GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Ken Hirsh

Charter School Philanthropy 2009

In a post last spring, Ken reviewed some philanthropy statistics for New York City charter schools. This post reviews the updated statistics based on the 2008-2009 audited financial statements for 77 charter schools and adds a new comparison: the difference in philanthropy for charters schools that have non-profit Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) versus those who don’t. In this analysis, we found that schools with CMOs take in at least $1,734 per pupil in philanthropic dollars, versus $994 per pupil in non-CMO schools — a $740 difference. We’ve summarized the rest of our results below, but you can see all of our calculations in this workbook.

The total amount of philanthropic contributions to the 77 schools was $31,302,550. The total enrollment was 23,715. (Enrollment information was taken from the 2008-2009 Learning Environment Survey data, which seems to have the most comprehensive information.) This comes out to a per pupil contribution of $1,320 — a 9 percent drop from the 2007-2008 audits, which showed a per pupil contribution of $1,443.

At the school level, the numbers were basically unchanged from last year. The average school philanthropy per pupil was $1,651 in 2007-2008 compared to $1,654 and the median school philanthropy per pupil was $1,092 compared to $1,081.

Many more schools had per-pupil decreases in philanthropy than increases. Thirty-one schools, or 53 percent, lost money per pupil in 2008-2009. Twelve schools, or 21 percent, gained money per pupil. Fifteen schools did not have significant changes in per-pupil philanthropy. (We used $100 per pupil as a cutoff for “significant.”)

In order to get a more complete picture, we decided to look at schools that did not have Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), since the amount of philanthropy that a given school benefits from could be understated depending on the philanthropic donations that were given to the larger CMO. We will have a post on CMO philanthropy in the future.

There were 44 schools in 2008-2009 that did not have a CMO (these schools were either Community Grown Organizations (CGOs) or had for-profit Educational Management Organizations (EMOs)). The total amount of philanthropic contributions for these schools was $13,188,546 and the total enrollment was 13,267. This comes out to a per pupil calculation of $994 — almost exactly the same for the 33 non-CMO schools in 2007-2008, which had a per pupil contribution of $1,000. The percentage of schools that lost money, gained money, or stayed the same per pupil was the same as the data with the CMO charters included. For schools that had a CMO, their per pupil philanthropy came out to $1,734, which is $740 more than charter schools without CMOs.

To be clear, these calculations do not take into account the value of the space that is sometimes granted by the DOE but they do include in-kind donations and restricted funds. (Although charter schools, like traditional public schools, receive certain services free of charge from the DOE, we don’t consider this philanthropy, nor is it reflected in the schools’ financial statements.) Like we did last year, we included the money collected during fundraising events but did not subtract out fundraising expenses.

Here are some additional notes:

1. We subtracted out KIPP to College costs because these amounts are not used for current students. This is their alumni program.

2. We averaged across KIPP and Achievement First schools for per pupil philanthropy. These schools route disproportionate amounts of their philanthropy through one school.

3. We removed The New York Center for Autism.

As always, we encourage feedback!

  • Gideon

    Interesting first step. If you can dig deeper into the data, here’s what would be interesting to know:

    1. How did philanthropy compare to school’s track record, i.e., student performance? If there is a correlation, this still begs the question of whether high performance attracts philanthropic support or the additional funding was used to achieve better outcomes.

    2. How did it compare to age of school? It may be that older schools, once they get established, have more resources with which to pursue philanthropy.

    3. How did CGO schools compare to those with EMOs? Often EMOs stake schools in the beginning in order to reap the benefits of larger management fees later.

    4. What was the staffing structure of schools compared to philanthropy? Schools that have directors of development or school leaders who are not focused on instruction can devote more time to pursuing philanthropy.

    5. What were the sources of philanthropy? Many CMOs are supported by wealthy individuals, aka angel donors, whereas mom and pop schools often rely on foundations.

  • Matthew

    KIm,

    Aaron is your in-house expert on stats so I will defer to him, but you might also want to consider the median statistics.  ($1,092 per pupil)

    Eyeballing the dataset you see that Dream Charter, which I believe is still in a relatively small start up phase, has an average of $11,404 per student, and the KIPP schools average out to $4,000 each per kid.  So that pulls up the average and may make the agerage a bit less than representative. Of course there are also schools in the dataset with zero or 12, so again I would have Aaron tackle this one, if his schedule permits.

    Lastly, and I do not mean to shill for the  NYSCA, readers should also keep in mind that NY charter schools receive less than 100% of the funding per pupil that traditional public schools do. So the philanthropy, whether deserved or not, may only have the effect of bringing these schools back to funding par with the neighborhood schools to which they are often compared.

  • Jason Becker

    I’m curious if we could see some of the data you’ve compiled broken down. Who are the top performers, both amongst CMO charters and non-CMO charters and who is far behind? It wouldn’t be too hard for one of us to put that together but since you’ve done more than half the work I think that data would be worth taking a look at for potential teachers, students, and funders. I’m also curious if there are practices which are similar at well-funded charters which are not operated by a CMO and CMOs with strong philanthropic support.

  • Kim Gittleson

    Dear Gideon, Matthew and Jason –
    Thanks for the suggestions! I’m working on an updated sheet that can take into consideration years of operation and progress report scores. So far, I haven’t seen much correlation, but I’m happy to provide raw data. As for top performers, it’s a little difficult to compare year over year since funding can fluctuate wildly from school to school over time, but I’ll also look to see if I can’t break them out. So, thanks and stay tuned!

  • Pingback: Charter Schools part 1: Opportunity or Obstacle? « CityPragmatist

  • Bay Brown

    Does this philanthropy line item include PTA fundraising efforts? TIA

  • Pingback: If money doesn’t matter… « School Finance 101

  • Pingback: Money and the Market for High Quality Schools « School Finance 101

  • http://www.bentforkbistro.com Donovan Ellerbee

    This is a great blog post, I discovered your website looking around google for a similar topic and arrived to this. I couldnt discover to much alternative material on this piece of writing, so it was good to locate this one. I will be back to look at some other articles that you have another time.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031