RD393 - Report on the Implementation Status of the Recommendations from the 2007 Petersburg Schools Efficiency Review


Executive Summary:
The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget (the Department) contracted with Prismatic Services, Inc. in October 2013 to conduct a follow-up review of the 2007 school efficiency review of Petersburg City Public Schools (PCPS) that was publicly released in January 2007. This 2013 follow-up review was contracted pursuant to Item 271 of Chapter 806, Acts of Assembly of 2013, which requires the Department to conduct a follow-up review of the implementation status of the 2007 school efficiency review.

Background

Today, PCPS has approximately 4,400 students enrolled in seven schools. (*1) This is down from the 5,100 students enrolled in 10 schools during the 2007 school efficiency review. Since then, the division has struggled with declining student enrollment and significant staff turnover at all levels.

The 2007 review covered all areas required in a Virginia school efficiency review:

• Division Administration;

• Financial Management, Budget, and Purchasing;

• Personnel and Human Resources Management;

• Cost of Education Services Delivery;

• Transportation;

• Technology Management;

• Facilities Use and Management; and

• Food Services.

The resulting report included 91 recommendations. These are shown in Exhibit 1 (see page ii of the report), along with the fiscal impact estimated in 2007.

As required in the Appropriation Act, PCPS reported to the Department on the implementation status of each recommendation six months, one year, and two years after the initial study concluded. The Department then contracted with the consulting firm that completed the initial study to review the implementation status in 2008, focusing only on those recommendations with fiscal impacts. This 2013 report, which follows, drew on all these prior updates and newly gathered information to assess the current implementation status of all the recommendations.

Methodology

Prismatic used a 10-step work plan to conduct this follow-up review and provided a team of four consultants, as well as clerical and technical staff. The project manager completed an on-site visit to the division on October 1, 2013 to collect initial documentation and make logistical arrangements for the full team visit. The full team visit occurred October 8-11, 2013. The consultants interviewed key staff members, collected additional documentation, toured relevant division facilities, and observed food services and transportation operations.

The significant staff turnover among nearly all division leadership positions hampered Prismatic’s ability to build a complete picture of the recommendation implementation for every year from 2006 through 2013. In many cases, institutional knowledge, in the form of documents or personal recollection, was simply not available for some years.

Many PCPS leaders are relatively new. This resulted in many recommendations currently being in “in process again” status. As leaders have changed, the incumbents have sought to address some of the problems identified in the initial study in new ways and many have not been in their positions long enough to have become fully aware of the recommendations or to have fully implemented their solutions to the 2007 review findings.

For each of the 91 original recommendations, Prismatic classified its current status as either:

• Implemented;

• Partially implemented

• In process;

• Implemented by substitute;

• Implemented but not sustained; or

• Considered and abandoned

With the exception of the “implemented but not sustained” choice, these classifications were the same ones used in the prior updates. The project contract did not allow the development of new recommendations, only assessment of the implementation of the original recommendations.

Exhibit 2 (see page iii of the report) provides a compilation of all recommendations and their current status. As shown, 72 of 91 recommendations (79%) were implemented, partially implemented, implemented by substitute, or implemented but not sustained. Another 17 (19%) are in the process of being implemented.

Exhibit 3 (see page iv of the report) provides the estimated actual five year savings or costs for each review area. As shown, the division’s savings in the areas of division administration, educational service delivery, facilities use and management, and food services were less than estimated in the 2007 report. At the same time, the division's costs in human resources and technology management were higher than estimated in the 2007 report.

Exhibit 4 (see pages v - ix of the report) provides a listing of each recommendation and its current status by review area.
______________________________________
(*1) Not including the alternative education center or the preschool.