Consultant recommends trimming central-office staff as Canutillo ISD weighs multimillion-dollar shortfall

Canutillo Independent School District — At a March 4 board workshop, consultant Karen Dooley of ASD HR Services presented a limited staffing review that recommended the district consider absorbing several central-office positions through attrition to reduce staffing variances with peer districts.

Dooley said the review used completed questionnaires, virtual interviews with district leaders and peer benchmarking to compare Canutillo ISD’s staffing levels in departments including financial services, communications, technology, human resources, operations and non-campus clerical support. “Benchmarking gives you a good look at yourself,” Dooley said, describing the comparison process.

The report identified specific areas with higher staffing ratios than peers. Dooley recommended absorbing up to two financial-services positions, one communications position, as many as four technology positions and multiple non-campus clerical positions through attrition to move closer to peer averages. She also provided historical staffing comparisons covering six school years and said district program changes — for example, a Montessori program and bond-related positions — affect year-to-year staffing totals.

District administration presented related budget projections at the same meeting. Administration outlined a worst-case estimate of roughly a $6.4 million deficit for the upcoming school year and said current projections put the district’s fund balance at about 41 days this year; if the district spends more than incoming revenue, fund balance could fall to a level administrators described as a few days of reserves. Administrators and trustees repeatedly framed personnel as the primary area for savings because salaries make up most of operating costs.

Board members pressed for more detail about which positions were grant-funded and which were ongoing district commitments. Trustees and staff discussed the need to distinguish positions funded by one-time grants (including ESSER-era hires and after-school programs) from those funded by the general fund. Several trustees asked administration to produce a list of programs added since 2018 (or, alternatively, 2022 after COVID) and to show which staff are paid from grant funds versus the general fund.

Trustees also discussed enrollment trends cited in the report. The presentation included historical enrollment figures showing Canutillo ISD at about 6,256 students in 2019–20 and at roughly 5,735 students at the time of the workshop; administration said preliminary projections for the next school year show a modest decline and noted daily registration updates indicate the district’s live count can differ from the historical snapshot used for the report. Trustees asked that future budget modeling be conservative to reflect current daily enrollment numbers.

The board discussed timing and next steps. Administration said it must issue teacher contracts under statutory timelines and recommended issuing contracts in late March while continuing budget work. Trustees asked administration to return with more-specific staffing and program lists and with a timeline that would allow the board to make decisions as needed in April. The superintendent and legal counsel were cited in discussion of the reduction-in-force process and policy considerations; the board was told that, if reductions are required, the superintendent would make recommendations that the board could approve under policy DFFB (reduction in force).

Several trustees emphasized minimizing the impact on classrooms and campus programs. Options discussed by administration included campus reorganization, increased class sizes, elimination or consolidation of certain central-office positions, reductions to nonessential professional services, hiring freezes, a travel freeze and potential sale or consolidation of district real estate such as the Lone Star and central office buildings. Trustees also raised the prospect of voluntary attrition incentives and other measures to reduce costs with the least impact on students.

Dooley’s staffing recommendations included department-level comparisons and suggested targets; the report included examples such as the financial-services department being staffed at about 12.5 positions versus a state-peer average near 7.8 and a per-1,000-student ratio higher than peers. Dooley and board members corrected several arithmetic items during the presentation and noted some cost-savings estimates were still being finalized.

Next steps and schedule: trustees asked administration to return with detailed, campus-level and program-level staffing lists that identify funding sources (general fund vs. grant) and to present refined budget options at upcoming meetings in March and April. Administration said it would update the board as legislative changes to the state basic allotment and potential state funding become clearer.

Ending: Trustees broadly agreed the district must act but emphasized caution to avoid unintended consequences to student programs; administration will supply the requested program- and funding-specific detail before the board’s next decision meetings.