:
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL
TUESDAY 3 July 2012
SCHOOL CROSSING PATROL POLICY
Report of the Chief Executive & Director of Environment
Author: Trevor MasonTel: 01992 556117
Executive Member: Stuart Pile (Highways and Transport)
1Purpose of report
1.1To seek Member views on the key principles for managing the School Crossing Patrol Service.
2Summary
2.1The County Council operates 157 patrol sites at a total cost of approximately £0.5 million. The service has a high level of support from the public.
2.2The current operating practice of deleting sites that do not meet criteria as they become vacant has resulted in a reduction of 12 sites over the last two years and will lead to a further reduction of 17 sites over the next few years.
2.2Recent changes have shown that there are further opportunities to reduce costs whilst retaining sites through the use of sponsorship, school funding and volunteers.
2.3The County Council, in its role as highway authority, is the only body that can legally provide the School Crossing Patrol service.
3Recommendations
3.1The Panel is asked for its views on the key principles set out in Section 11.
- Background
4.1The principles discussed in this paper seek to provide a mechanism by which the County Council can continue delivering the School Crossing Patrol Service to meet public expectations, but also minimising the cost to the authority.
4.2The School Crossing Patrol Service provides a safe crossing place for pedestrians on their way to and from school, and increasingly plays an important role in encouraging sustainable travel to schools. The Service is well loved by the public and is seen as an integral part of the school community. This is reflected nationally where recent proposed changes to the Service have generated local campaigns and have been heavily covered in the press. In many recent cases this has resulted in the proposed changes being withdrawn.
4.3The County Council currently funds 157 Patrol sites across the county at a total cost of approximately £0.5 million. In the last few years the authority has been proactive in rationalising the Service to eliminate sites which do not meet criteria and has therefore reduced costs wherever possible. This has also included a small number of sites where sponsorship has been obtained. However, there is continuing pressure from the public for the County Council to provide new sites, most of which cannot be provided under the funding criteria.
4.4It is recognised that all opportunities to reduce costs to the County Council need to be explored and that the Service needs to respond to the changing ways in which schools are funded and managed. The public also increasingly see the Patrols as a means to enable their children to walk to school for environmental, health and personal development reasons.
4.5The main driver behind the number of crossing Patrols employed, and hence the overall cost of the Service, is the threshold criteria for where sites should be funded by the County Council. Hertfordshire currently uses a lower threshold than that set out in the national guidelines (see Section 6).
4.6Annual assessments are made at each site to check whether they still meet criteria. Where a site fails to meet the criteria the service will continue to be provided until such time as the Patrol leaves. However, in these circumstances the County Council would work with the local community to find innovative solutions to retain the site.
5.Current Policy
5.1At present there is no single policy setting out how the School Crossing Patrol Service is run, although some individual elements have been established over the last 15 years.
5.2The service broadly follows the national guidance set out by Road Safety GB (published February 2003 and updated in June 2010). The main difference is in the threshold level for when sites should be provided, and some small variations in issues such as supervision levels to reflect corporate operating practices. Road Safety GB (formerly LARSOA) is a national road safety organisation that represents local government road safety teams across the UK. The guidance represents best practice, but is not statutory.
5.3All of the legal requirements of the service are met.
5.4The cost of each patrol is approximately £3,700 p.a., which includes £500 p.a. for training, equipment and supervision.
6Threshold Levels for HCC funding of Patrol Sites
6.1The basis for determining whether it is appropriate to provide a crossing is an assessment of the number of children crossing the road (P) and the traffic flow past this site (V). This is a measure of how busy the site is, and hence a proxy for the level of road safety risk to the children. The national threshold level for providing a site is that P x V2 is at least 4 million.
6.2Hertfordshire County Council currently uses a lower threshold of PV2 = 3 million that was agreed by Environment Committee in March 1996.This was primarily a means of encouraging sustainable transport, and currently supports the work in delivering school transport plans. Using the latest criteria counts, there are 15 patrol sites that have PV2 values of between 3 and 4 million.
6.3There are currently also 17 operational sites where the PV2 value is less than 3 million. The current practice is that these sites are retained until the patrol leaves. In addition, the Environment Committee in March 1996 agreed that “a process of local consultation is implemented where sites do not meet the 3 million criterion, or where fewer than 15 children cross with the patrol”. It is proposed that these arrangements are retained.
6.4In terms of the establishments served, (i.e. funded by HCC) the practice is that only primary and middle schools are eligible for patrols. This accords with the national guidelines, and it is proposed that this practice is continued.
6.5Overall, raising the threshold to the national guidance levels could prove unpopular with schools and parents, but would result in a cost reduction over time of approximately £55,000 p.a. No change to the threshold is recommended at this stage.
7.Sponsorship
7.1The vast majority of school crossing patrols are funded by the County Council. However, recent opportunities have arisen for sponsorship of individual sites, and there are two sites which are being funded by commercial organisations for the current academic year.
7.2Sponsorship at one of the sites replaces HCC funding, but the other site would otherwise have been withdrawn as it does not meet criteria. Any sponsorship arrangements are likely to be on an annual basis.
7.3Further opportunities for sponsorship will be sought, but it is expected that the number of sponsored sites will remain low. Across the East of England there are only three other sponsored sites.
7.4At sponsored sites the patrol is an employee of the County Council, and the charges made to the third party (£3,700 p.a. excl VAT) include an element for training, equipment and supervision.
8.Funding by Schools
8.1School crossing patrols are generally linked to a particular school (although some patrols cross children from two or more schools) and therefore the funding of sites by schools has been investigated.
8.2The financial legislation contained within the School Finance (England) Regulations 2011 imposes restrictions on how schools are able to use their funds.
8.3In the context of school crossing patrols, there is a distinction between crossings that meet criteria, and hence create an expectation that these will be funded by the County Council, and those crossings which fall outside of the criteria.
8.4For those crossings which do not fall within the County Council criteria, it is possible for schools to use their “individual schools budget” (or indeed any other funding that is available to them) to fund provision.
8.5Hence, whilst the County Council could be open to challenge if it encouraged schools to take on the funding of existing patrol sites that meet criteria, it is able to discuss with schools the potential for funding any existing or new site that does not meet the adopted criteria.
8.6Evidence from other authorities is that in the past schools have been generally unwilling to fund patrols, but recent experience on home to school transport in Hertfordshire shows that schools are willing to consider their funding models.Hence there is an opportunity to consider funding by schools for patrol sites that would not be funded by the County Council.
9.Use of Volunteers at Existing Sites
9.1A review of the management of school crossing patrols provides the opportunity to consider the use of volunteers within the service. To date all patrols have been paid posts (although see Section 9.6 below).
9.2It should be noted that the County Council is the only body that can legally provide the School Crossing Patrol Service, and therefore where volunteers are used they need to be part of the overall service. Other organisations are not entitled to operate a school crossing patrol service.
9.3The County Council therefore remains responsible for training, management, supervision and supply of approved uniform and equipment. The cost of this provision is approximately £500 p.a. per patrol person.
9.4It is assumed that an average site will use three volunteers (the highest number known is an example in Devon which has 12 volunteers), and hence the cost per site will be £1,500 p.a. (c.f. £3,700 p.a. for a paid patrol site).
9.5Volunteers can be used wherever the patrol leaves voluntarily. The scope is thus relatively high as in 2011 there were 24 patrols, out of the establishment of 157, who left their posts voluntarily.
9.6A trial volunteer site was established at Woodside school in Goffs Oak on 2 May 2012. This will provide an opportunity to obtain information on how the process works in practice.
10.Use of Volunteers at New Sites
10.1The use of volunteers at existing sites may lead to requests to allow volunteer patrols at new sites that do not meet criteria. Provided that such proposals could be funded by the school or other third party this would be an opportunity to deliver localism within the school crossing patrol service.
11.Possible Overall Principles
11.1Considering the issues set out above, a possible framework for considering existing and proposed new sites is as follows:
(a) Existing Sites
Current Use Level / Funding PrinciplesUse level exceeds PV2 threshold / Site maintained. Any vacancy arising is replaced with paid staff.
Use level up to 1 million below PV2 threshold / Current patrol retained until they leave, at which point a one year transition period begins when HCC funds fixed-term post. HCC to work with local community to increase walking to school levels and to investigate opportunities for volunteers or sponsorship. Paid patrol then retained if threshold met when reassessed at end of transition period. Otherwise site only retained by using volunteers or external funding (e.g. schools or sponsorship).
Use level greater than 1 million below PV2 threshold / Current patrol retained until they leave. Service only subsequently maintained by use of volunteers or external funding (e.g. schools or sponsorship).
(b) Proposed New Sites
Current Use Level / Funding PrinciplesUse level exceeds PV2 threshold / New site implemented if funding available for any necessary engineering works and all other operational requirements (e.g. safety) are met.
Use level up to 1 million below PV2 threshold / Site will only be established if there is funding for any necessary engineering works, and the patrol is either externally funded (e.g. schools or sponsorship) or provided through volunteers.
Use level greater than 1 million below PV2 threshold / Site will only be established if there is funding for any necessary engineering works, and the patrol is either externally funded (e.g. schools or sponsorship) or provided through volunteers.
11.2With the existing threshold level of PV2 = 3 million, the above principles would result in the loss of 17 sites with an eventual annual saving of £62,900. At existing patrol turnover rates, this will take approximately 6 years to achieve. The actual saving will be reduced if there is success in replacing any of these sites with volunteers (if all sites were replaced by volunteers the annual saving would be reduced to £37,400).
11.3If the threshold were to be increased to the national guidelines level of PV2 = 4 million, the above principles would result in the loss of 32 sites with an eventual annual saving of £118,400. Replacing all of the sites with volunteers would reduce this saving to £70,400 p.a.
11.4The above figures are based on existing sites. The additional costs of new sites using volunteers (at an average cost of £1,500 p.a. – see section 9.4) have not been considered as the level of demand that is likely to arise is not known.
12Financial Implications
12.1The current operating practice of not replacing sites where the threshold is not met as they become vacant will eventually lead to an annual saving of £62,900.
Increasing the threshold to the levels set out in the national guidelines would increase this saving by £55,500, however, this is not recommended.
12.2The use of volunteers to replace disestablished sites would reduce the savings by an average of £1,500 per site.
12.3The use of volunteers at sites not currently provided by the County Council will increase costs by £1,500 per site.
Page 1 of 7