Budget Builder Analysis - Conclusions





Overview	BB Use	Power	Participation	Design	Methods	Next Steps

Conclusions

Use of the Budget Builder

Before summarizing the analysis of the Budget Builder development, it will be helpful to put it in the context of the actual use of the Budget Builder.

The first version of the Budget Builder was finished in the Spring of 1997. It presented users with a simplified view of building budgets that did not take into account many of the complexities of the Seattle Schools budgeting system. Because of that, principals were unable to use it for developing and submitting their budgets that year. Also, since it was the first year of the new *Weighted Student Formula system*, the district administration didn't want to push too many changes on the principals and decided to stick with a set of paper forms.

During the next year, the simplified version of the Budget Builder was demonstrated around the country and made available via the Internet. Many people saw the potential in the system and wished to have something like it for their own organizations. (Even people from Boeing and the Defense Department told us of their interest.)

For the Spring of 1998, a modified version of the Budget Builder was produced, which did incorporate the complexity of the Seattle Schools budgeting system. It was presented to the principals as an option for developing and submitting budgets, although the paper forms were still available.

Although 46 of the district's 95 schools signed up to use the Budget Builder for their budget planning process, only 5 schools (all elementary schools, with smaller, simpler budgets than middle or high schools) went through the full process and submitted their budgets online. The big question, of course, is why didn't the others finish?

We tracked down answers by talking directly to people who used or failed to use the site, gathering feedback from the budget analysts who were working with principals to develop their budgets, and reading e-mail surveys returned by principals.

First, there was a certain amount of misinformation regarding whether schools would receive new computers or Internet access if they signed up to use the Budget Builder. Neither of those were true, and some people never used the system once they discovered the truth.

Next, there were many problems, including:

most schools (estimated at 80-90%) were not wired for Internet access, requiring principals who wanted to use the site to do so from home, if they even had a computer of their own;
many of the schools did not have computers available to principals that were capable of connecting to the Internet or using the World Wide Web;
many of the principals were not computer literate and were intimidated by the site;
the Budget Builder was a new system to learn, and in the last minute crunch of building budgets, many people decided to stick with something they already knew; and
problems with the site itself: it was too slow, it was hard to get questions answered, it wasn't clear where information was located, there was too much / too little information available, and there were confusing discrepancies between the electronic and printed materials.

On the other hand, we also heard many positive comments:

all of the information necessary for completing a budget was in one place;
the budgeting process seemed simple and straightforward;
the computer dealt with drudgery of calculations;
running totals of their various budget balances were always available; and
all of the school-based budgeting explanations and examples were very helpful.

With all of the focus on principals using the tool to submit acceptable budgets, I was somewhat surprised to see and hear that people were using the Budget Builder for planning purposes, as we had hoped they would. Some principals said that even though they turned in their budgets on paper, they used the site to work on preliminary versions and as a way to look up information. Because I was concerned about the system working correctly, I checked on the server computer regularly and looked at the activity. I noticed one day that there were a several budgets with "scenario" in the title. On another day, I saw that someone had created a number of budgets named "Month 1 Budget," Month 2 Budget," and so on. Those were obviously not going to be used for a final submitted budget. Staff members at various schools have also told us that they were using the tool for planning.

Our only methods of gathering feedback from the community outside the school district were through the Discussion Forum on the site or via electronic mail. Unfortunately, there were only a few messages left on the forum. However, one of them praised the site and asked if we would develop a version for her city. The few e-mail messages we received were also positive.

Although use of the Budget Builder has been slow to take off, it will certainly increase in the future as more people become aware of it and have the tools to access it. It is also likely that the Seattle school district administration will require the use of the Budget Builder to submit budgets sometime in the next couple of years.