Pupil Transportation Funding Derek Graham, Section Chief Transportation Services North Carolina Dept. of Public Instruction
Feb 11, 2016
Pupil TransportationFunding
Derek Graham, Section ChiefTransportation Services
North Carolina Dept. of Public Instruction
Allotments for School Transportation
• NC Department of Public Instruction, Division of School Support, Transportation Services
• Charged with equitably distributing funds to 117 LEAs for operation of a safe, efficient school bus transportation system
• Separate appropriation for replacing school buses
Pupil Transportation Funding: A Little History
• Property and Cost Clerks– Allotted for 12 months based on a formula considering
the number of buses• Mechanics, Directors, Supervisors and Foremen
– Allotted for 12 months based on a formula considering the number of buses
• Contracts: Reimbursed for actual expenses• Fuel, tires,parts, etc. reimbursed for actual
expenses
1989 Legislative Action
• SB 44, Sec. 55• “The Department of Public Instruction shall implement the Pupil
Transportation Operational Study authorized by Section 94 of Chapter 1086 of the 1987 Session Laws, The State Board of Education shall allocate up to $400,000 of the funds appropriated for the 1989-90 fiscal year for aid to local school administrative units for pupil transportation to implement the findings of this study. The Department shall also report its final recommendations for achieving improved efficiency and economy in the pupil transportation system to the 1990 Session of the General Assembly. These recommendations shlal included incentives for encouraging cost-effective operations in local school administrative units, as provided in GS 115C-240(e) and GS 115C-246(a).
Ernst & Young Study Results - Jan. 1991
• Allot funds in a way that will provide incentives for the LEAs to provide pupil transportation service as efficiently as possible.
• Structure the funding process to maximize the LEAs’ discretion in deciding how pupil transportation objectives are to be met and to hold them accountable for the results of those decisions relative to meeting the dual objectives of service quality and economy.
• Provide information that helps each LEA to identify the source of any inefficiencies.
Accountability
• Block Grant Allotments:Eliminated Line Item Allotments – Fuel– Salaries– Tires/Repair Parts
• Flexibility to Use Funds where needed
• Block Grant based on a Budget Rating– Expenditures– Students Transported– Buses Operated
• Budget Rating is an indication of Efficiency
Local Control
# Buses Operated
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
Trend Line
890 Buses Sav ed
Miles Traveled per ADM
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
224,000,000Miles Saved Over 10 Years
Trend Line
Transportation Funding:Step by Step
1. Determine Funding Base2. Determine Budget Rating3. Multiply (1) x (2) and Adjust
Step 1: Determine Funding Base(Previous Years’ Eligible Expenditures)
• All State Expenditures except for equipment line items
• All Local Expenditures corresponding to a state object code, except equipment
• Exceptions:– Salaries in excess of the state maximum– Salary bonuses
• All State Expenditures except for equipment line items
• All Local Expenditures corresponding to a state object code, except equipment
• Legislative appropriation assumes allotment growth consistent with enrollment growth plus legislated increased (salary increases, etc)
• A few counties are capped each year due to expenses that increased beyond these projections
Capped Expenses
• Does not count “against” the LEA in the calculation of budget ratings.
• Does not get included in the funding base carried forward to the next year.
Step 2: Determine Budget Rating
• Inputs: Expenditures, Students Transported, Buses Operated
• Adjustments for Site Characteristics– Avg. Distance from School; Street Network– Pupil Density; Student Clustering– Median Family Income; Seats per Bus
Step 3: Apply Rating to Base Funding and Adjust
• Multiply Budget Rating By Base Funding (Step 1).
• Add funding for (positive) growth in students transported
• Adjust for Legislated Increases
Determining the Ratings
• Calculate the cost per student transported for each county
• Calculate the # buses operated per 100 students transported for each county
• Use Linear Regression to make sure that there is nothing beyond the county’s control that unfairly penalizes them: Site Characteristics
Factor Efficiencies - Step 1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Buses per 100 Adjusted Students
Expe
nditu
res
per A
djus
ted
Stud
ent
A
O
Cost Eff = XL / XA
Y M
L
X
Bus Eff = YM / YA
Combined Eff = AVG(Bus Eff, Cost Eff)
Factor Efficiencies - Step 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Buses per 100 Adjusted Students
Expe
nditu
res
per A
djus
ted
Stud
ent
O
•A
B
CD
Overall EfficiencyA =
Combined EfficiencyA
Average Combined EfficienciesF
(F=Frontier Points)
Leveling the Playing Field: Consider Site Characteristics
Beyond the Control of the LEA
• Pupil Density (Students Transported per Mile of Road
• Distance of Students to School• Circuity• % EC Students
Unadjusted Bus EfficiencyBuses - 3rd Quartile Distance to School
R2 = 0.3781
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Unadjuested Bus Efficiency
3rd
Qua
rt. D
ist.
3Quart Dist
Linear (3Quart Dist)
Bus Efficiency Adjusted for Distance to School 3rd Quartile
Bus Efficiency Adjusted for Distance 3rd Quartile
R2 = 3E-05
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Bus Efficiency
Dis
tnac
e to
Sch
ool 3
rd Q
uart
ile
3Quart Dist
Linear (3Quart Dist)
Site CharacteristicsCMS Wake Brunswick State
AveragePupil Density 22.2
students perroad mile
17.1students perroad mile
5.4students per roadmile
6.2students per roadmile
Avg Distanceto School
4.2 miles 4.5 miles 7.8 miles 5.27 miles
% ECtransportation
2.21% 3.19% 0.97% 1.99%
Circuity(ratio of actualto crow-flight)
1.23 1.47 2.68 1.42
Pupil TransportationFunding
Derek Graham, Section ChiefTransportation Services
North Carolina Dept. of Public Instruction