City College Birmingham Financial Benchmarking 200607

1
City College BirminghamFinancial Benchmarking
2006/07

• Helen Priestley
• 14th July 2008

2
Model
3
Benchmark Comparisons

• Tribal Average
• 54 non-London general FE Colleges achieving 5.3
  core surplus, with a core turnover of 16.1m and
  Ofsted inspection grades of 2.6 in leadership
  management and 2.4 for curriculum areas
• Low Cost GFE
• 20 non-London general FE colleges achieving 8.5
  core operational surplus, with a core turnover of
  17.1m and Ofsted inspection grades of 2.5 in
  leadership management and 2.4 for curriculum
  areas.
• Multi Site
• 5 colleges achieving 4.9 core operational
  surplus, with a core turnover of 24.2 and Ofsted
  inspection grades of 2.0 for leadership
  management and 1.9 for curriculum areas, with on
  average over 9 main college sites.
• Large Colleges
• 11 colleges achieving 4.7 core operational
  surplus, with a core turnover of 26.6 and Ofsted
  inspection grades of 2.6 in leadership
  management and 2.5 for curriculum areas.

4
Identification of Core College

• Commercial income from various projects 905k
• Franchised-out income 691k
• Commercial lettings 113k
• Income to cover staff secondments 160k

• Exceptional grant income (new build related)
• One-off and prior-year items

5
1.2m Income Removed
Overall College
Core College
6
Distance Travelled
7
Distance Travelled
8
College Profile
9
Core College Income Analysis
10
Overall Core College Analysis
11
1.2m Income Removed
12
Core College Expenditure Summary
13
Teaching Department
14
Teaching Department

• Direct Teaching costs 12.70m versus 12.51m
• Cost effective mix of staff
• Fewer promoted posts, more flexible teaching
  staff (e.g. agency)
• Lower average pay costs pa per FTE across
  functions
• 4 lower financial productivity (income generated
  per direct teacher FTE)
• Therefore using 21 more FTEs to deliver activity
• Teaching Support costs 2.16m versus 1.72m
• Additional support costs higher at 1.81m versus
  925,000
• 78.1 FTEs versus 43.9 FTEs
• ALS income 11.0 against typically 9.0 elsewhere
• High proportion of activity in Preparation for
  Life and Work

15
Average Teaching Pay Costs per FTE
16
Direct Teacher Productivity
If average class size were to increase to 10.7,
in line with Tribal Average, then direct teacher
productivity would be 68,843 (providing all
other factors remain constant). This would
result in the use of 25 fewer direct teacher FTEs
to deliver same level of activity
17
Average Teacher Utilisation
18
Distance Travelled Teaching Costs
19
Distance Travelled Teaching Productivity
20
Learner Services Expenditure
21
Learner Services Summary

• Overall expenditure higher
• 1.63m versus 1.02m
• Pay expenditure higher
• 1.36m versus 725,000
• 54.6 FTEs against 30.9 FTEs
• Learner Services Reception 7.4 vs. 2.2 FTEs
• Counselling / Welfare / General 24.5 vs. 8.8 FTEs
• Other Learner Services 10.1 vs. 5.7 FTEs
• Non-pay expenditure lower
• 265,000 versus 295,000
• Lower learner travel costs

22
Registry IT Support Summary

• Overall expenditure higher
• 2.37m versus 2.23m
• Pay expenditure higher
• 1.24m versus 1.10m
• FTE numbers high within MIS / Registry 34.2
  versus 28.5
• IT support staff numbers slightly lower overall
• Non-pay expenditure in line overall
• Computer software / consumables lower
• Exam / registration fees (net) higher

23
Central Administration

• Overall expenditure virtually in line (Large
  Colleges)
• 3.36m versus 3.32m
• Pay expenditure higher
• 1.91m versus 1.64m
• 57.6 FTEs versus 51.4 FTEs
• Non-pay expenditure lower
• 1.45m versus 1.68m
• Lower expenditure across a number of central
  costs including
• Staff training, recruitment, staff travel,
  equipment, stationery

24
Premises Summary

• Overall expenditure higher
• 4.08m versus 2.95m
• Higher proportion of costs incurred through
  occasional room hire
• 20.6 of costs incurred against 3.8 in Tribal
  Average
• Floor space lower than the comparison
• 35,856 m2 against 50,521 m2
• Running costs higher
• 84.67 per m2 versus 61.67 per m2
• Higher running costs direct pay costs, energy,
  cleaning, security

25
Distance Travelled Non-Teaching Costs
26
Summary of Key Findings

• Core College Costs high by 1.39 million against
  benchmark
• High level of reliance on LSC recurrent grant
  income
• Lower level of financial direct teacher
  productivity
• Additional support costs high by 880,000
• Learner Services costs high by 600,000
• 23.7 more FTEs than comparison
• Marketing expenditure low by 280,000
• Premises costs high by 1.1m against Tribal
  Average or 735,000 against Multi-Site comparison
• Total Pay Costs high by 1.33 million

27

• ADDITIONAL SLIDES (SUPPORTING DATA)

28
Teaching Department Staff Numbers
29
Teaching Department Expenditure
30
Library / LRC Expenditure Staff Numbers
31
Learner Services Staff Numbers
32
Learner Services Expenditure
33
Registry Computing Staff Numbers
34
Registry Computing Expenditure
35
Central Administration Staff Numbers
36
Central Administration Expenditure
37
Marketing / Business Development Expenditure
38
Premises - Space Utilisation
39
Premises Staff Numbers by M²
40
Premises - Running Costs per Owned M²
41
Core College Expenditure Summary