The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SAFELY TO SCHOOL: A STUDY OF SAFER ROUTES TO SCHOOL IN THE CLASSROOM

CHAPTER 4: Local authority SRTS provision

4.1 This chapter presents findings from a survey of local authorities. Completed questionnaires were returned by 31 of the 32 local authorities in Scotland: eight made multiple returns from different departments; and an additional two returned questionnaires completed by Police Forces, covering more than one local authority. We identify:

The extent to which engineering work and curriculum development had been conducted as part of Safer Routes to School;

How local authorities had allocated financial and management responsibility for children's road safety; and

Evaluations of Safer Routes to School activities conducted by local authorities.

The extent of local authority involvement with SRTS projects

4.2 Almost all of the local authorities (30) reported that they had been involved with Safer Routes to School projects in the past, and most (27) were currently involved. The number of projects per authority ranged from 1 to 55, with the average number of projects being 14.

Financing SRTS projects

4.3 In the majority of authorities, roads/transportation departments held budgets for Safer Routes to School. However, in six authorities responsibility was shared across two or more departments.

Table 4.1: Local authority departments that hold the budget for SRTS projects

Note: Respondents were asked to identify more than one department or organisation if applicable. 31 authorities provided information for this question.

4.4 The total amount spent to date by each authority on Safer Routes to Schools projects ranged from 12,200 to 1,400,000, with the average being 422,700. Much of this was on engineering/infrastructure projects. For example one local authority reporting spending the whole of its SRTS budget (ie 1,400,000) on engineering projects; whereas, another indicated that it had spent none of its SRTS budget on such projects. The average spent on engineering projects was 387,300. Only thirteen authorities provided a breakdown of the amount that had been spent on SRTS in the curriculum projects, or on in-school activities with pupils. The total amount spent per authority ranged from 0 to 100,000, with the average being 18,900. Nine authorities reported that they had specifically funded curriculum projects: the average spent was 27,300. It is important to note that these average figures were inflated by one local authority that reported spending 100,000 on curriculum projects, out of a total budget of c240,000. However, as this information was supplied by a transport department, it may not necessarily accord with the education department's definition of a 'curriculum project'. If this outlier is excluded, the next highest amount spent on curriculum development for road safety was 60,000 and the third was 30,000 (out of a total of 1,000,000).

4.5 Spending on 'curriculum projects' as a proportion of total budget for road safety could only be calculated for a few local authorities, in which it ranged from 3 to 6%. Four authorities explicitly stated that their 'curriculum' budget was 'nil', and a further five reported that their 'infrastructure' budget was equal to their total budget (implying that nothing was allocated for curriculum development in road safety).

4.6 Twenty-five (25) local authorities identified the Scottish Executive as their source of funding for SRTS, of which 13 made specific mention of CWSS money. Seventeen (17) authorities also reported using their own money to (at least partially) fund SRTS, of which 3 said it was their sole source of funding for SRTS. (These included authorities with large SRTS budgets and we think that respondents may have failed to recognise the source of the funding, and mistakenly reported merely the route by which it arrived at SRTS. In addition, one response was from a police force, which may not have been fully aware of funding routes). Other sources of funding mentioned were:

'Quality of Life' funds (3)

'Better Neighbourhood' funds (1)

School Travel Plan funds (1)

New Opportunities Fund (1).

Management and organisation of local authority SRTS projects

4.7 It is not surprising that the majority (29) of departments that have management responsibility for Safer Routes to School projects are roads/transport departments given that they were also typically the ones which controlled road safety budgets. Table 4.2 below provides details.

Table 4.2: Departments with responsibility for the management of SRTS projects

Note: Respondents were asked to identify more than one department or organisation, if applicable.

4.8 In eight local authorities the management of SRTS was shared between two or more departments, and in four authorities both budget and management was shared. However, despite the narrow distribution of management and budgetary responsibilities within most authorities, a range of other departments and organisations were involved, education and the police being the main ones.

Table 4.3: Departments and organisations involved in SRTS projects

Note: Respondents were asked to identify more than one department or organisation, if applicable.

Nature of local authority input to SRTS projects

4.9 Twenty local authorities reported that they provided resources, such as literature for use in the classroom, to support SRTS. The range of resources identified included:

SUSTRANS (the sustainable transport charity) materials (2)
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) materials (1)
Police Road Safety Unit materials (2)
Scottish Road Safety campaign materials (4)
'Walk to School' (3)
'Ways to safety' (4)
A local authority health curriculum pack (1)
The Green Cross Code (1)
The authority's own SRTS materials (4)
Health Education Board for Scotland (HEBS) (now Health Scotland) materials (1); and
Twenty local authorities also promoted School Travel Plans.

SRTS projects where engineering works have been complemented by in-school activities

4.10 Eighteen local authorities reported that they were engaged in SRTS projects that involved engineering or infrastructure works complemented by in-school activities with pupils. The average number of projects per authority was 13. Fifteen local authorities provided detail on what these 'complementary projects' included:

• Classroom-based activities including assessments of risk associated with various routes to school. In some cases these were part of, and informed, local authority measures to address 'dangerous/hazardous' routes;
• Projects instigated by pupils and School Boards in which children were involved in the design of initiatives and schemes;
• School-led, pupil-informed projects involving classroom work, engineering work, and out-of-school activities (Walking Bus and traffic trails);
• Environmental education resources with traffic trails for schools, incorporating Safer Routes to School engineering works;
• Before and after surveys to monitor impact;
• Junior Road Safety Officers in schools promoting school SRTS work;
• Pupil councils identifying local 'black spots' and working with School Boards to inform local engineering work;
• Secondary school cycling projects;
• Cycle sheds and other measures to promote cycle use. For example, secondary school pupils designed a cycle storage facility funded through a SRTS award of 10,000;
• Walking Bus projects;
• Developing safer routes and active travel initiatives in association with the local NHS health boards' health education departments;
• Information sheets for all primary schools in one local authority;
• Traffic trails related to improved road layout;
• Parent training and induction courses to promote work done in schools on SRTS;
• 'Practical pedestrian training using simulated equipment indoors' for primary pupils. Local visits and research to assess and discuss SRTS issues and required changes;
• Peer education and pupil presentations to peers;
• Range of engineering work including traffic-calming, off-road parking, and cycle paths;
• Curriculum pack with associated Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and teaching material; and
• One local authority reported moving away from project-based initiatives to teaching children how to cope with various situations (training model).

4.11 One local authority stressed that sometimes the success of SRTS projects varied but only one highlighted the importance of enlisting the support of the local community and parents. However, two case study headteachers believed that in schools located in rural areas and also in more affluent areas, parents and the community in general were more likely to participate in school activities. Initially parents may be unsure about volunteering but as one school travel co-ordinator pointed out:

The Walking Bus is a very 'visual' thing - its not until the bus starts that people get involved and see it as a good idea.

Evaluation and monitoring of the impact of SRTS projects

4.12 Only six local authorities reported that they systematically evaluated their Safer Routes to School project(s). None of these six provided copies of their evaluation findings as requested. However, they felt that they had sufficient evidence to show that pupils' travel-to-school arrangements had changed as a consequence. Six other local authorities stated that it was 'too early' to identify any impact and one had found no impact. Examples of impacts included:

Greater awareness among pupils of danger (1)
More cycling to school (2)
More walking to school (4, of which 3 mentioned Walking Buses); and
Less driving to school (1).

4.13 Twenty-eight authorities identified the main successes of their Safer Routes to School project(s) as:

Raised awareness of road safety among pupils (11)
Improved infrastructure/engineering work (8)
Increased pupil safety (8)
Modal shift in pupils' travel arrangements (4); and
The establishment of a Walking Bus scheme (1).

Local authority work concerning School Travel Co-ordinators

4.14 A recent development in the drive to promote Safer Routes to School and similar efforts across Scotland has been the introduction of School Travel Co-ordinators. Their role arose from recommendations made by the Scottish School Travel Advisory Group which was set up to look at how to promote efficient, environmentally friendly ways of getting to and from school. The function of Co-ordinators is to work with teachers and pupils to promote the health and environmental benefits of alternative travel choices. Twenty-three (23) authorities planned to appoint a Travel Co-ordinator; three stated that they already had one in place; and three had no plans at present to appoint a Co-ordinator. For those authorities that had appointed a School Travel Co-ordinator, or were planning to, the majority (17) were locating them within roads/transport departments. Five would locate the person in the education department and one would locate the Co-ordinator in a school. Three authorities did not know where these personnel would be located and a further three authorities stated that the School Travel Co-ordinator would be based either in the transport or education department. Table 4.4, below, shows the local authorities that had, or had plans to introduce, School Travel Co-ordinators, and the departments in which they were, or would be based.

Table 4.4: Current or planned location of School Travel Co-ordinators

4.15 It is clear that the majority of those local authorities that have, or plan to have, School Travel Co-ordinators see the roads/transport department as the most appropriate location for them. Again, this is not surprising, given that as we saw earlier, these departments typically have responsibility for the budgets for SRTS projects.

Conclusions

4.16 Responses from the 31 local authorities that participated in the survey show that:

• 30 local authorities have been involved with SRTS projects recently and 27 are currently active in SRTS work.
• Local authority roads/transport departments typically have the main responsibility for, and management of, SRTS work. They are also usually the budget holders for SRTS projects.
• 26 local authorities have either appointed or plan to appoint School Travel Co-ordinators. These are typically located within local authority road/transport departments.
• Local authorities had spent more money on engineering/infrastructure related to road safety than they had on road safety curricular projects (an average of 387,300 and 27,300 respectively).
• Local authority spending on curricular road safety projects represents between 3 and 6% of their total road safety budget.
• Nine local authorities reported having no budget for SRTS curriculum work.
• 20 local authorities reported providing literature and/or resources for schools for use in the classroom. Most of these were produced by other agencies.
• 18 local authorities reported that to some extent SRTS curricular projects complemented road safety engineering projects which they had untaken. The average number of projects per authority was 13.
• Only six local authorities had conducted evaluations of their SRTS projects.
• Local authorities identified a number of examples of good practice. Key themes included pupil and parent representation and input to SRTS initiatives, and relating curricular work to local engineering work.

4.17 Interestingly, two authorities specifically mentioned that developmental training and simulation approaches were being used to improve children's road safety skills. In one case this was now preferred over diverse project-based programmes within classrooms.

« Previous | Contents | Next »