of grounds

maintenance equipment should not exceed $20,000.

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Replace outdated grounds

maintenance equipment. $0 $0 ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000)


Energy Management

Energy management is within the purview the Air Conditioning & Energy Conservation Department. In

addition to energy conservation, the Department is responsible for HVAC operation and controls. Schools

are divided into eight areas, each of which is assigned an energy mentor. Energy mentors are responsible

for monitoring monthly energy consumption, identifying activities that are in violation of established

practices, and interfacing with school principals to reduce energy use. Energy mentors conduct regular

site visits to identify energy conservation opportunities such as lights left on when the building is

unoccupied, windows open when air conditioning systems are operating, HVAC equipment run times and

heating/cooling set points. Technicians within the Department are responsible for addressing HVAC-

related problems such as repair of failed or failing equipment and adjustments to controls systems.

Together, the technicians and energy mentors work to ensure building systems are operating to support

the essential functions of facilities while simultaneously working to reduce energy consumption.

The district has established benchmark targets for energy use, and monitors energy consumption on a

monthly basis. HCPS spends more than $30 million annually on energy, with the vast majority of it relating

to electricity consumption. The 2015-16 spending level reflects a $3 million decrease from 2014-15 levels,

and a $5 million decrease since 2011-12.

Table 6.17. HCPS Utility Expenditures, 2011-12 through 2015-16

Expenditure Type

(Object) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

2015-16

(Unaudited)

410 Natural Gas $450,767 $392,454 $505,508 $346,062 $419,991

420 Bottled Gas $239,364 $86,025 $201,653 $68,024 $43,357

430 Electricity $35,688,028 $36,126,763 $34,336,968 $33,981,315 $30,626,294

Total $36,378,159 $36,605,242 $35,044,129 $34,395,402 $31,089,642

Source: HCPS five-year expenditure and staffing history.

The review team reviewed energy management program documents including policies, past annual

reports, electricity consumption and targets for each school, past projects, and future planned projects.

The district maintains and energy conservation guidelines and while it does not specifically identify

reporting or goals, it does require the following:


Principals will be accountable for energy performance at their schools

Unnecessary lights will be turned off

Custodians will be responsible for shutting down schools

This program is considered to be moderately successful and is credited with HCPS achieving an overall

reduction in electricity use from 13.2 kWh/SF in 2012-13 to 12.2 kWh/SF in 2014-15, or approximately 7.6

percent reduction over four years (see Figure 6.13). Specific projects implemented since the 2009-10

school year have saved an estimated $1.6 million and 11.7 million kWh/year81. While the district has not

yet achieved its established district-wide goal of 10 kWh/SF, efforts continue to be implemented which

have resulted in improving energy efficiency. Figure 6.13 presents the historical electricity consumption

for HCPS over the past 10 years.

Figure 6.13. Historic Electricity Consumption in HCPS Facilities

Source: HCPS (District_kWhperSF_EUI.xlsx)

The review team performed interviews with individuals involved in the energy management program. Site

visits were also conducted at four representative schools. In a review of 240 elementary, middle, high,

special/alternative, and adult/technical schools, the average electricity use was 12.5 kWh/SF in the 2014-

15 school year. According to the district’s energy performance database, 139 schools are at or below their

energy consumption goals, however the goals vary by school. Out of 240 schools, a little less than half

(115 schools) consume more than 12 kWh/SF electricity (refer to Figure 6.14). Specific energy targets have

been set by the district for each school.

81 ECProjectsSummaryALL.xlsx, provided by HCPS

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

kWh

/GSF

RecommendedRange:8-12 kWh/SF

District Goal 10 kWh/SF


Figure 6.14. Electricity Use in Schools

Source: HCPS (Electrical Consumption Jan 2015.xlsx)

The connection between the district’s energy database and ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager has been

recently restored, allowing the district to benchmark school performance. Unlike the energy utilization

index which is a measure only of energy consumption, Portfolio Manager takes into account facility use

factors such as hours of operation, facility type, geographical region, and occupancy and then compares

each facility to peer facilities. As illustrated in Figure 6.15, approximately one-third of the schools have

achieved an ENERGY STAR score of 75 or better. Facilities scoring in this range are eligible to apply for the

ENERGY STAR and are encouraged to continue their programs. Facilities scoring in the 50-74 range

typically can achieve improvements through implementing low-cost controls strategies and best practices.

Facilities scoring less than 50 may require more capital intensive measures to achieve energy

improvements in addition to implementing controls strategies and best practices.

Figure 6.15. ENERGY STAR Scores in Schools

Source: HCPS (Energy Star Portfolio Manager Account)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Nu

mb

er o

f Sc

ho

ols

School Year

Low: 0-8 kWh/SF Recommended: 8-12 kWh/SF High: >12 kWh/SF

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1-24 25-49 50-74 75-100

Nu

mb

er o

f Fa

cilit

ies

ENERGY STAR Score Bands


The district has identified a goal of reducing electricity consumption to 10 kWh/SF. Based on the

performance of similar districts, this is a reasonable target range and would result in an overall cost savings

of nearly $4.8 million annually.

Recommendation 6-13: Replace existing fluorescent tube (T8) lights and compact fluorescent lights

(CFLs) with light emitting diode (LED) lights.

District records show that 74 sites replaced their existing T12 fluorescent tubes with T8 fluorescent tubes

and the remaining sites are assumed to be equipped with T8 lighting. Counts at these 74 sites had a total

of 111,575 lamps replaced. From the data, some projects appeared to be a complete lighting system

upgrade and some were selective. Based on sites that appeared to be the entire building, the average

lamps per square feet is 0.025. The total district square footage is 26,721,629 square feet, yielding

approximately 668,040 T8 lamps district wide.

Fiscal Impact

Replacement of 15-watt LED in lieu of 32-watt T8 bulb would yield a district wide reduction of 11,357 kW

resulting in a rebate of $1.68 million.82 The replacement would yield an annual savings of approximately

14,309,820 kWh, which at 10.6 cents/kWh yields an annual cost savings of $1.5 million. The estimated

payback is 8.5 years with rebate.

The estimated fiscal impact is based on the following assumptions:

Conservatively assuming lighting runs for school hours only, (Average 8 AM to 3 PM), 180 days a

year: Annual run time is approximately 1,260 Hours.

Implementation costs approx. $21.60 per bulb for materials and tax (6% FL Sales Tax), not

including labor). Total project cost $14.4 million.

This analysis does not include savings from HVAC Cooling Costs, which would be reduced due to

the decreased lighting power density.

First year savings includes the TECO rebate of $1.68 million. Annually recurring savings of $1.5

million would begin in 2017-18.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Replace existing T8 lights

and CFLs with LED lights ($14,400,000) $0 $3,180,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000


82 Current rebate from the utility company, TECO Energy Inc., is $148 per kW reduced


Recommendation 6-14: Create a building re-tuning program.

Building re-tuning is a continuous process typically performed by in-house facilities personnel which

focuses on operational changes rather than capital projects. The process utilizes systems and personnel

that are already in place for a continuous-improvement approach. Developed by the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the process of building re-tuning helps facilities staff

identify opportunities for improvement in existing facilities. The focus of re-tuning is on equipping building

operators with the means to use data from their building automation systems to understand the way the

facility is operating, to identify problems, and to address those problems through no- and low-cost

solutions.

Training is available online (http://retuningtraining.labworks.org). Individuals can register for the training

at no cost. In the training for building re-tuning, trainees work through controls scenarios to understand

the way systems should operate, as well as to identify operational problems. They learn to review data

trends and compare them to other operational indicators, allowing them to make system changes that

will improve operational efficiency.

Savings would be from improved HVAC control schemes such as:

AHU static pressure reset

Chilled water temperature reset

Chilled water loop differential pressure reset

Tight occupancy schedules.

Fiscal Impact

Building re-tuning typically yields energy savings between 2 percent and 26 percent with a median savings

of 15 percent (per Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). Using a conservative 5 percent savings rate for

the 200 HCPS schools with central plants, annual savings would be in excess of $1.4 million, starting in

2017-18. Savings are based on estimated energy use at the 200 schools of 268,956,378 kWh and an

average cost per kWh of $0.106/kWh. Re-tuning activities are assumed to be performed by in-house

personnel utilizing free training.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Create a building re-

tuning program $0 $0 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000


http://www.pnnl.gov/

http://retuningtraining.labworks.org/


Recommendation 6-15: Implement low/no-cost energy conservation strategies.

Additional cost savings can be achieved through no-cost and low-cost energy conservation strategies

including the following:

1. Install VFDs on cooling tower fan motors

2. In older facilities where occupancy sensors are not present, install occupancy sensors in

classrooms, restrooms, and common areas with extended periods of low occupancy

3. Implement HVAC controls sequences

- AHU static pressure reset

- Chilled water temperature reset

- Chilled water loop differential pressure reset

4. Install air curtains between kitchens and outside, and between kitchens and dining areas

(kitchens are heated and ventilated, no A/C)

5. Repair/replace damaged chilled water piping insulation

6. Employ demand control ventilation in areas with largely varying occupancy (gyms, cafeterias,

etc.)

7. De-lamp lights in over-lit areas

Fiscal Impact

An average budget of $3,000 per school in the middle and high schools (71 schools total) has been

assumed to be invested in no-cost and low-cost energy conservation strategies for a total of $213,000. A

conservative estimate of 0.5 percent savings ($93,600) is assumed for the 71 schools, beginning in 2017-

18.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Implement no/low-cost

energy conservation

strategies

($213,000) $0 $93,600 $93,600 $93,600 $93,600


Recommendation 6-16: Implement no-cost best practices to reduce energy consumption.

Through current energy conservation efforts, the district has reduced its energy consumption 7.6 percent

over the last four years. Much of this success can be attributed to the vigilance of the energy mentors in

engaging schools in exercising energy efficient practices on a daily basis as well as monitoring monthly

energy consumption performance. The district should continue monitoring and implementation of

established practices including:

1. Close open windows to minimize humid air transfer into conditioned spaces

2. Maintain 76°F cooling set points during occupied hours

3. Enforce “lights out” policy

4. Calibrate thermostats


5. Perform “night drives” to schools to check lights out policy compliance after hours

6. Site visits to schools (performed quarterly at all schools, more frequently at the Top 15 worst

performers in each of the eight areas)

A list of general best practices for energy efficiency in facilities has been provided for additional

consideration in Table 6.18.

Table 6.18. Energy Efficiency Best Practices for Facilities

Social Behavior Maintenance and Operations

HVAC

Mandate temperature set-points Regular air filter changes, typically every 3 months by schedule or

longer if monitoring pressure drop

Clean coils annually

Set temperature lower when

unoccupied

Regular maintenance checks for proper performance

Check outside air damper actuator operation quarterly

Seal supply and return ductwork

Calibrate sensors and thermostats

Utilize programmable thermostat where central systems are not

present

Purchase equipment meeting ASHRAE 90.1 or higher during

replacements

Where window units are installed, insulate unit or remove with

not in use; properly seal unit in window opening.

Domestic Water

Turn off water when not in use Ensure water heater tanks and piping are insulated

Keep water heaters set at 120°F or

lower

Purchase ENERGY STAR qualified equipment during replacements

Appliances

Keep burners clean on stoves Keep refrigerator condenser coils clean

Allow air circulation for refrigerators Keep refrigerator / freezer properly sealed


Lighting

Turn off lights when not in use Replace energy intensive bulbs with energy efficient bulbs, e.g.

LED retrofit bulbs

Utilize occupancy sensors in areas prone to transient traffic

where periodic non-use is anticipated

Electronics

Set computers to automatic sleep-

mode or turn off when not in use


Use electronics with stand-by power

Use power strips for TVs, DVD

players, to turn off when not in use

Envelope

Draw shades during cooling Properly seal air leaks in buildings, e.g.


Social Behavior Maintenance and Operations

Close windows/doors during heating

and cooling

Install ASHRAE 90.1 compliant windows during replacements

(e.g. low-e glazing, dual pane)

Install window tinting on clear, uncoated windows

Source: FEA Energy Efficiency Best Practices for Facilities

Fiscal Impact

Strict enforcement of current and recommended district initiatives should achieve annual savings of no

less than 2 percent ($612,500). There will be no additional cost incurred to achieve this savings.

Recommendation

One-Time

Costs/

Savings

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21

Implement no/low-cost

energy conservation

strategies

$0 $0 $612,500 $612,500 $612,500 $612,500


212

This page intentionally left blank.

213 Appendix A – Recommendations and Fiscal Impacts

Appendix A – Recommendations and Fiscal Impacts


Costs/Savings

Net Year 1

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 2

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 3

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 4

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 5

Fiscal Impact

Net Five-Year

Fiscal Impact

Organization and Management

Recommendation 1-1: Consider options to improve

the efficiency of board meetings. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 1-2: Increase breadth of coverage

of internal audit to maximize effectiveness. ($100,000) $0 ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000) ($4,100,000)

Recommendation 1-3: Develop administrative

regulations for all applicable policy areas. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 1-4: Establish administrative

guidelines for the development of district

organizational charts.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 1-5: Reduce clerical staffing83. $0 $3,071,880 $6,143,760 $6,143,760 $6,143,760 $6,143,760 $27,646,920

Recommendation 1-6: Increase use of district’s

complaint tracking system. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 1-7: Develop a decision-making

framework for the central office, area offices and

schools.

($50,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($50,000)

Subtotal ($150,000) $3,071,880 $5,143,760 $5,143,760 $5,143,760 $5,143,760 $23,496,920

Financial Management

Recommendation 2-1: Consider implementing more

robust closing procedures to ensure the accuracy of

monthly financial statements.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




Costs/Savings

Net Year 1

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 2

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 3

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 4

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 5

Fiscal Impact

Net Five-Year

Fiscal Impact

Recommendation 2-2: Make changes to the district’s

account codes to support more effective cost control

and financial reporting.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-3: Upgrade the education,

experience, and certification requirements in the

Chief Business Officer job description.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-4: Develop supplemental annual

budget report to improve clarity and transparency. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-5: Start budget process earlier. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-6: Document new budget

process. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2.7: Establish a plan for the

Procurement Department, including specific goals,


$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2.8: Maximize the use of district

resources and accounting systems to increase the

efficiency of the Procurement Department.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-9: Implement a more robust and

intelligent spend analysis reporting tool. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-10: Require bookkeepers and

secretaries to attend ongoing training on the

purchasing process.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-11: Establish a plan for the

Accounts Payable Department, including specific

goals, objectives and KPIs.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-12: Maximize the use of district

resources and accounting systems to increase the

efficiency of the Accounts Payable Department.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



Costs/Savings

Net Year 1

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 2

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 3

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 4

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 5

Fiscal Impact

Net Five-Year

Fiscal Impact

Recommendation 2-13: Re-align the creation of

vendors under the Procurement Department. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-14: Re-structure the organization

of the Accounts Payable Department. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-15: Require all hourly employees

to report hours worked. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-16: Purchase software to

streamline time reporting. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 2-17: Implement additional

controls over payroll review process. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Human Resources Management

Recommendation 3-1: Reorganize the Human

Resources Division. $0 $0 $497,586 $497,586 $497,586 $497,586 $1,990,344

Recommendation 3-2: Upgrade HR management job

descriptions to require HR experience and

certification.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 3-3: Re-engineer HR systems and

procedures. $0 $0 ($360,000) ($360,000) ($360,000) ($360,000) ($1,440,000)

Recommendation 3-4: Develop and analyze HR

performance measures. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 3-5: Modify the districtwide

performance evaluation system for non-educationally

certificated employees to align actual job duties with

performance measures.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 3-6: Consider converting current

employee health insurance program to a self-funded

program.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



Costs/Savings

Net Year 1

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 2

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 3

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 4

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 5

Fiscal Impact

Net Five-Year

Fiscal Impact

Recommendation 3-7: Implement changes to HCPS

health insurance programs. $0 $0 $10,833,300 $10,833,300 $10,833,300 $10,833,300 $43,333,200

Recommendation 3-8: Conduct dependent eligibility

audit. $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $1,320,000

Subtotal $0 $0 $11,300,886 $11,300,886 $11,300,886 $11,300,886 $45,203,544

Technology Management

Follow-up on Sunera Recommendations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Transportation Management

Recommendation 5-1: Implement a timekeeping

system for school bus drivers to report actual time84. $0 $0 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $1,261,725 $5,046,900

Recommendation 5-2: Reduce driver absenteeism85. $0 $998,572 $998,572 $998,572 $998,572 $998,572 $4,992,860

Recommendation 5-3: Reduce overtime for school

bus drivers and vehicle maintenance staff86. $0 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $1,096,964 $5,484,820

Recommendation 5-4: Increase time between bell

schedules. $0 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $2,737,790 $13,688,950

Recommendation 5-5: Phase out courtesy

transportation for secondary school students. 87 $0 $2,364,012 $4,728,406 $9,456,812 $9,456,812 $9,456,812 $35,462,854

Recommendation 5-6: Require drivers to park school

buses overnight at HCPS transportation facilities.88 ($14,200,000) $0 $436,956 $436,956 $873,912 $873,912 ($11,578,264)

84 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 85 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 86 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 87 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. 88 This recommendation was made as part of Phase I of the Educational and Operational Audit for HCPS. However, the fiscal impact for this recommendation was not included in the Phase I report.



Costs/Savings

Net Year 1

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 2

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 3

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 4

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 5

Fiscal Impact

Net Five-Year

Fiscal Impact

Recommendation 5-7: Reduce spares ratio for school

bus fleet. $258,000 $0 $946,344 $946,344 $946,344 $946,344 $4,043,376

Subtotal ($13,942,000) $7,197,338 $12,206,757 $16,935,163 $17,372,119 $17,372,119 $57,141,496

Facilities Management

Recommendation 6-1: Dedicate a resource to

manage an in-house Facilities Condition Assessment

program.

$0 $0 ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845) ($295,380)

Recommendation 6-2: Develop a Facility

Management Plan. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 6-3: Establish a Preventive

Maintenance (PM) program manager position to

oversee an effective PM program.

$0 $0 ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845) ($73,845) ($295,380)

Recommendation 6-4: Implement a maintenance

staffing model based on trade-specific positions

instead of Multi-Trade Workers.

($75,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($75,000)

Recommendation 6-5: Increase the number of

maintenance supervisors. $0 ($595,941) ($595,941) ($595,941) ($595,941) ($595,941) ($2,979,705)

Recommendation 6-6: Document and streamline

facilities management processes. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 6-7: Use available data to analyze

work order processes and improve worker

productivity.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 6-8: Enhance data standards and

quality, data maintenance and configuration of

WebTMA to improve performance measurement.

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Recommendation 6-9: Consider implementing the

use of procurement cards by technicians. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



Costs/Savings

Net Year 1

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 2

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 3

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 4

Fiscal Impact

Net Year 5

Fiscal Impact

Net Five-Year

Fiscal Impact

Recommendation 6-10: Implement an employee

training and development program for Maintenance

Operations.

($25,000) $0 ($233,500) ($233,500) ($233,500) ($233,500) ($959,000)

Recommendation 6-11: Change custodial staffing

formula and management approach to reflect

industry standards for efficiency. 89

$0 $4,914,911 $10,447,319 $10,447,319 $10,447,319 $10,447,319 $46,704,187

Recommendation 6-12: Perform a detailed

assessment of existing grounds maintenance

equipment and create a plan to replace outdated

equipment.

$0 $0 ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($80,000)

Recommendation 6-13: Replace existing fluorescent

tube (T8) lights and compact fluorescent lights (CFLs)

with light emitting diode (LED) lights.

($14,400,000) $0 $3,180,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 ($6,720,000)

Recommendation 6-14: Create a building re-tuning

program. $0 $0 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $5,600,000

Recommendation 6-15: Implement low/no-cost

energy conservation strategies. ($213,000) $0 $93,600 $93,600 $93,600 $93,600 $161,400

Recommendation 6-16: Implement no-cost best

practices to reduce energy consumption. $0 $0 $612,500 $612,500 $612,500 $612,500 $2,450,000

Subtotal ($14,713,000) $4,318,970 $14,736,288 $13,056,288 $13,056,288 $13,056,288 $43,511,122

Grand Total ($28,805,000) $14,588,188 $43,387,691 $46,436,097 $46,873,053 $46,873,053 $169,353,082



219 Appendix B – IT Recommendations and Status

Appendix B – IT Recommendations and Status

Table B.1. IT Strategy and Governance Recommendations

Rec# Section Recommendation Priority Status District

Response Timeline

1 IT Alignment

Establish and document a comprehensive IT

strategy that appropriately aligns with the

District's strategic goals

High Completed Adopted Updated

annually

2 IT Alignment Select and approve IT service model High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

Student Bulk

Scheduler

FY16-17;

ERP

Upgrade

starting

FY16-17

over 5

years; SIS

replacement

potentially

starting

FY16-17

over 2 years

3 IT Alignment Establish, define, and publish a formal IT service

catalog High In progress Adopting FY16-17

4 IT Alignment Re-purpose Technology Steering Committee

(TSC) to establish IT strategic direction High Completed Adopted Completed

5 IT Alignment Establish a Business IT Council (BIC) for IT

governance High Completed Adopted Completed

6 IT Alignment Establish an Instructional IT Council (IIC) for IT

governance High Completed Adopted Completed

7 IT Alignment Establish an IT Architecture Review Council

(ARC) for IT governance High Completed Adopted Completed

8 IT Alignment Establish a Data Governance Council (DGC) for

IT governance High Completed Adopted Completed

9 IT Value

Delivery

Consider replacing the BPI team with a Process

Excellence team that is governed by a formally

documented charter

High Completed

Adopted

with

refinement

Completed

10 IT Value

Delivery

Create a formal Project Management Office

(PMO) High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

11 IT Value

Delivery

Develop a formalized portfolio project

management approach High Not started Adopting FY16-17

12 IT Value

Delivery

Reprioritize and evaluate the criticality of all

current projects High Completed Adopting Ongoing



Response Timeline

13 IT Risk

Management

Develop and document a computer security

incident response plan High Completed Adopted Completed

14 IT Resource

Management Reorganize IT Division organizational structure High Completed Adopted Completed

15 IT Resource

Management

Develop a detailed succession plan to retain skill

sets, competencies and capabilities within the

organization

High In progress Adopting Ongoing

16 IT Staffing and

Skill Set

Re-distribute and re-purpose the current FTE

positions in use High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

17 IT Staffing and

Skill Set

Remediate IT personnel skill gaps via training,

acquisition, transitioning and /or outsourcing High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

Ongoing

24 IT Staffing and

Skill Set

Implement a formal process that requires all IT-

related procurement requests to Flow through

the IT Architecture Review Council (ARC)

Medium In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY15-16

25 IT Risk

Management

Identify legal/regulatory requirements to define

and document data breach and communication

procedures

Medium Completed Adopted Completed

26 IT Risk

Management

Ensure that all new or re-negotiated

information system and security service-related

contracts contain explicitly defined SLAs and a

"right to audit" clause.

Medium In progress Adopting Ongoing

27 IT Resource

Management

Define a pay scale and associated career path

for IT professionals Medium Completed Adopted Completed

28 IT Resource

Management Adjust salaries for re-organized IT organization Medium Completed Adopted Completed

29 IT Staffing and

Skill Set

Adopt a time tracking/portfolio management

application to account for IT personnel

utilization

Medium Not started

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

72 IT Value

Delivery

Create an interface between the project

portfolio management tool and an internal PMO

web page

High Completed

Adopting

with

refinement

Completed

73 IT Resource

Management

Implement a formal IT budgeting process to

ensure that IT expenses appropriately align with

the organization's overall strategy

High In progress Adopting FY15-16

74 IT Resource

Management

Evaluate a re-adjustment of the balance

allocation of appropriated IT funds between

Instructional and operational IT


75 IT Resource

Management

Establish a formal IT Resource Planning (ITRP)

process that supports the overall IT strategic

plan

High Not started Adopting FY16-17



Response Timeline

76 IT Resource

Management Develop and implement an IT training program High In progress Adopted

Training

provided as

required

77

IT

Performance

Measurement

Establish formal Key Performance

Indicators KPIs , Scorecards, and Dashboards to

evaluate the performance of IT at a strategic

and tactical level

High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

112 IT Value

Delivery

Define formal Service Level Agreements (SLAs)

for services provided by IT High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

113 IT Value

Delivery

Communicate internal SLAs to business and

operational process owners and review on an

annual basis


114 IT Risk

Management

Develop, document, and distribute a

comprehensive set of information security

policies and procedures

High Completed Adopting Completed

121 IT Staffing and

Skill Set

Augment employee job descriptions to

accurately depict job requirements and

qualifications


122 IT Staffing and

Skill Set

Enhance the employee evaluation process by

creating IT position-specific performance

evaluation forms

Medium Not started Adapting FY16-17

125 IT Risk

Management

Conduct enterprise-wide IT risk assessments on

an annual basis Low Not started Adopted FY16-17



Table B.2. IT Application and Infrastructure Recommendations


Response Timeline

18 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Develop a formal, enterprise-wide change

management process High In progress Adopting FY16-17

19 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Develop an enterprise-wide Systems

Development Lifecycle (SDLC) High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

23

Application

Portfolio

Analysis

Evaluate the opportunities associated with

outsourcing and/or leveraging application

service providers (ASPs) or a Software as a

Service (SaaS) model for critical applications

High In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY 16-17

30

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Evaluate the utilization and performance of the

mainframe to determine capacity and processing

requirements

Medium Completed Adopted Ongoing

31

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Evaluate the utilization and performance of

critical servers to determine capacity and

processing requirements

Medium In progress Adopted FY15-16

32

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Implement a single, authoritative authentication

source (e.g.,LDAP) which leverages the Active

Directory domain to authenticate users

Medium In progress Adopting FY16-17

33

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Implement a secondary core switch to reduce

the load on the current core switch and provide

redundancy

Medium Completed Adopting Completed

34 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Evaluate alternative project portfolio and change

management solutions to replace MantisBT Medium Not started Adopting FY17-18

78

Application

Portfolio

Analysis

Develop and implement an Application Portfolio

Management (APM) program High In progress Adopting FY16-17

79

Application

Portfolio

Analysis

Restructure the current application portfolio to

better align with the District's strategic vision and

service model


80

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Evaluate options for modernizing or replacing

the First Class email application to accommodate

platform-neutral mobile user access

High Completed

Adopting

with

refinement

Completed

81

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Redesign and readdress remote site networks in

a more scalable, secure fashion High In progress Adopting FY16-17

82

Application

Portfolio

Analysis

Adopt a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) in

conjunction with bring your own device (BYOD)

initiatives

High Completed Not

adapted Completed

83

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Establish a single, authoritative, accessible,

highly available data source to store and link

student and employee data




Response Timeline

84 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC Develop a Change Approval Board (CAB) High Not started Adopting FY16-17

86

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Allocate secondary network interface cards

(NICs) on servers to a backup or storage network Medium In progress

Adopting

with

refinement

FY17-18

87 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Develop a standardized Request for Change

(RFC) form Medium Completed Adopting Completed

88 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Implement an "independent verification and

validation" (IV&V) process into the SDLC for large

IT projects

Medium Not started

Adopting

with

refinement

FY16-17

89 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Formalize and require Quality Assurance (QA)

and User Acceptance Testing (UAT) processes for

all applicable changes


90 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Consider implementing a QA/UAT automated

testing tool Medium Completed

Under

Considerati

on

Completed

91 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Implement a formal process that ensures all

changes are tested in a non-production

environment


92 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Implement a formal process to ensure that

production data is expunged, masked, or de-

identified prior to use into a non- production

(e.g., development of testing) environment

Medium Not started Adopting FY17-18

93 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Implement a formal process that ensures

application developers do not have

administrative access to production code

environments


94 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Implement a formal process that ensures all

application code changes are reviewed using a

manual/automated process prior to deployment

to production


106 Change Mgmt.

& SDLC

Develop a formal application developer training

program to ensure all developers are trained in

secure coding techniques at least annually

Low Completed

Adopting

with

refinement

Ongoing

126

Application

&Infrastructure

Performance

Re-organize data center cabling Low Completed Not

adopted Completed



Table B.3. IT Security Recommendations


Response Timeline

20

Threat and

vulnerability

management

Implement a formal vulnerability management

program High Completed

Adopted

with

refinement

Completed

21

Threat and

vulnerability

management

Develop, document, and implement a formalized

security patch program High Completed Adopted Completed

35 User

administration

Ensure that all systems which must be accessed

from the internet are positioned within a DMZ,

or less trusted, network


36 Network

security

Deploy a central AAA (e.g., RADIUS, TACACS)

server to integrate with a central LDAP

authentication system


37 Network

security

Implement a secure wireless network in

accordance with the prospective wireless policy Medium In progress Adopting FY16-17

38

Threat and

vulnerability

management

Execute internal and external vulnerability scans

on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly) Medium Completed Adopted Ongoing

39

Threat and

vulnerability

management

Execute internal and external penetration testing

on a routine basis (e.g., annually) Medium Completed Adopted Ongoing

40 Anti-virus

management

Centralize the deployment, configuration, and

administration of all anti-virus management into

a single department /function


41 Anti-virus

management

Configure the Symantec Endpoint Protection

(SEP) application to retain relevant anti-virus logs

for at least 365 days, with a minimum of 90 days

readily available for review


42 Anti-virus

management

Integrate Mac OS based systems into the current

SEP anti-virus system to provide central

management of anti-virus clients on Mac OS

based systems


52 Network

security

Configure all network devices to use secure,

remote administration protocols Low Completed Adopted Completed

53 Network

security

Update configuration guides and standards to

ensure that Cisco network devices use "level 5"

encryption for storage of local authentication

credentials

Low Completed Adopted Completed

54 Network

security

Develop and implement procedures for

identifying and removing rogue wireless

networks within the District's facilities on a

routine basis (e.g., quarterly)

Low In progress Adopting FY16-17



Response Timeline

55 Network

security

Re-configure the TippingPoint IPS system to

inspect traffic into and out of the least trusted

network security zones


56

Information

system and

server security

Review existing systems to ensure strong

cryptography and authentication is utilized for

remote administration services


57 Application

security

Develop and implement a formal application

scanning program that requires all internally

hosted applications to be scanned on a regular

basis (e.g., quarterly) and prior to deployment

into the production environment

Low Not started Adopting FY16-17

58 Application

security

Enforce strong cryptographic ciphers (e.g., 128

bits or greater) on public web servers Low In progress Adopting FY16-17

59

Data security

and

administration

Restrict local and domain administrator account

access on critical databases to only respective

DBAs


60

Data security

and

administration

Review all instances to ensure that user

credentials are encrypted with 128 bit

encryption or greater during transmission


61

Data security

and

administration

Evaluate current systems to determine what

datasets should be encrypted at rest and ensure

that strong cryptography (128 bits or greater) is

enforced


62

Data security

and

administration

Enforce full disk encryption on laptop computers

issued to departments that interact with

sensitive data (e.g., PII, HIPAA)

Low In progress Adopting Ongoing

63 User

administration

Conduct a comprehensive review of all local,

Domain, Enterprise, and Schema administrator

accounts within the Windows environment so

that unnecessary accounts are disabled or

removed


64 User

administration

Implement a formal process that requires system

owners to conduct periodic (e.g., quarterly) user

access reviews to identify excessive/

inappropriate access, inactive accounts and

terminated users


65 Password

management

Review and update all critical systems' password

parameters to ensure that configurations are in-

line with industry best practices

Low In progress Adopted Ongoing

66 Password

management

Enforce the LAN Manager Authentication level

policy to require the use of NTLMv2 for the

transmission of Windows passwords

Low In progress Adopted Completed



Response Timeline

67 Password

management

Identify and remove all shared administrator

accounts on critical systems Low In progress Adopted Ongoing

95 Network

security

Develop a High-level, current, and

comprehensive network diagram that accurately

depicts all segments of the District's network


96 Network

security

Review and maintain network diagrams to

ensure they accurately reflect the current state of

the network


97 Network

security

Develop and maintain configuration standards

for network devices that define required security

parameters

Medium In progress Adopting FY 16-17

98 Network

security

Develop a formal process that ensures all firewall

rule set changes are approved, tested, and

documented


99 Network

security

Assess firewall configurations for approved

ports, protocols, and services at least semi-

annually"


100 Network

security

Remove legacy network devices from the

environment Medium Completed Adopted Completed

101 Network

security

Implement a formalized program to ensure that

firewall and router rule sets are reviewed on a

routine basis (e.g., semi- annually) to investigate

and restrict/remove overly permissive and

extraneous rules

Medium In progress Adopted Ongoing

102 User

administration

Assign user and service accounts to groups based

on their respective roles (i.e., RBAC) Medium Completed Adopted Completed

103

Information

system and

server security

Replace site-based domain controllers with read-

only domain controllers or implement a VDI

solution


104 User

administration

Implement a formally documented process for

requesting, logging, and approving user access

rights


107 Security

awareness

Implement a formal security awareness training

program Low Completed Adopted Ongoing

108

Physical and

environmental

security

Adjust ventilation within the primary data center

to ensure that air temperature and humidity is

consistently distributed throughout the raised

floor space

Low Completed Not

Adopted Completed

115 Network

security

Develop and publish a formal wireless policy that

defines authentication and encryption

requirements




Response Timeline

116

Information

system and

server security

Formally document and periodically review (e.g.,

annually) minimum security baselines for each

major operating system type


117 Network

security

Update configuration guides and standards to

require strong cryptography and authentication

for all remote administration services

High Completed Adopted Completed

118

Data security

and

administration

Document database security configuration

baselines High Not started Adopting FY16-17

119

Data security

and

administration

Augment certain database configuration

standards to require that user credentials be

encrypted with 128 bit or greater encryption

during transmission


120

Data security

and

administration

Augment configuration standards to require that

sensitive data at rest is encrypted with strong

cryptography




Table B.4. IT Operation and Continuity Recommendations


Response Timeline

22 Disaster

recovery

Conduct a formal, enterprise-wide Business

Impact Analysis (BIA) High Completed Adopted Completed

43 System and

data backups

Evaluate the opportunities of contracting with a

third party that is located at a sufficient distance

(e.g., 50 miles) from District facilities to maintain

secure off-site storage of backup tapes


44

Incident and

problem

management

Expand the utilization and adoption of Symantec

Service Desk by the IS Department for service

request tracking, as well as change management

tracking and documentation


45 Audit logging

Configure audit logging for the applications,

hardware, data storage, and network devices

associated with the critical/sensitive data


46 Audit logging Implement a secure, centralized log collection

appliance Medium Not started Adopting FY16-17

47 Audit logging Develop a program to ensure that audit logs are

reviewed/monitored on a daily basis Medium Not started Adopting FY16-17

48 Incident

response Develop a computer incident response plan Medium Completed Adopted Completed

49 Disaster

recovery Evaluate options for a disaster recovery site Medium In progress Adopting FY15-16

50 Disaster

recovery

Formalize a recovery strategy for the mainframe

platform (depending upon service model

selected)


51 Disaster

recovery

Augment current disaster recovery documents to

include detailed recovery procedures for all

critical systems


68 System and

data backups

Ensure that regular backups of the District’s

email system are occurring and that redundancy

is in place to ensure availability and

recoverability


69 System and

data backups

Perform periodic restores from tape for open

systems (i.e., Windows, AIX and Linux) Low Completed Adopted Ongoing

70 System and

data backups

Evaluate the current backup strategy to assess

the legal and business requirements pertaining

to the retention of data as well as the data

recovery objectives of the organization


71 System and

data backups Identify and encrypt all sensitive backup media Low Not started Adopting FY16-17

85 Disaster

recovery

"Evaluate options for migrating from the

mainframe platform and leveraging commercial-High In progress Adopting FY17-18



Response Timeline

off-the-shelf (COTS) applications that run on a

more common operating system"

105

Incident and

problem

management

Implement a centrally located dashboard that

projects an accurate maintenance schedule for all

systems, including a categorization of all outages


109

Incident and

problem

management

Monitor customer and call center performance

indicators on a regular basis (e.g., monthly) Low Completed Adopted Completed

110 Incident

response

Perform annual testing of the computer incident

response plan Low Completed Adopted Ongoing

111 Disaster

recovery

Conduct simulations and/or functional tests of

the disaster recovery plans on an annual basis Low Completed Adopted Completed

123 IT asset

management

Augment current IT asset inventory procedures

to include the tracking of assets valued under

$750 (e.g., $300 - $750)

Medium Not started Under

Consideration FY16-17

124 IT asset

management

Utilize Symantec Altiris as a centralized system to

track, monitor and assess the District’s IT asset

portfolio

Medium In progress Adopted FY16-17


phase ii: operational efficiency audit comprehensive report · phase ii: operational efficiency...

Documents