Best Value Review Report
School Crossing Patrols
1. Summary
This review considered the delivery of a school crossing
patrol service in Hampshire.
The review team challenged the basis of the current
provision and identified many areas of improvement.
_ The service is currently not managed effectively.
_ There are no supervisors for school crossing patrols.
_ There are no performance appraisals for school crossing
patrols.
_ There are no continuing health and safety assessments of
sites, although an initial assessment is made.
_ There are no assessment or review processes to evaluate
the continued need for a site.
_ Although the Police do make every effort to ensure that
new school crossing patrols are trained, this is not always
possible on the first day of duty.
_ The level of training should be improved.
_ Improved uniform and equipment.
_ Improved signage, road markings, traffic calming
measures.
Comparison with other LEAs suggested three key findings
about Hampshire:
_ Hampshire has more SCP sites per school than comparator
local authorities.
_ Hampshire has a lower support staff ratio than
comparator local authorities.
_ Hampshire has a high vacancy rate, but not the highest.
Consultation with stakeholders was limited to school
crossing patrol staff, seeking views on how the service
could be improved, and headteachers, seeking their views on
delegated funding and the quality of the service. The review
team considered consulting parents, but felt that this would
be unnecessary, and set up expectations that may not be
achievable. Parents' views of the importance of school
crossing patrols cannot be too highly stated.
Competition in this area is possible. The County Council as
the local authority could, with a clear specification,
contract out the service to an external provider.
2. The Service Under Review
2.1 Aims of the Service and Statutory basis
To ensure that road traffic management and safety, and
the health and safety of school children, are properly
provided through school crossing patrols.
The statutory basis for the service comes from the School
Crossing Patrol Act 1953. However, the act did not
prescribe a method of delivering the service and different
local arrangements for administration have evolved across
the country.
Section 26 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gives
the statutory provision of the service to appropriate
authorities, defined as the County Council in Hampshire's
case. Local authorities may make an agreement with their
Police authority for the provision of the service. This
section also places a duty on the authority "to provide
requisite training".
Section 28 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines
the circumstances in which a school crossing patrol has
the power to stop traffic.
2.2 Objectives of the Service
To achieve the aim, the service seeks to:
_ Identify appropriate sites of new crossings (school
governors or Hampshire Police)
_ Evaluate sites of new crossings (Hampshire Police)
_ Train school crossing patrol staff in their duties
(Hampshire Police)
_ Recruit, appoint and arrange training for school
crossing patrol staff (Education)
_ Provide appropriate equipment for school crossing
patrol staff (Education)
_ Pay salaries for school crossing patrol staff
(Education)
_ Manage all employee relations aspects relating to
school crossing patrol staff (Education)
_ deal with complaints from the public (Education)
3. The Review Process
3.1 Challenge
Officers and members were clear from the outset that
this service had suffered from a lack management
resources. This had led to a lack of leadership and
direction, insufficient monitoring of the service and
an absence of planning.
The challenges were initially presented by the Best
Value Panel (Education) workshop on 5th May, and
subsequently at the formal Panel meeting on 9th June.
The review team met on 6th June , 6th July, 4th
September and 27th September to explore the challenges
to the service further.
3.2 Compare
In June, a survey of other Local Authorities was
conducted to seek benchmarking information to enable
comparison. The review team are grateful for responses
from West Sussex, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Oxfordshire,
Kent, North Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Devon and
Bedfordshire.
The survey form is attached as Appendix 1. Results from
the survey are attached as Appendix 2. It was clear
from these responses that the implementation of the
service differed between local authorities, and that
some data may not be strictly comparable.
Some additional areas of comparison were considered,
but information was not available within Hampshire, and
hence seeking the information from other authorities
would have been meaningless. One item of interest was
the comparison of road accident statistics at school
crossing patrol sites with other road crossing sites.
The information is not available at this level of
analytical detail.
3.3 Consult
3.3.1 School Crossing Patrol staff
The recent MORI survey of Hampshire County Council
staff did not ask staff for their job title, and was
therefore impossible to use the existing information to
seek the views of School Crossing Patrol staff
specifically.
A new questionnaire was designed with the purpose of
seeking views on the tasks of School Crossing Patrols,
the reasons for doing the job and satisfaction levels,
and any concerns or areas for improvement.
Results of the questionnaire are attached as Appendix
3.
3.3.2 Road users
The review team considered carefully the benefits of
consulting road users for their views of the benefits
of school crossing patrol sites. The team decided that
it would be a costly exercise, only reinforcing
common-sense opinions. The cost would inevitably
outweigh the benefits. Additionally, the debacle of the
NHS survey was a timely reminder that consulting for
the sake of consulting can be a poor use of public
funds.
2
Parents views of school crossing patrols are also
predictable. Complaints about road safety and the lack
of school crossing patrols are often received by
Councillors. Given that the review team already
considers the quality of service to be below the
standards required, it was felt that to inflame an
already contentious area would have little additional
benefit.
3.3.4. Schools
Schools have no responsibility for school crossing
patrol sites. The role of schools in school crossing
patrols is limited and variable, depending on the
attitude of the school.
Some sites provide crossings for several schools. Some
schools provide storage facilities for uniforms. Some
schools involve the school crossing patrol officer in
school activities.
A questionnaire was offered to schools for completion
seeking views on taking on responsibility for staffing
at school crossing patrol sites and seeking their
comments on the current service.
The responses highlighted the difficulties of
recruitment, the desirability of cover for sickness and
holidays, and a very emphatic desire not to take on
responsibility for school crossing patrols.
3.4 Compete
Legally it is possible for the service to be tendered
for open competition.
The wording of Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act 1984
talks of "arrangements by the CC by persons by or on
behalf of the CC". As long as the personnel are duly
authorised, trained and qualified and wear the
appropriate clothing and carry the requisite sign then
it is possible to contract out the service. The
personnel must also be vetted as they will have contact
with children.
An evaluation of viability for competition was carried
out and considered by the review team on 4th September.
4. Member Input
The process has involved members through:
Best Value Panel (Education) Workshop to consider and shape
the scoping report - 5th May 2000.
Best Value Panel (Education) meeting to approve scoping
report - 9th June 2000.
Cllr D A Kirk attended a meeting on 6th June and Cllrs Mrs P
Wiggins and J K West attended at service review team
meetings on 6th July and 4th September and 27th September
when available.
Councillors' views on these issues have been extremely
valuable, especially since it is an area where local members
can become heavily involved in pressures arising from the
service.
5. Lessons Learnt
The review team have the following observations:
Since this service was obviously not being run effectively,
efficiently or economically, consultation with parents and
road-users was considered by the review team to be
inappropriate. A preferable strategy is to establish the
options for improvement and consult on these as a positive
approach.
Failure to allocate sufficient management resources leads to
an ineffective and costly service.
Member involvement throughout the process is helpful and
necessary.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Sustainability
The school crossing patrol service facilitates pupils
walking to school and hence contributes to traffic
reduction. When integrated with school travel plans,
the net effect of well planned routes to school should
increase the number of pupils walking to school.
Additionally, research by Kent County Council suggests
that the accident rate at school crossing patrols is
lower than at pelican or zebra crossings. However, this
needs to be balanced with the fact that pelicans and
zebra crossings are only installed in areas of higher
traffic flow. There may also be significant differences
between Kent's and Hampshire's local criteria, separate
from the national criteria, for establishing pelican
and zebra crossings, which may make the comparison less
valid.
School crossing patrol officers are key members of the
community, providing a valuable service. Many make a
significant contribution to the life of the community
in other ways. The sustainability of communities is an
important aim of the County Council.
6.2 Crime and Disorder
Although on duty for short periods during the day,
school crossing patrol officers do provide a deterrent
to general misbehaviour.
They may also have useful information for the police
and other services where pupil's attendance may not be
regular, even though this is well outside the scope of
their required duties.
3
6.3 e-Government
There is relatively little scope for computerisation in
this area of work.
However, notification of absence has some potential for
improvement and it is possible to develop
internet-based systems that may improve cover at school
crossing patrol sites.
6.4 Equalities
Employees within the school crossing patrol service are
always appointed without respect to gender, ethnicity,
religion or disabilities. Due to the nature of the
work, employees are required to undergo a medical check
on appointment. The service abides by the Hampshire
County Council corporate strategy and guidance on
equalities.
With regard to age, the County Council recognises that
inaccurate assumptions based on prejudice and
stereotypes are often made about the abilities and
characteristics of younger or older people, which
adversely affect them. It acknowledges that
discrimination against people exists because they are
"too old or too young." Action will be taken to combat
this discrimination and to afford equality of
opportunity for older and younger people. Age related
criteria will not be used in recruitment or development
and training decisions. The County Council is committed
to the removal of all age discrimination for and in
employment.
6.5 Service strengths
The strength of the service lies with the individual
school crossing patrol officers, who are highly
regarded by the community. Hence the service may
superficially appear adequate.
Consultation with school crossing patrol staff showed
164 of 179 respondents (92%) were more than satisfied.
Most officers enjoy working with children and the
community and appreciate their contribution to road
safety.
6.6 Areas for Improvement
6.6.1 The service is currently not managed effectively.
There has been insufficient resource allocated to
managing this service.
There is no proactive service planning, no leadership,
little organisation, no review process and no control.
The service reacts to vacancies as they arise and seeks
to fill the posts and reacts to requests for new
crossing patrols.
6.6.2. There are no supervisors for school crossing
patrols
The service suffers from lack of dedicated supervisors
to support school crossing patrol officers.
This results in:
Inability to identify pressures when they arise
Lack of arrangements to cover absences
Inability to evaluate workloads
Inability to identify inefficiency
6.6.3. There are no performance appraisals for school
crossing patrol officers
The County Council is committed to seeking Investors in
People accreditation in 2001. There is a total absence
of any monitoring or development of school crossing
patrol staff.
6.6.4. There are no health and safety assessments of
sites
The guidance on Health and Safety suggests that risk
assessment of all workplaces should be carried out.
4
Whilst there is an assessment of the siting of a
crossing patrol by the police when a new site is
requested, and the location of the site is placed at
the point of least risk, there is no review of sites
after the initial establishment.
6.6.5. There are no assessment or review processes to
evaluate the continued need for a site
The evidence from comparison with some other local
authorities is that Hampshire has more school crossing
patrol sites per school, or per road mile, than other
comparator local authorities.
This is likely to have arisen from:
1. Lack of consistent application of standard
assessment methods when evaluating sites
2. Lack of review of sites.
3. Lack of co-ordination.
There is scope for combining such an assessment with a
health and safety risk assessment in 6.6.4 above.
6.6.6. Although the Police do make every effort to
ensure that new school crossing patrols are trained,
this is not always possible on the first day of duty.
Local police are already under severe pressure to carry
out many duties and are often struggling to prioritise
workloads.
It is not a requirement that the training should be
carried out by the police. There are other benefits to
the local police meeting the school crossing patrol
officer, (see 6.2) and it should be a requirement that
this contact is made irrespective of whether the police
carry out the training.
6.6.7. The level of training and re-training should be
improved.
Written instructions are given to school crossing
patrol officer when they start. The quality of training
of school crossing patrol officers is very mixed. It is
provided 'on-the-job' on the first day of duty, by a
Police officer. Occasionally, due to other priorities,
the police will have to postpone the training. There is
no other induction, follow-up or refresher training.
From the consultation with staff, there was some
evidence that a few school crossing patrol officers may
benefit from re-training.
6.6.8. Improved uniform and equipment
It was clear from consultation with staff that the
current uniforms and equipment are a cause for concern.
Further investigations should be made to seek
improvements.
6.6.9 Improved signage, road markings, traffic calming
measures
Consultation with staff suggests that several sites may
be improved by physical modifications to the road
around the site or at the school. These issues should
be considered as a part of site reviews and
assessments.
7. Options for the service
5
The review identified three significant areas where
Hampshire differs from other Local Authorities. Appendix 2
has the results of comparison.
_ Hampshire has more SCP sites per school than comparator
local authorities.
_ Hampshire has a lower support staff ratio than
comparator local authorities.
_ Hampshire has a high vacancy rate, but not the highest.
The causes of these differences have been identified in
section 6.6 above.
Service Specification
Before any decisions can be taken about the delivery of a
school crossing patrol services there must be a clear
specification about the service that is required.
The specification needs to identify the criteria by which
the service should be assessed in terms of quality and
quantity.
Options for service delivery
There are four main options available. The review team
agreed that every option should make the assumption that
with more management resource the service will find
sufficient efficiency gains to pay for the extra management,
improve the satisfaction of staff, and provide a better and
more reliable service where it is needed, from within
existing budgets.
Option 1 - Improve existing service with current structure.
The current structure gives responsibility for recruitment
and personnel issues to Education Personnel Services. There
is no clearly identified line management, and no
supervision.
To improve the service within the current structure would
mean introducing more staff to the Education Personnel
Service.
Advantages
With additional staff, many of the recruitment issues and
induction issues would be improved.
The link between Education Personnel and schools may
strengthen relationships between school crossing patrol
officers and schools.
Disadvantages
Education Personnel Services have no expertise in road
safety.
Any supervisory staff employed would need some experience of
road safety training.
6
Links with the Road Safety Team in the development of school
travel plans would need to be established.
Option 2 - Tender for external providers to deliver a
service
With a clear service specification it would be possible to
open the service to external tender. This option could give
significant financial savings. However, the role of client
to monitor the contract and ensure compliance with legal
obligations would have to be located within the County
Council.
The appropriate team to provide the client role would be
either:
a. the Road Safety Team of the County Surveyor's
Department, who would then be able to ensure integration of
school crossing patrols with wider Council objectives in the
area of road safety.
b. Property, Business and Regulatory Services (PBRS), who
have extensive experience in managing external contractors.
c. An arrangement between the Road Safety Team of the
County Surveyor's Department and PBRS where the Road Safety
Team manage the strategic and policy functions and PBRS run
the day-to-day management of the contract.
Option 3 - Road Safety Team to manage the service
This option proposes the transfer of responsibility for, and
management of, the service to the County Surveyor's Road
Safety Team.
Advantages
Integration of road safety plans, school travel plans and
the school crossing patrol service.
Training available from road safety officers.
Evaluation of sites can be integrated with other road safety
evaluations.
Staff already professionally experienced in managing safety
Integration with wider community issues through corporate
plans
Probable budget savings achievable if review of sites is
able to decommission some sites.
Road Safety Team already have close working links with
schools.
Disadvantages
Increased administration costs for Personnel team and Road
Safety Team
School crossing patrol officers perception of diminishing
the link with schools.
Option 4 - Delegate funding and responsibility to schools
This option is only possible if schools actively wish to
take on board the responsibility.
7
Advantages
Strengthens link of school and school crossing patrol
officer.
Recruitment to vacant posts likely to be better.
Delegated funding is a well-supported principle
Disadvantages
Ensuring delegation is fair.
Training for school crossing patrol officers needs to be
delivered professionally, by either the police or by road
safety officers.
Would need schools to be clear that they are discharging a
statutory power.
Would still need a proper systematic review system in
addition to the schools line-managing the officers
operationally.
Lack of consistency of approach to site selection and
training
8. Evaluation of options
The balance of arguments for the options above needs to be
decided against criteria for success.
The aim of the service is to ensure that road traffic
management and safety, and the health and safety of school
children, are properly provided through school crossing
patrols.
Throughout this review it has become clear to the review
team that there is no sustainable argument for placing the
responsibility for this service with Education. Indeed, by
linking the service to education, the service has failed to
focus on its main aim and objective, which is road safety
and traffic management.
Option 4 was conditional on the desire of schools to take on
responsibility and budgets for school crossing patrols.
Through consultation, this was overwhelmingly rejected by
headteachers.
The options for serious consideration are Option 2, to
prepare a service specification and put out a tender, or
Option 3, for the Road Safety Team to take over the
management of the service.
The review team considered that integrating the school
crossing patrol service with the work of the Road Safety
Team would give significant additional benefits. The current
work of that team on school travel plans, safer routes to
schools and the drive to reduce traffic would all be
enhanced by including direct management of school crossing
patrols. Also, the team's existing expertise can be fully
utilised in managing the service. Option 2, to put the
service out to tender, requires a significant amount of
preparatory work that would itself be best done by the Road
Safety Team. The review team unanimously supported option 3
as the best way forward.
8
9. Recommendations
The review team recommends:
1. That the Road Safety Team of the County Surveyor's
Department should be asked to manage the school crossing
patrol service with effect from 1st April 2001 under
management of the Planning and Transportation Committee.
2. That the County Surveyor's Department under the Planning
and Transportation Committee made responsible for the school
crossing patrol budget.
3. That the County Surveyor's Road Safety Team
establishment be reviewed to incorporate additional staff.
Based on comparison with other authorities, an appropriate
level of staffing would be a School Crossing Patrol Officer
and two School Crossing Patrol Supervisors specifically to
manage the school crossing patrols service.
4. That personnel functions for school crossing patrol
officers be transferred to Environment Grouping personnel,
with the current resource equivalent to 1 fte to carry out
these functions.
5. That a programme of annual crossing patrol inspections
is developed to evaluate the risks, health and safety for
each site.
6. That a clear induction programme for school crossing
patrol officers is developed.
7. That training for new school crossing patrol staff is
carried out by a Road Safety Officer.
8. That each school crossing patrol staff will have a
nominated supervisor (dependent on recommendation 3).
9. That a service specification is drawn up by 1st January
2001, with clearly identified targets for vacancy reduction,
a programme for site reviews and health and safety
assessments, staff absence targets, arrangements for cover
in the case of absence, a model induction programme, and a
programme for Performance Development Reviews.
10. That the provision of school crossing patrols and other
forms of traffic management control are explored together
when developing or reviewing school travel plans, including
the option of replacing school crossing patrols with pelican
crossings, through the process of crossing patrol site
review.
11. That a system for cover school crossing patrol absence
should be considered.
12. Further investigations should be undertaken to look at
uniform and equipment improvements.
13. That liaison between schools, their governing bodies and
the Road Safety Team should be encouraged.
14. That the Best Value Performance Sub-committee review
progress in 18 months.
9
10. Action Plan
The main outcome of the review has been to identify
weaknesses in the current structures to deliver the service,
and to recommend that a dedicated resource be set up within
the County Surveyor's Road Safety Team.
The action required is to effect a transfer of
responsibility to the Planning and Transportation Committee,
to enable the Road Safety Team to start addressing the
recommendations of the report.
The review team consider this action to be the most
significant point. Other targets have been set, but they
should be seen as provisional in the absence of evidence
that these can be achieved.
The Action Plan is attached as Appendix 4.
10
Appendix 1
HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS - BEST VALUE REVIEW
INFORMATION REQUEST TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
1) Who is responsible for administering the school crossing
patrol service?
Education / Highways / Police / Schools / Other (please
delete as appropriate)
2) How many school crossing patrol sites are there in your
authority? ____________
3) How many school crossing patrol sites are currently
vacant? __________________
4) What is your budget for paying school crossing patrol
staff? __________________
5) What is your budget for recruitment advertising for SCP?
____________________
6) How many staff support the SCP service for training?
_______________________
7) How many staff support personnel function for SCP?
________________________
8) If you have any supervisory support for SCP staff, how
many supervisors do you have? _____________________
9) Have you made any variations to the national pay scales
to attract staff? _________
10) Do you have any SCP staff sited at a pelican crossing?
_______________________
Any other information you can provide about the service
would be helpful.
LEA: ________________________________________________
Completed by: _____________________________Telephone:
___________
Many thanks for completing this request.
Please return to: Nigel Hill, Project Manager, Education
Department, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire SO23 8UG
Target date: 3rd July 2000
11
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage