Post-16 Transport only Proposal Insight Summary

Background

From 12 March to 7 May 2025, Hampshire County Council invited residents, partners, and stakeholders to provide their views on options to change and reduce some local services to help the Authority address a £97.6 million budget shortfall for 2025/26.

This included proposed changes to the Post-16 Transport service, specifically:

to focus Hampshire County Council’s resources on those most in need, by amending the eligibility criteria for Post-16 transport assistance so that the County Council would only assist with travel for Post-16 students with special educational needs or a disability, and who are from a low-income family
to make Post-16 Transport provision more sustainable in the long term by requiring all families of students who receive County Council-provided Post-16 transport assistance to contribute to the costs of transport for their child
to support SEND students to develop their independent travel skills by introducing mandatory Independent Travel Training (ITT) for some Post-16 students
to make Post-16 Transport provision more sustainable in the long term by requiring parents/carers/responsible adults to act as a Passenger Assistant where it is reasonable for them to do so

Who responded to the proposal?

In total, 1,007 responses were received to this proposal via the consultation response form, of which 11 were from organisations and 9 were from democratically Elected Representatives.

Responses were received from all parts of the County, ranging from 21 in Havant to 115 in Winchester.

291 responses were received from current, previous, and expected future users of Post-16 Transport, and their carers.

455 responses were received from respondents in households with children and young people aged under 25, of which 228 had a child or young person under 25 with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND). 193 responses were received from respondents whose activities were limited by a disability or health issue.

76 responses were received from respondents with an annual household income of up to £20,000, 273 had a household income of £20,001 to £60,000, and 298 had a household income of over £60,000.

Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 360 respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposals. All of these comments have been shared with the service for consideration.

A further six responses were received through direct correspondence via letter or email (unstructured responses) which included comments relating to the proposed changes to this service. One of these was from an individual and five were from organisations. The responses have also been shared with the service for consideration and are briefly summarised later in this document.

Proposal: only assisting with travel for Post-16 students who have SEND, and who are from a low-income family

Levels of agreement with this proposal

1,004 people responded to this element of the proposal. 59% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 36% who disagreed with it. 5% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

current, previous, and expected future users of Post-16 Transport and their carers (65% disagreement)
organisations or groups (60% disagreement), and 100% disagreement amongst the 6 responding local authorities
households with Children and Young People (CYP) with SEND aged under 25 (59% disagreement)
elected members (56% disagreement)
those whose day-to-day activities are reduced a lot by existing physical or mental health conditions or illnesses (50% disagreement)

The data suggests that the main drivers of disagreement with the proposed change related to:

the negative impact it would have on people with jobs—there would be an impact on the working lives of people in employment, such as people having to reduce working hours or give up work
loss of education, e.g., if costs of going to school are unaffordable, then people might not be able to continue going to school
families in poverty or on low incomes would be negatively impacted
CYP with SEND would be more impacted by these changes than other groups

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Those on benefits will get the assistance, but those who go to work, some of whom are barely breaking even, are being charged for having a disabled child… Children with disabilities in general do not have local provisions to attend and have to travel out of their area to attend such a provision. This is discrimination."

"These changes will penalise disabled children of working parents regardless of income. Parents will have to choose between giving up their job to drive their child to and from college during working hours or accept their child cannot access education post-16."

"This will especially impact children who are not physically disabled and not able to apply for funding for transport elsewhere, e.g., through PIP."

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents who have no CYP under age 25 living at home (75% agreement)
respondents aged 65 and over (70% agreement)
respondents who travel by bicycle (70%), train (67%), or walking (66%)
male respondents (69% agreement)
households with an annual income up to £20,000 (65% agreement)
respondents who do not identify as neurodivergent (64%)

Agreement with the proposal appeared to be driven by:

a belief that parents should pay for transport
feeling the service is being misused (e.g., the belief that families are unfairly using existing systems to get transport to which they should not be entitled), observed particularly by those with an annual income of up to £20,000

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"HCC, in proposing to support only those identified who are most in need educationally and vulnerable financially, is the correct approach."

"SEND/Disabled kids need help, as they do with so many things, but kids without additional needs from ordinary families—paying for your kids is what you're expected to do."

"I agree that post-16 transport should only be given to those in most need (SEND, disabled, or very low-income families), and in other situations, it is only fair to ask that parents contribute something towards this provision—be it monetary or their time by being their child's PA."

Proposal: requiring families to contribute to the costs of Post-16 transport for their child

Levels of agreement with this proposal

999 people responded to this element of the proposal. 62% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 28% who disagreed with it. 10% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

elected members (67% disagreement)
local authorities (80% disagreement)
respondents from Hart (49% disagreement)
respondents aged under 25 (57% disagreement)
current, previous, and expected future users of Post-16 Transport (54% disagreement)
respondents with children aged 5-11 (51% disagreement)
respondents who identify as neurodivergent (47% disagreement)
those with children aged 12-16 (44% disagreement)
those from Basingstoke and Deane (44% disagreement)

The data suggests that the main drivers of disagreement with the proposed change related to:

insufficient special school provision in Hampshire—the number or distribution of Special Schools in Hampshire means that travel times, distances, and costs are unreasonable
concern about further strain on families with Children and Young People (CYP) with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND), who already face other challenges
cost impacts—increases in charges will lead to families struggling financially
the negative impact on families in poverty or on low incomes

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Transport is expensive because there are so few special schools in the local areas for children and their needs."

"It is a complex proposal to consider given all of the factors. I believe it would make it more difficult for many families if the criteria were narrowed down too much, because they may not be able to afford other transport, even if they are not 'low-income'. Many of us who are not considered low-income are already struggling as it is without further support being removed. Also, a 15% contribution may not seem like a lot, but at £12,000 a year, £150 a month that they did not previously need to contribute is a lot of money."

"SEN families have so very many more issues to deal with—many of which impact on finances, mental health, discrimination, and ability to participate."

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents who travel by motorcycle or moped (88%)
those with no CYP under 25 in their household (73% agreement)
respondents aged 65 or over (70% agreement)
male respondents (69%)
respondents who do not identify as neurodivergent (67%)

Agreement with the proposal appeared to be driven by a belief that parents should pay for transport.

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Parents need to contribute more towards Post-16 transport."

"…council help needs to be for those most in need, and council payers' money should not be wasted on people who are able to support themselves."

"It would be fairer to ask for a contribution to the transport costs rather than just remove transport for non-low-income families."

Proposal: introducing mandatory Independent Travel Training (ITT) for some students

Levels of agreement with this proposal

995 people responded to this element of the proposal. 63% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 22% who disagreed with it. 14% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

current, previous, and expected future users of Post-16 Transport (40% disagreement)
households with Children and Young People (CYP) aged 5-11 (40% disagreement) and aged 12-16 (33% disagreement)
households with CYP with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities (SEND) under 25 (39% disagreement)
households with an income between £10,001 and £20,000 (37% disagreement)
respondents aged 35-44 (32% disagreement)
respondents who identify as neurodivergent (32%)

The data suggests that the main drivers of disagreement with the proposed change related to:

ITT not being appropriate for some people
some children not being able to use regular buses or other public transport

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Just because a person is 16 and has a disability, this does not mean that they are suddenly capable of using multiple public transport facilities without distress to access education."

"My son is autistic. He can’t travel on public transport. He is extremely vulnerable … You cannot take it away from him now he’s 16."

"Many post-16 students will not be able to travel independently, so mandatory training will not be possible for them."

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

respondents aged 65 and over (74% agreement)
respondents who travel by bicycle (74%), train (70%), or walking (69%)
respondents who do not identify as neurodivergent (69%)
elected members (67% agreement)

Agreement with the proposal appeared to be driven by perceptions that ITT would be of benefit to some people.

Illustrative quotes from respondents

"Think it is really important to encourage ITT for Post-16 students—what a great opportunity to support their growing independence."

"It is better if people can have support to use public transport for themselves."

"I also support the idea that training SEND people to be independent is a good core skill."

Proposal: requiring parents to be their student’s Passenger Assistant where it is reasonable for them to do so

Levels of agreement with this proposal

997 people responded to this element of the proposal. 58% of respondents expressing a view agreed with the proposal, compared to 30% who disagreed with it. 11% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal.

What was driving disagreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people disagreed with the proposed change more than others:

users of Connect transport (formerly known as Dial-a-Ride and Call & Go, 71%)
current, previous and future users of Post-16 Transport (60% disagreement)
households with CYP with SEND aged under 25 (55% disagreement)
respondents aged under 25 (52% disagreement)
those aged 35-44 (48% disagreement)
households with CYP aged 0-4 (44% disagreement), aged 5-11 (54% disagreement) and aged 12-16 (47% disagreement)
respondents from Hart (47% disagreement) and Rushmoor (50% disagreement)
respondents who identify as neurodivergent (42%)

The data suggests that the main drivers of disagreement with the proposed change related to:

the impacts on parents and carers – added strain on the parents and carers of service users
negative impacts on people with jobs – There would be an impact on the working lives of people in employment, such as people having to reduce working hours or give up work
parents / carers not being suitable to be Passenger Assistants – Parents/ carers would not have the skills or resources (including time) to be Passenger Assistants

Illustrative quotes from respondents

“Single parent families are disadvantaged as they don’t have a partner to share transport provision and usually have to work also.”

“Proposed changes can affect level of employment for parents who already struggle with working and looking after their disabled children.”

“The proposed requirement that that parents/carers act as a student's Passenger Assistant discriminates against both the student and the parent/carer by placing an unreasonable legal obligation upon them that is not imposed on any other group.”

What was driving agreement with this proposal?

Some groups of people agreed with the proposed change more than others:

households with no CYP under 25 (74% agreement)
respondents aged 65 and over (73% agreement)
respondents who identify as possibly neurodivergent (73%)
elected members (67% agreement)
respondents aged 55-64 (66% agreement)
Asian and Asian British ethnic groups (85% agreement) – note the overall number of people responding from this ethnic group was very small (14 respondents)

Agreement with the proposal appeared to be driven by the view that parents and carers should assist their children on provided transport

Illustrative quotes from respondents

“Definitely agree that parents/carers/responsible adults act as PA where reasonably possible. Means they can ensure their child is attending and can garner a greater relationship”

“Those that aren't in work may be in a better position to help their children as assistants on transport.”

“I do agree with parents stepping in to be a passenger assistant, I have suggested this many times as have other parents. It is extremely difficult for a lot of parents to transport their child when transport is cancelled so there is many that would happily step in to help”

Main impacts of the proposed changes

The overall comments provided about these proposals were also analysed to understand what potential impacts the proposals could have if implemented.

207 out of 360 respondents (58%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal mentioned potential impacts of the proposal in their feedback, which were:

negatively impacts people with jobs (31% of comments)
loss of education (29% of comments)
negatively impacts CYP with SEND (27% of comments)
cost (24% of comments)
negatively impacts families in poverty (24% of comments)
negative impact on people living in rural areas (18% of comments)
negative impact on parents/ carers (14% of comments)

Other impacts mentioned, each making up less than 10% of comments, included:

negatively impacts physical health/ disability
safety of CYP
economic impacts
impacts on family life
other services budgets/ demand could increase
negative impact on mental health
negative impacts on the basis of age
increased traffic or congestion
environmental impacts
negatively impact women
loss of social contact/ skills
increased journey times
negatively impacts those experiencing pregnancy or maternity
impact on unspecified protected characteristics
increase care needs for service users
safety of drivers/other road users

Illustrative quotes from respondents

“If free transport for over 16 is removed, that realistically means that we will have to choose on between continue working and sending our daughter to college”

“Often under and over 16's with disabilities have a much tougher life in general and so do their parents, these proposals will just further punish those less able…”

“Parent with children with send have a lot of Cost To pay out compare To other children. They shouldn’t be made to pay for transport especially if A local College school Can’t meet needs and they have to travel.”

“Carers are exhausted already. This proposed changed would cause me to have to drive three hours each travel day which would be dangerous. I have often not slept due to my son’s significant care needs. I also have to be there for my other children. My childrens home life would hugely suffer as well as my own health, both physical and mental. It wouldn’t be safe for me to drive on so little sleep.”

Impacts on protected characteristics

Respondents were asked in the Response Form which characteristics or issues they felt would be impacted by the proposed changes. Respondents were able to select any of the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, as well as poverty, rurality, and environmental impacts. These responses indicated that people with the following characteristics are likely to be most impacted:

Disability (64%) – These comments referred to people with SEND being disproportionately affected compared to other groups. Some comments emphasised that education of people with disabilities should be ensured (through the offer of transport) regardless of their parents’ financial circumstances. This support is essential to help them reach their full potential by attending schools that are best equipped to meet their needs.
Rurality (47%) – Comments related to this proposal disproportionally affecting people in rural areas as they are likely to live further away from their school and typically have less access to public transport.
Poverty (45%) – Comments related to people on lower incomes being affected more as they are less likely to be able to contribute to increased costs and may not have access to private transport to drive their child themselves.
Age (41%) – Comments stated that the proposal affected those that are aged over 16, some questioned why cost increases only apply to this age group and mentioned that they felt it unfair that CYP with SEND receive transport for no charge until they reach 16, but can be charged after this point despite their needs having not changed.

Disability was mentioned proportionally more frequently by respondents aged between 25-44, people with CYP aged between 17 and 24 living in the household, those with CYP with SEND aged under 25 living in their household, respondents whose household income is £20,001 to £30,000 and residents from the district of Basingstoke and Deane.

Although the number of responses from the following groups were small, rurality was mentioned proportionally more frequently by organisations and groups - including providers of Post-16 Transport - and married respondents who are separated from their partner.

Poverty was mentioned proportionally more frequently by respondents whose household income is £20,001 -£30,000, by organisations/ groups, and - although much fewer in number – also by those who are aged 25-34.

Age was mentioned proportionally more amongst respondents who have CYP with SEND under the age of 25 in their household; those with CYP aged 5-11 in the household; carers for expected future service users of both School Transport and Post-16 Transport; carers of current users of Post-16 and School Transport and, although in low numbers, those who responded on behalf of organisations (not necessarily providers of Post-16 Transport).

Other characteristics were mentioned at lower levels:

environmental impact (10% of respondents)
sex (5% of respondents)
pregnancy and/ or maternity (4% of respondents)
race (3% of respondents)
marriage and/or civil partnership (3% of respondents)
gender reassignment (3% of respondents)
sexual orientation (2% of respondents)
religion or belief (2% of respondents)

16% of respondents indicated that they did not feel there would be any impact as a result of the proposed changes.

Illustrative quotes from respondents

“Disgusting that SEN children and families will be disadvantaged nobody chooses to have additional needs and families should not be punished”

“We have serious concerns that this proposal will disproportionately affect young people with EHCPs in rural areas of East Hampshire as accessing any post-16 education from East Hampshire involves challenging public transport journeys unless one lives in close to Alton College or Bohunt School in Liphook, assuming that the provision at these sixth forms / colleges meets the student’s needs.”

“…anyone in genuine financial hardship could be disadvantaged by being asked to contribute towards their child's transport…”

“By directly targeting an age group it is discrimination. why would cost increases only apply to a specific age group? Other counties charge for all school transport.”

Suggested alternative proposals

81 out of 360 respondents (23%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal provided suggested alternatives to the proposal or suggestions for how the service could be carried out differently.

The most frequently mentioned suggestions were to:

use means testing (36%)
promote organisational efficiencies (19%)

In the other suggestions category (27%) – these were varied suggestions that included:

starting the ITT earlier e.g. in year 11 or in the summer holiday before young people start their post 16 education
using buses not taxis
establishing designated pick-up points for transport

The additional suggestions made at lower levels (less than 10% of responses) have been passed to the Directorate for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.

Illustrative quotes from respondents

“School transport should be means tested for all families so that those who can make a contribution should do so."

“Push back on central government while streamlining other internal processes for increased efficiency.”

“Get advice from private companies like B&Q and ASDA on how to strip out your bloated bureaucracy and increase operational, coal face staff. Getting students to college is a moral and ethical responsibility.”

“…there may be an opportunity to gather children together at one collection point.”

Additional comments

Other comments also told us that:

parents should pay for costs (22%)
there is a need to consider individual circumstances rather than simple assessments (19%)
there is insufficient special school provision in Hampshire - the number or distribution of Special Schools in Hampshire mean that travel times / distances/ costs are unreasonable (19%)
ITT would benefit some people (14%) - 10% also said ITT is not appropriate for some
parents/ carers are not suitable to be Passenger Assistants (11%) – 8% also said parents/ Carers should act as Passenger Assistants

Illustrative quotes from respondents

“I believe that with every application for transport there should be questions on whether the child is in receipt of high rate mobility, have a mobility car and whether those parents or carers work as this alone would most likely save money and transport will then be provided to those who should be in receipt of this.”

“Some families don't drive at all so they are already spending a lot on public transport to get to work and have to make allowances for that as well as time. Those that aren't in work may be in a better position to help their children as assistants on transport.”

“People who have SEN children cannot choose their local school which they can walk too. It is a right for every child to receive an education and it is not their fault they have to travel far to get their education.”

Unstructured responses

The six unstructured responses that were received included similar themes to those seen in the online responses to the consultation. Of these:

three comments related to impacts, the impacts identified by these responses included: increasing the financial impacts of increased costs, particularly amongst those that are just above the low income threshold
two responses made suggestions, which included taking the other responsibilities of parents/ carers into account before asking them to be Passenger Assistants and phasing in cost increases over time
five responses gave general comments which included: the need to consider individual circumstances; public transport being insufficient; families with SEND having other challenges; the service could be more efficient; and issues around the cost of living crisis; and comments asking for more clarity in the cost savings the County Council hope to achieve