CBTF Final Report

Denver Public Schools
CITIZENS BUDGET TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT

Presented to the Board of Education
January 18, 2001

Task Force Members
John Simonton, Co-Chair
Laura Lefkowits, Co-Chair
Tom Buescher
Kevin Crandell
Larry E. Drake
Lyman Ho
Craig Jones
Lawrence A. Manzanares
Don Mares
Kevin Patterson
Larry Ricketts
Leo Smith
Lucretia Weems
Stan Wilmer

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CITIZENS BUDGET TASK FORCE
Final Report to the Board of Education
January 18, 2001

Introduction

The Citizens Budget Task Force (CBTF) was created by the Board of Education in November 2000 to advise the Board on how to address the anticipated shortfall in the district’s budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002.

The CBTF was comprised of fourteen Denver citizen volunteers appointed by the Board of Education. There were no district employees on the committee. Some Board and staff members attended CBTF meetings and were available to answer questions but did not participate directly in the committee’s discussions.

The CBTF met every Wednesday from noon to 2:00 p.m. beginning on November 9, 2000 through January 17, 2001. Meetings were open to the public and were attended by a variety of interested citizens.

District staff provided the committee with background materials relevant to the charge including all supplementary materials requested by committee members during the course of deliberations.

Approach of the Task Force
At a very early stage in the process, the CTBF made the decision to focus its attention upon the broad policy issues and fiscal priorities of the district rather than on the line items of the budget. This was done to help the district move to a more strategic, long-range approach to budgeting, thereby avoiding on-going annual budgetary crises.

The CBTF divided into four subcommittees for additional study and focused recommendations as follows:

Budget Process
Student Achievement
Compensation
Additional Revenues

Analysis of District Priorities
The general operating budget of the Denver Public Schools is nearly $500 million per year. This is a substantial sum of money, but the budget is finite. Therefore, priorities must be established.

There is general agreement within the district and the community as a whole that overall student achievement, as indicated by standardized test scores, is unacceptably low. While we believe the district administration and Board are united in a desire to use resources effectively to improve student achievement, there is a disconnect between the variety of goals and priorities and the budget as proposed by the district administration. In addition there is a difference between goals from the district administration and Board.

The Board has not adopted a coherent educational strategy or has failed to communicate it and thus does not review expenditures based upon that educational strategy.

We have been seeking to understand what are the highest strategic priorities of the district, and why. What criteria will the district apply to allocate limited resources among competing programs in order to reach its primary goals? The CBTF has the impression, based on its work, that there are reoccurring management systems issues that affect the budget process and other activities. These impressions have been summarized as a need to:

Clearly and concisely, in plain terms, identify the results sought for children.
Develop a clear, focused educational strategy that can be concisely stated.
Organize around a strategic framework of educational and management systems that encourages and supports systematic and continuous improvement in student achievement.
Devise ways to measure and be accountable (including positive and negative consequences) for achieving results.
Continuously refocus resources (time and money) on the successful efforts that are driving success.

Issues
During our deliberations, a number of critical issues emerged. We have listed them here by subcommittee topic. The findings that resulted in the issue and the associated recommendations are within each subcommittee report.

Budget Process

The budget should state in numbers what the mission, goals, strategies and objectives say in words.
The budget process and reports should be user-friendly and support the needs of stakeholders to understand 1) strategies, and 2) links to the mission, goals and objectives.
The budget should be prepared in a manner that allows the Board to take a multi-year strategic outlook.
The entire budget exercise and format should be one that allows a proper revenue/cost match supporting the District meeting its mission, goals, strategies and objectives

Student Achievement

Student achievement is unacceptably low.
Educational responsibilities and accountability are diffused across the District and there is no coordinated strategic plan for achieving the mission.
Programs are established and continue without rigorous cost/benefit analysis.

Compensation

Over 80% of available operating resources are allocated to pay and benefits
which have increased at rates that exceed the rate of increases in available revenues.
The present compensation systems for educational employees are not related to student achievement and other specific education goals and objectives.

Additional Revenues

Due to a number of factors, including the political climate and the public perception of the district, there are public and private funds available that have not been accessed by the district. In addition to the restructuring of the District’s present budgeting policy, pursuit of additional long-term funding must be addressed.

Recommendations

We are sensitive to the Board’s need to adopt a balanced budget by June 30, 2001. We understand that current budget projections indicate this will not be possible without eliminating funding for a variety of worthy programs. Current projections suggest this problem will be a recurring one. To address this issue, for 2001 and beyond, we believe the District must revise a number of its current procedures and policies related to budgeting and adopt a more strategic, long-term view of the resource allocation process. To that end, we would make the following recommendations for consideration and discussion by the Board of Education. As the Citizens Budget Task Force, we make these recommendations in the hope that, over the long-term, implementation of them will provide better allocation of limited resources toward achieving the District’s goals.

Budget Process

Establish a few clear, measurable goals that support the vision and mission.
Support the means to the goals with data, evaluation or research.
Policies should be established that are clear and support the goals and provide a road map to the means for achieving goals.
The budget process should have policy guidelines and tests that will allow for comparisons of the budget to the policies.
The budget should be formatted in a manner that is not driven by accounting categories. It should be a multiple year format with historical and future components. Sections should be present allowing constituents to clearly identify policy and pressures to policy in the future. The format should separate fixed and variable expenses. In this manner, revenues may be asked for before a need arises, rather than cuts in policy areas after a need is not filled.
All programs presented during the current budget period should go through a similar process.
Program goals must support existing goals or the vision. There must be data, it must support policy, and it must present a budget that shows the impact this year and in the future.
A budget format should be designed that forces a strategic discussion before line item numbers are enumerated. For example: salaries cannot be raised without any conceivable way of having the resources necessary to pay for the raises.