Project Priority Methodology
Developing an equity index to identify funding priorities based on level of need
Facilities Condition Assessment and Facilities Master PlanTo implement an equity-based approach in the development of an overall capital spending budget, SCUSD staff will group construction projects into one of two categories: Priority Type A Projects, which will address health and safety, and compliance issues (i.e., ADA mitigation); and Priority Type B Projects will be considered “visionary” projects that are described in the Facilities Master Plan’s educational specifications (i.e., the six “educational petals,” including Learning Environments, Inquiry and Experiential Learning, Individualized Support, Fitness and Athletics, Safety and Security, Dining Experience and Nutrition).
The criteria express a range from Criteria 1 (highest priority), which focuses solely on the stated equity indicators, to Criteria 2, which adds the FCI to a second equity indicator, to Criteria 3, which is the Facilities Condition Index (FCI) only.
The equity indicators described below rely on commonly available databases published by the California Office of the State Treasurer for neighborhood opportunity data, and the California School Dashboard and California Department of Education DataQuest for student group data.
Neighborhood Opportunity: High Segregation & Poverty
As identified according to the Berkeley Opportunity Map methodology, includes neighborhoods in California that consistently meet standards for both poverty (i.e., 30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (i.e., an overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county);
Neighborhood Opportunity: Low Resources
Includes the block of neighborhoods with the lowest economic, environmental, and education resources in California neighborhoods, but not meeting the “High Segregation and Poverty” criteria.
LCAP Student Priority Group: High OR Moderate-to-High
Includes the top 50% of campuses based on the student priority groups identified in the LCAP goals, including disaggregated students of color (i.e., African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Latinx, Asian, Filipino, Two or more races), students with disabilities, English learners, foster youth, and homeless youth.
FCI: >= 20%
Facilities identified as “poor” condition (e.g., observed safety issues that present risks for injuries, failing or unreliable components, out of ADA compliance, unsafe water or air, presence of hazardous material).
The three criteria lead to two types of projects, those that are prioritized based on the equity index, and those that are prioritized based on the Facilities Condition Index.
Project Type A
Projects based on facilities conditions that may lead to District liability or other risk factors.
• Priority A1 – Projects with high risk or liability
• Priority A2 – Campus renewal based on high FCI
Project Type B
Projects based on the equity index. These “visionary” projects will include a “project justification form” to validate staff’s recommendations.
• Priority B1 – Based on Criteria 1
• Priority B2 – Based on Criteria 2
A list of projects will be presented for Board consideration and approval.
Priority A1 “Health, Safety, and Compliance” projects are ones that address conditions requiring
immediate attention to remedy health and safety, “trip and fall hazards” and ADA compliance. Not all projects will start simultaneously, and District staff will need to operate with the discretion to determine which projects must be addressed first considering the District’s risk.
In addition to completing projects with high risk or liability, Priority A2 projects will provide a full campus renewal for school sites with a facility condition index of 20% or higher. Projects will be submitted for Board approval on an annual basis.
These conditions include, but are not limited to:
Observed or reported unsafe conditions which could result in injury and/or present possible liability risk if not remedied
Components or systems (i.e., roofs, HVAC) where performance and/or integrity has failed, is failing, performs unreliably, does not perform as intended, and/or poses risk to overall system stability
Conditions that do not meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS), and/or other handicap accessibility requirements
Unsafe environmental conditions, such as air or water quality, which necessitate the removal of hazardous materials from the building or site
A “Visionary” project is a facility improvement project that will provide students and communities with a learning environment that meets the District’s design standards for all six “educational petals,” including Learning Environments, Inquiry and Experiential Learning, Individualized Support, Fitness and Athletics, Safety and Security, Dining Experience and Nutrition. These standards are described in the Facilities Master Plan’s educational specifications. If an education petal is not “Meeting standards,” then improvement projects are recommended using research-informed design strategies to address the community-specific challenges of the campus.
Visionary projects are prioritized using the equity indicators Neighborhood Opportunity ID and LCAP Student Priority Group in addition to facility condition. The equity index includes a “project justification form” to validate staff’s recommendations, and with ultimate approval from the Board, the District will ensure that capital project funding is directed toward addressing the most significant equity and opportunity gaps.
Three common challenges include:
Many elementary, middle, and K-8 schools have classroom “finger” buildings, designed over 50 years ago, or use portables. These types of classrooms do not meet most research-based design strategies for increasing student engagement and academic performance.
Many neighborhood schools cannot support students with disabilities because they lack integrated environments and/or the spaces and tools needed by paraprofessionals and therapists.
Visitor management is difficult at many schools. Because there are too many access points, limited supervision, and the main entry area is hard to find and/or located inside the secure perimeter, some campuses are open to the public during and after school hours.