Private Sector Educators, Public School Students:
A Survey and Overview of Instructional Service Privatization in Illinois’ Public Schools
Contact: Collin Hitt
February 26, 2009
To download this brief in PDF format, click here.
There are more than two million students enrolled in Illinois’ public schools. Private providers -- firms and individual contractors -- play a pivotal role in helping schools to educate those children.
No district can perfectly predict the future needs of their students. Nor can every district maintain a permanent staff capable of meeting the specific educational and therapeutic needs of every student. It should be no surprise that private sector providers play a significant role in the education of Illinois’ children.
This report outlines a statewide survey of Illinois school districts conducted by the Illinois Policy Institute. In it, we seek to estimate the extent to which school districts in Illinois have contracted with private providers for a small number of instructional services: online instruction, tutoring programs, speech therapy, physical therapy, alternative education and the staffing of substitute teachers.
These are only a handful of the instructional services provided by private providers within Illinois’ schools. Nevertheless, of Illinois school districts who responded to the survey:
• 37.2 percent reported contracting with either a private contractor – be it a firm or an individual - to provide the aforementioned instructional services.
Overall, 677 Illinois school districts responded to the survey. This provided a robust response rate of 77.7 percent. Therefore the findings can be considered representative of Illinois as a whole.
Much of this report will focus on private contracting – the practice of using either a private firm or individual contractor to provide district services. That said, since private organizations and companies are often singled out in legislative battles and collective bargaining agreements, it is useful to point out the significant role that these organizations play in providing instructional services in Illinois’ schools. Survey results suggest that:
• 70.0 percent of Illinois students attend school in a district that has contracted with a private company or organization to provide one of the aforementioned instructional services.
• Outside of Chicago, 60.7 percent of downstate and suburban public school students are estimated to attend school in a district that relies upon private sector firms to provide at least one of the aforementioned instructional services.
Far more often than not, legislators in Illinois have as their constituents students who are being educated by private instructional service providers. Very often, those services are provided by private firms.
In many cases, however, entrepreneurial individuals – unaffiliated with any agency – are playing important roles as well. According to our survey:
• 7.5 percent of Illinois school districts have directly contracted private firms or individuals to provide online instruction to their students.
• 8.1 percent of Illinois school districts have directly contracted private firms or individuals to provide tutoring services to their students.
• 18.5 percent of Illinois school districts have directly contracted private firms or individuals to provide speech therapy services to their students.
• 14.2 percent of Illinois school districts have directly contracted private firms or individuals to provide physical therapy services to their students.
• 12.6 percent of Illinois school districts have directly contracted private firms or individuals to provide alternative education services to their students.
• 3.2 percent of Illinois school districts have directly contracted private firms or individuals to assist in the staffing of substitute teachers at one or more of the district’s schools.
Being able to rely on private contractors, once the individual needs of students become apparent, is invaluable to the mission of Illinois’ school districts. Private providers are able to supply full- or part-time expertise for a short or extended period of time. In short, they provide districts with flexibility when making budgetary and staffing decisions.
Moreover, private sector providers can be more innovative than school districts in many areas – especially when new technology or medicine is involved.
Turning to the private sector is often vital for districts seeking to secure cutting-edge services for their students.
In 2007, however, legislation was passed that will likely keep districts from using private providers for non-instructional services such as busing, cafeteria and custodial needs. This was a mistake.
Taxpayers, parents and educators should all hope that the state does not place similar restrictions on school districts’ abilities to contract with private providers of instructional services, especially those outlined in this survey.
The ability to privatize certain instructional services allows districts to become more efficient. Perhaps most importantly, privatization allows students to access some of the state’s best educators – many of whom practice in the private sector.
State lawmakers should not interfere with district’s abilities to contract with private providers. These firms allow school districts to meet their goal of educating students more efficiently and more effectively. State mandates created in 2007 regarding non-instructional services will affect school districts in this mission, because they limit the business decisions that can be made by district officials.
If in the future similar attempts are made to prevent the use of private providers of instructional services, lawmakers will be limiting the educational opportunities available to children. The quality of instruction will fall, or the price of instruction will rise, or both.
Previous Research on Privatization
The research methods in this report mirror those used in an earlier survey of Illinois schools, conducted by the Illinois Policy Institute. Our previous research focused on non-instructional services such as busing, foodservice, and custodial service – we found that a majority of Illinois school districts had entirely or partially privatized one of its key non-instructional support services. Nearly 80 percent of Illinois public school students attended school in district that has contracted out one of these services. Thus the findings in the present report are consistent with those of past research: private providers are playing a large and invaluable role in the delivery of services in our public schools.
In Illinois the names of private firms who contract with governmental entities are public record, as are other records of any contractual agreements between school districts and service providers. Thus, in order to ascertain the percentage of school districts that use private contractors, the Illinois Policy Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act request with every school district in Illinois. This same methodology was used in a previous Institute report focusing on non-instructional services including busing, janitorial, or cafeteria service. The recent survey requested the names of any and all private providers contracted by the district to provide the following services, within one or more of the district’s schools:
1. Online Instruction (i.e. virtual schooling)
2. Tutoring Services (i.e. supplemental education services)
3. Speech Therapy Services
4. Physical Therapy Services
5. Alternative Education Programs
6. Substitute Teacher Staffing Services
Districts who responded with the name of a contractor for a given service were determined to have at least partially “privatized” that service. Districts who responded that no contractor existed and that they provided a given service internally were determined to have not privatized that service. Of the 871 school districts surveyed, 677 responded to the Institute’s requests by phone, e-mail or regular post.
As was the case with a previous survey conducted by the Illinois Policy Institute, it is sometimes necessary to disaggregate Chicago from the rest of the state. Thus we have done so in this report. Including Chicago data renders useless a number of statistics reported, such as the percentage of Illinois students who attend school in districts that have privatized at least one instructional service. Furthermore, even the largest downstate and suburban districts are only a fraction of the size of Chicago Public Schools. Their operational challenges are often wildly different than those faced within Illinois’ largest district.
Of the 677 districts that responded to the Freedom of Information Act requests, 229 reported the name of a private firm and an additional 53 reported the name of an independent individual contractor as having been retained to provide one of the instruction services mentioned in the survey request. Overall, 253 (37.2 percent) of the responsive districts had recently contracted with a private provider.
This report distinguishes between private firms and individual contractors in its overall analysis as well as in it sub-analyses of individual services. This is done primarily to show the prevalence of private companies in public education, while at the same time recognizing the work being done by entrepreneurial individuals who often compete with larger firms to best serve Illinois’ schoolchildren. Legislators, bureaucrats and educators often have different conceptions of businesses and individual contractors. This report attempts to not blur that distinction.
Of the 37.2 percent of districts who reported contracting with either a private firm or individual to provide the aforementioned instructional services:
• 33.7 percent of districts reported contracting with a private firm.
• 7.8 percent of districts reported contracting with an individual, independent of a firm or agency.
The overall results of this survey should be considered representative of Illinois as a whole. There is little reason to think that a response bias existed in our survey. The Illinois Policy Institute chose to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a specific reason. A typical survey is voluntary and may contain a response bias: districts that do not use private contractors may be less inclined to respond to a survey seeking information about service privatization, as they have no information to report. However, since the Institute chose to use FOIA, no such bias exists – public bodies are required to respond to all requests, whether or not they have responsive documents.
So, whereas it is unfortunate that all districts did respond to our FOIA request, and whereas it is always preferable to gain a response rate of 100 percent, there is no reason to believe that districts which did not respond to our open records requests were more or less likely than responsive districts to have privatized non-instructional services. One can be confident that the figures below are representative of responsive and non-responsive districts alike.
Developments in computer hardware, instructional software and high-speed internet technology are now making it possible for students to receive an education tailored to their unique needs via online instruction. State agencies, public schools and private providers have begun to fill this niche.
The future of American public education depends upon whether our schools are capable of meeting the unique needs of each individual student. Some students far outpace their classmates and need more accelerated instruction. Other students need to learn at a place that is slower than the traditional school day allows. Yet other students, former truants, are attempting to make up for lost time in the classroom and need the opportunity to “recover” credits.
And, of course, some students handle their coursework just fine – but are apt to excel in areas not touched upon by the mainstream curriculum in their school. For these students – which is to say, for most students – web-based learning provides opportunities customized to their needs.
Private firms throughout the country now offer hundreds of courses online. In many states, public academies – often founded in partnership with private firms – allow students the opportunity to take online courses at either a reduced cost or free of charge. These academies go by a number of names, including online schools, virtual academies, and cyberschools. For the purposes of this report, they will be called virtual schools.
Nationwide, there are between 150 and 200 publicly-funded virtual schools. Only three of them are located in Illinois: the Illinois Virtual High School, the Chicago International Charter School, and the VOISE (Virtual Opportunities Inside a School Environment) Academy.
The Illinois Virtual High School was founded in 2001. The project, housed at the Illinois Math and Science Academy, provides individual online offerings to high school students enrolled in the state’s public schools. The school is a valuable resource to many schools, especially rural schools, that are seeking to diversify their course offerings to students preparing for life in college or the workforce. The school offers courses developed by IVHS staff, as well as offerings from private providers such as class.com and Apex Learning.
Over the past three years, enrollments at the Illinois Virtual High School have increased by more than fifty percent. During the 2006 fiscal year, the total number of course enrollments at IVHS was 2,739. By the end of Fiscal Year 2008, enrollments had reached 4,314. While posting impressive growth numbers, the school still pales in size and scope compared to other publicly operated statewide virtual schools – particularly in comparison to the Florida Virtual School, which had course enrollments exceeding 52,000 as of last year.
Illinois’ second virtual school, the Chicago Virtual Charter School (CVCS), was opened in Fall 2006. As opposed to the Illinois Virtual High School (IVHS), CVCS enrolls only full-time students. The school is operated by K12, Inc., the nation’s largest virtual schooling provider. The students primarily receive instruction via a distance learning curriculum developed by K12. They are provided a desktop computer, instructional materials, software and an internet connection at their off-site place of learning, often in their home. They receive tutoring help and science instruction in person at a brick-and-mortar facility, located on the campus of the Merritt School of Music in Chicago’s West Loop.
Illinois’ newest virtual school, VOISE Academy high school, was opened in Fall 2008 in Chicago as part of the city’s Renaissance 2010 initiative to replace 100 failing public schools with 100 innovative new public schools of choice (e.g. charter schools, magnet schools, performance schools). According to Chicago Public Schools, “VOISE is a hybrid model that integrates exemplary face-to-face teacher instruction with rigorous online curriculum taught in flexible high-tech classrooms. VOISE is the best of both worlds, combining the structure of a great traditional school and the 21st century’s technology and instructional methods.”
The virtual schools above are exciting ventures in public education in Illinois. Yet they are only three examples of how school districts in Illinois have turned to outside providers to help them meet the unique needs of their student population.
In September 2008, the Illinois Policy Institute surveyed every Illinois school district to determine the extent to which school districts were using private providers of online instruction to enhance the course offerings within one or more of their schools. The survey found that:
• 7.5 percent (51 out of 677) responsive school districts have contracted directly with a private provider to provide online instructional services.
No fewer than 35 private firms – most of them for-profit entities – have recently been contracted by Illinois school districts to enhance and enrich the course offerings available to public school students. Absent bureaucratic interference, one can expect this number to grow, as will the number of stand-alone public virtual schools in Illinois.
Nationwide, over the past eight years, millions of parents have decided to enroll their children in at least one virtual class. There is a growing demand in every state, including Illinois, for online course offerings. Harvard business professor Clayton M. Christianson, along with researchers Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson, explored the recent growth of online learning in their 2008 book Disrupting Class.
“From 45,000 enrollments in fully online or blended-online courses in the fall of 2000,” they wrote, “that number had grown nearly 22 times to 1 million by the fall of 2007. Roughly 70 percent of these were for high school students. A significant 43 percent of rural schools already provide students with access to online courses that would not otherwise be available.”
Christianson et al. view online learning as a “disruptive technology” – not a technology that makes teaching more difficult, as might a disruptive student, but rather a technology that is so easily implemented but so different in nature than traditional teaching that it could soon remake the face of public education. Christianson’s concept of “disruptive technology” was developed through careful observation of the private sector, in instances where non-threatening technological developments were implemented and, suddenly, remade entire industries (the personal computer and the transistor radio are two such examples).
In public education, as the survey results show, online learning has already been introduced into public schools. Now, the authors predict, online learning is poised to revolutionize the public school experience. Graphing out what they call a “substitution curve,” based on prior enrollment figures, the authors believe that “the data suggest that by 2019, about 50 percent of high school courses will be delivered online. In other words, within a few years, after a long period of incubation, the world is likely to flipping rapidly to student-centric online learning.”
This trend mirrors developments in elementary and secondary schooling abroad, as well as in American institutions of higher learning. In order for Illinois schools to keep up, private sector providers are going to prove instrumental in meeting the demand for a high-quality education, customized to the needs of each student. This is evident to the administrators of the Illinois Virtual High School.
Facing massive enrollment growth, the Illinois State Board of Education requested proposals in December 2008 for an outside provider to assume management responsibilities of the Illinois Virtual High School. The new management firm will oversee the expansion of IVHS into the new Illinois Virtual School – an online portal for students in grades 5 through 12.
The new Illinois Virtual School will provide online instruction and training to the state’s teachers as well.
It is clear that private providers of online instructional materials will prove pivotal in the expansion of IVHS into the Illinois Virtual School. Not only will the new management firm be required to maintain current relationships with firms who have contracted to offer courses through IVHS, but it will also be responsible for developing new relationships with new vendors to offer a wide variety of courses to students—and to the state’s teachers as well.
In the future, virtual education will play a more prominent role in the education of students and the training of teachers in Illinois. Private providers will be at the center of this exciting expansion of public education.
Many students need additional attention, beyond what they receive in a traditional classroom setting. Some have learning disabilities. Others are struggling to keep up in certain subjects. Others are seeking to sharpen their current skills in preparation for college entrance exams. Yet others are bedridden due to illness or injury and are unable to make the daily trek to school. Tutoring programs have long been necessary when it comes to providing a quality education for these children.
Illinois school districts have long provided tutoring services to many of their students – especially when those students require help off-campus or outside of normal school hours. Moreover, since 2001, many school districts have been required to offer tutoring services to students attending struggling schools. According to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, school districts receiving Title I funds must provide tutoring services (also called “supplemental education services”) to students who attend schools that have for three consecutive years failed to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP). Education researchers Frederick M. Hess and Michael J. Petrilli outline the process that requires children in struggling schools can receive tutoring help.
“States are required to designate a list of approved supplemental service providers,” they write. “While a list of the approval criteria are largely left up to the states [by the federal Department of Education], approved providers must have a proven track record of successful student tutoring and a sound financial status. The law explicitly demands that states cultivate as large and diverse a portfolio of providers as possible in order to give parents as many choices as possible. The list of providers can include for-profit and non-profit companies, community and faith-based organizations, teachers or teacher-associations, and school districts.”
These requirements, combined with the traditional demands upon school districts to supply tutoring services, guarantee that public schools in Illinois will continue to make extensive use of private sector tutoring programs. In September 2008, the Illinois Policy Institute surveyed every school district in Illinois in order to ascertain what percentage of school districts are currently turning to private providers to help meet their students’ tutoring needs. The survey found that:
• 7.1 percent (48 out of 677) responsive school districts entered into a contract with a private firm to provide tutoring services.
• An additional 7 districts responded as having contracted with individual tutors to provide tutoring services.
• Overall, 8.1 percent (55 out of 677) of the districts responded as having contracted with a private provider – either a firm or an individual – to provide tutoring services to their students.
Schools are responsible for teaching students to read, write and figure. Of course, they also teach students to speak – to properly pronounce words and phrases. Some students experience difficulties learning to speak. The terms “speech impediment” and “speech disorder” often refer to such difficulties. Speech therapy is intended to help students overcome these challenges.
A simple definition of speech therapy defines the practice as “therapeutic treatment to correct defects in speaking. Such defects may originate in the brain, the ear, or anywhere along the vocal tract and may affect the voice, articulation, language development, or ability to speak after language is learned. Therapy begins with diagnosis of underlying physical, physiological, or emotional dysfunction. It may involve training in breathing, use of the voice, and/or speaking habits.” Speech therapists are trained to perform these tasks.
For a number of reasons, school districts frequently turn to outside providers to help meet the speech therapy needs of their students. Sometimes they turn to a local special education cooperative, if the student requiring assistance is a special needs student. Other times, districts turn to private providers – especially when students experiencing speech difficulties are not special education students.
For example, speech therapists can be employed to work with English language learners. Often, learning to perform sounds common to English can prove difficult to students whose native tongue simply does not include such sounds. Learning from someone uniquely trained in speech therapy can quickly help these students gain a greater command of the English language.
A variety of private providers exist in Illinois to help districts provide students with the speech therapy services they need.
In September 2008, the Illinois Policy Institute surveyed every school district in Illinois to determine the extent to which school districts used private providers. The survey found that:
• 13.1 percent (89 out of 677) of responsive school districts entered into a contract with a private firm to provide speech therapy services.
• An additional 36 districts responded as having contracted with an individual speech therapist to provide speech therapy services.
• Overall, 18.5 percent (125 out of 677) of responsive school districts entered into a contract with a private firm or individual to provide speech therapy services to their students.
It should be noted that the findings above measure the frequency with which districts have directly contracted with private providers to meet the needs of students experiencing speech difficulties. School districts often indirectly make use of private providers through special education co-operatives, when students in special education require speech therapy.
A subsequent analysis of school service privatization within special education cooperatives, combined with the findings in this report, would likely show that the reach of private instructional service providers is even broader than is suggested herein.
Many students suffer from injuries and physical disabilities that complicate the learning process. In order to see that these students receive a high-quality education, school districts often must provide them with the services of a physical therapist.
Also, many districts provide injured student athletes with rehabilitation services, if those athletes are injured during school athletic activities. In this instance, the services of a physical therapist may be required as well.
The reference guide Occupational Outlook Handbook defines the work of physical therapists as such: “Physical therapists provide services that help restore function, improve mobility, relieve pain, and prevent or limit permanent disabilities of patients suffering from injuries or disease. They restore, maintain and promote overall fitness and health.”
Given the varied nature of the diseases and injuries that can afflict schoolchildren, school districts are hard-pressed to maintain a permanent staff capable of providing physical therapy for every need that may arise. Thus many districts have outsourced such work to education co-ops. They also rely heavily upon private sector providers.
In September 2008, the Illinois Policy Institute surveyed every district in Illinois to see to what extent school districts had formed direct relationships with private sector providers:
• 12.6 percent (85 out of 677) of responsive school districts entered into a contract with a private firm to provide physical therapy services.
• An additional 11 districts responded as having contracted with individual physical therapist to serve district students.
• Overall, 14.2 percent (96 out of 677) of responsive school districts entered into a contract with a private firm or individual to provide physical therapy services to their students.
As with the findings related to speech therapy, it should be noted that the findings above measure the frequency with which districts have directly contracted with private providers to meet the needs of students experiencing speech difficulties.
School districts often indirectly make use of private providers through special education co-operatives. A subsequent analysis of school service privatization within special education cooperatives, combined with the findings in this report, would likely show that the reach of private instructional service providers is even broader than is suggested herein.
For many students, the most appropriate learning environment is simply not within a regular public school. Students with severe physical or mental disabilities may find a more appropriate, less restrictive environment within a private school such as Springfield’s Hope Institute or Oak Brook’s Giant Steps Academy. Students with disciplinary or truancy issues may be better served in schools with a strict emphasis on discipline or vocational services. Illinois’ public schools often turn to private providers to serve these students.
In September 2008, the Illinois Policy Institute surveyed every district in Illinois to determine to what extent schools contracted with private providers “to provide alternative education (e.g. vocational education)” to students enrolled with district boundaries. The wording of this question proved problematic to some districts. A few districts objected to the grouping together of “alternative education” and “vocational education.” In the district’s response, the superintendent wrote, “Vocational education is in the category of Career Education. Alternative
Education could be outside placement of students that are unable to succeed in the regular school setting, perhaps due to special needs or circumstances such as a discipline issue.” Future iterations of the survey will ask, in separate questions, for the names of vocational education and alternative education providers with whom districts have entered into a contract. Due to the obfuscation of terms, the figure above possibly overstates the frequency with which school districts have contracted directly with private providers to provide alternative education services.
Because “vocational education” was grouped together in our request with “alternative education,” many districts simply responded with the name of private vocational schools with whom they had contracted to educate district students.
Unfortunately (due to the vagueness of our survey question and not any error on the parts of responsive districts) it is not possible to determine from these responses whether the placements in these schools were made to meet the needs of students who might have otherwise been placed in alternative schools. Therefore, the findings likely reflect the percentage of districts that have formed direct relationships with private providers to meet either their alternative education or vocational education needs. The survey showed that:
• 12.6 percent (85 out of 677) of responsive school districts entered into a contract with a private firm to provide alternative education services.
However, the figure also probably understates the frequency with which school districts have contracted directly with private providers to provide vocational education services. Many districts may have provided information only insofar as it related to programs fitting the description of Alternative Education provided above by an Illinois superintendent. Vocational education programs enrolling mainstream students may have been included in some responses, but not in others.
The figure above also understates the role that private providers play in vocational education in Illinois. As with special education, a number of districts have formed regional cooperatives to provide vocational education services.
Furthermore, the findings above understate the popularity of private providers of vocational education services. As with private providers of special education services, school districts often form indirect relationships with private providers through regional cooperatives. A number of vocational cooperatives have been created by school districts in Illinois. A separate survey of instructional service privatization within those districts would likely demonstrate that private providers serve an even broader scope of schools that suggested by the figures above.
The most urgent school staffing shortages occur when a teacher calls in sick. The vacancy, of course, is short term, and, therefore, so is the need for a substitute teacher. Maintaining a bank of qualified, part-time substitute teachers can be difficult for districts—especially small districts. Temporary employment agencies are hired by some school districts to meet their staffing needs.
Also, some districts have contracted with call centers to locate available substitute teachers. Administrators are often made aware of the need to find a substitute a couple of hours before the beginning of the school day. Staff limitations before the beginning of business hours can make finding a substitute strenuous. Contracting a calling service to work through an approved list of qualified substitutes is just another example of how school districts are able to make creative use of private providers so that administrators can focus on the core mission of running efficient, effective schools.
In September 2008, the Illinois Policy Institute surveyed every district in Illinois to determine how many districts had contracted with a private provider to assist in the provision of substitute teachers. Of the districts that responded to the survey:
• 3.2 percent (22 out of 677) reported having hired a private firm to assist in the staffing of substitute teachers.
School districts in Illinois have a single mission: to effectively and efficiently educate children. In their efforts to meet these goals, many districts have contracted with private firms and individuals to conduct a number of services, both instructional and non-instructional. This report has focused on a small number of instructional services, in order to better understand how frequently school districts have turned to private providers for these services.
After surveying every school district in Illinois, we estimate that 37.3 percent of districts outside of Chicago have contracted with either a private firm or individual to provide at least one of six instructional services: online instruction, tutoring services, speech therapy, physical therapy, alternative education, and the staffing of substitute teachers. An estimated 60.7 percent of downstate and suburban public school students attend school in a district that has entirely or partially “privatized” one of those services.
Including Chicago, an overwhelming majority (70.0 percent) of the state’s public schoolchildren attend school in a district that has turned to service privatization to help meet their unique educational needs.
In the past, many state lawmakers have shown a disdain for the use of private providers in education. For example, in 2007, one particular piece of legislation attempted to ban all public funding of virtual learning in the state’s public schools. In another instance, legislators actually passed new mandates that will prevent districts from continuing to privatize non-instructional support services such as custodial service, cafeteria service and busing service—this despite the success and popularity of private sector providers.
This research demonstrates the prevalence of private providers in public education. Although focusing only on a handful of instructions services, this report is able to show that the practice of service privatization is popular amongst school districts in Illinois’ public schools. Further detailed data from Chicago and Illinois’ education cooperatives would provide an even broader view of the integral role that private sector providers are playing in Illinois as whole.
Some of Illinois’ most innovative educators exist in the private sector. The state should not introduce any red tape that would block private instructional service providers from assisting school districts in their mission to effectively and efficiently educate our state’s children. To restrict school districts from expanding their use of private providers – as state policymakers have seemed prone to do – is to tie the hands of administrators and cut children off from service providers who might best meet their unique needs.
1. For a list of “Who Is Posting in Illinois?” see http://illinoispolicyinstitute.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=529
2. For a list of transparent states see http://www.atr.org/state/projects/transparency/2008transparency.html.
3. Americans for Tax Reform. State, Federal and Local Efforts to Increase Transparency in Government Spending: Comprehensive Fact Guide, July 24, 2008.
4. Cost of KanView site message from the Feedback Center on the site: The KanView website was developed by the Information Network of Kansas (INK), the official gateway for online access to Kansas government, in a joint effort with the Kansas Department of Administration. INK development costs for KanView were approximately $100,000. The Department of Administration staff work effort was not tracked, but was done within its existing budgeted resources at no additional cost to the public.
5. Fabry, Sandra. States See the Need for Spending Transparency, Budget and Tax News, Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=21370July 2007.
6. Americans for Tax Reform. State Efforts to Increase Transparency in Government Spending, www.atr.org/content/pdf/2007/april/spending_transparency.pdf),
7. Cost of Open Books (OK) data from Lisa McKeithan, Office of State Finance – ISD, Enterprise Systems & Business Analyst.
8. Cost of MAP (MO) – Alicia Weaver, Director for Enterprise Applications and Data Management for the state of Missouri.
Was this report valuable to you?