Craven County Schools reviews ESS substitute contract amid cost, coverage debate

Dr. Lakeisha Boone, a Craven County Schools staff member, told the school board the district switched to ESS for substitute staffing at the start of the 2024-25 school year and that the vendor increased the district—s substitute pool and fill rates while absorbing certain administrative costs.

The presentation, given at the board—s April work session, laid out the district—s analysis comparing in-house substitute staffing with ESS. Boone said ESS increased the district—s available substitutes by more than 100 and raised monthly fill rates "by 7% to 15%" in several months, while shifting background-check, payroll and worker-compensation work off district staff.

Why it matters: The ESS contract has operational benefits — principals told the board their teacher assistants are being pulled less often and had more consistent substitute coverage — but the vendor model also changes the district—s cost profile. Board members and staff disagreed over whether the higher near-term cost is justified by those operational gains and whether the contract should be re-bid.

Boone told the board ESS paid for background checks and the district—s absence-management software and that, year to date, ESS spending measured against the district—s prior-year total substitute-related cost was lower so far ($2,248,089.28 for ESS year-to-date vs. a $2,476,443.65 total cost shown for the district—s prior year). She said ESS had also reduced district expense for extended employment by roughly $52,000 so far this year.

"We switched to ESS at the beginning of the 2425 school year," Boone said, describing the vendor—s ability to recruit substitutes from neighboring counties and to provide a local representative who visits schools.

Board members, principals and the superintendent described operational improvements. Board member Stacy (first name not specified in the transcript) said having fewer instances where teachers sacrifice planning time improves morale. Dr. Miller, the superintendent, said that without ESS the district would either have to pay staff directly or send the state money back: "If we don't use this money we send it back to the state. We can't do anything else with it so it's either give it to the folks that they have said we are allowed to give it to or we send it back to the state and don't give it to anyone." (Dr. Miller was referring to the available state funding used to support substitute and supplemental staffing costs.)

Questions about procurement and cost

Board members raised procurement questions. Darlene Gibbs asked whether ESS was a sole-source vendor; she said the board previously had discussed sole-source arrangements and asked staff to seek price comparisons. Boone said she had looked at other firms and could not find many vendors in the region that provide the same bundled service; ESS representatives in the room told the board there are two national competitors the company regularly sees in North Carolina.

An ESS representative told the board the firm charges a markup over the district—s daily rate and that the district pays ESS only for substitute placements; "If you don't need a sub, you don't pay us a penny," the representative said.

Boone provided the board with survey results from principals and bookkeepers: 97% reported ESS met most of their vacancy needs; 97% said they were satisfied with customer service; and 79% said ESS increased the substitute pool at their site. The presentation included monthly fill-rate charts showing higher coverage with ESS in the months after implementation.

Board direction, no formal action

The board did not vote to add or terminate the ESS contract during the work session. Several board members asked staff to pursue a competitive procurement process (an RFP); others cautioned that publicly soliciting bids could cost the district time and might not yield better service. The ESS representative urged the board to consider vendor differences beyond markup, citing on-the-ground support.

What happens next: The board asked staff to provide additional procurement options and cost comparisons for future meetings so trustees can decide whether to continue ESS under the current terms or solicit competitive bids.

Ending: The district—s human-resources presentation left unresolved tradeoffs between improved daily operations and higher contracted costs; the board directed staff to return with comparative procurement information and additional cost detail before taking a formal vote.