Future Services Consultation 2024 - School Crossing Patrols (SCPs) Proposal
Insight summary
Background
From 8 January to 31 March 2024, 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 £132 million budget shortfall faced by April 2025.
One of the options proposed was to make two changes relating to School Crossing Patrols (SCPs):
- Proposal 1 - To remove SCPs from crossing points which we believe are safe
- Proposal 2 - Where a crossing point is not currently safe, to take measures that would make it safe without the need for an SCP
Who responded to the proposal?
In summary, 4,515 responses to this proposal were received via the consultation response form, including 41 responses from organisations (including 6 places of education) and 40 responses from elected representatives.
Within these responses, 2,006 people specified that they used, or know people who use, school crossing patrols in Hampshire.
Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on the 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. 1,437 respondents chose to provide comments on the proposals in this way. In addition, 51 people also mentioned this proposal in a general ‘further comments’ box at the end of the response form.
Alongside this, 39 unstructured written contributions were received, 18 from individuals, 17 providing the official response of an organisation, group or business and 4 responding as a democratically Elected Representative of a constituency.
In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback.
Who responded: demographics of individual responses
- Two fifths (40%) of responses from individuals were from those aged 45 to 64, with just over a quarter (26%) aged 65 or over. Just 1% were from those aged under 25, and 23% were aged 25 to 44.
- The majority of respondents were from non-ethnic minority groups (i.e. White British, English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish) with 7% of responses from an ethnic minority group.
- While the majority reported no health or disability issues, around 1 in 5 (17%) reported a health or disability issue that impacted their day-to-day activities either a little or a lot.
- A third of respondents (33%) had children and young people under 19 in their household.
- 7% of respondents came from households with the lowest income bracket (up to £20,000), 26% had an income of £20,001 to £60,000 and 25% were from households with higher incomes (£60,001 or more).
- Responses were received from residents of all districts in Hampshire, ranging from 128 in the borough of Gosport to 523 in the district of East Hampshire.
No demographics were captured about the individuals who provided unstructured responses to this proposal.
Please note this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.
Levels of agreement with the proposals
Overall, there was more support for proposal 2 than proposal 1:
- for proposal 1 there was more opposition (47%) than support (43%)
- for proposal 2 there was more support (53%) than opposition (37%)
For both proposals the strength of feeling among those opposed (i.e. those saying they strongly disagreed with the proposal) was greater than the strength of feeling among those supporting (i.e. those saying they strongly agreed with the proposal).
| Proposal | Disagree overall | Agree overall | Neither agree nor disagree | Strongly Disagree | Strongly Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposal 1 - To remove SCPs from crossing points which we believe are safe | 47% | 43% | 11% | 30% | 14% |
| Proposal 2 - Where a crossing point is not currently safe, to take measures that would make it safe without the need for an SCP | 37% | 53% | 10% | 24% | 19% |
Overall, support for measures to make crossing points safer before removing them is stronger than support for removing sites where the County Council currently believe it is safe to do so. People appear to want more reassurance that crossing points will be made safer and not just removed, leaving nothing in place.
Proposal 1
What is driving disagreement with this proposal?
Certain groups of respondents disagreed with the proposed removal of SCPs more strongly than others, in particular:
- children and young people who attend school in Hampshire (68% disagreeing)
- people who use or know someone who uses Hampshire school crossing patrols (66% disagreeing)
- people who use or know someone who uses school crossings proposed for improvement (64% disagreeing)
- those who are family members of children at school in Hampshire (61% disagreeing)
- school governors, employees, and crossing patrollers (60% disagreeing)
- households with children (58% disagreeing), particularly high for those with children aged 0-4 (63% disagreeing) and 5-11 years old (65% disagreeing)
- organisations who responded (54% disagreeing)
Some additional patterns in the data also revealed that disagreement:
- tended to be higher amongst urban residents (49%) than rural ones (43%)
- varied by district with some districts having notably higher disagreement (65% in Hart, 59% in Rushmoor and Fareham), and some notably lower (Test Valley at 37%, East Hampshire at 41%)
- was strongest among younger age groups with 56% of both under 25s and 25 to 44 year olds disagreeing, compared to 40% of those aged 45 to 64 and 45% of respondents aged 65 and over
- was notably higher among females (48%) than males (43%)
Driving opposition to proposal 1 was dangerous behaviour at or near crossings e.g. speeding, near misses. This was commented on by 34% of those opposed to the proposal, compared to 9% of those supporting the proposal.
"People drive too fast and parents park poorly making the road dangerous for pedestrians and car/bus traffic."
Those opposed to the proposal were also concerned about the increased risk of injury or death (commented on by 24% of those who opposed the proposal compared to only 4% of those who were supportive).
"To reduce this would increase child/ parent accidents on the roads. It is unsafe for these proposals."
Those who were opposed were also more likely to mention that a crossing is seen as unsafe and needing an SCP (24% compared to 3% for those who were supportive).
"The amount of drivers who do not stop at the crossing is shocking. It seems unless a lollipop man is there I take my life in my hands crossing."
What is driving agreement with this proposal?
Support for proposal 1 was notably higher among those with higher household incomes (50% support among those with a household income of £60,000 or over compared to 40% for those with household incomes up to £20,000). It was also strongest among the age bracket 55-64 (51%) compared to other age groups.
Driving support for the proposal was belief in alternatives. Among those who supported the proposal, 8% said they would accept the proposal if a pelican crossing was installed and 7% if a zebra crossing was installed (compared to only 3% of people who opposed the proposal).
"Install pelican or zebra crossings and then parents have the opportunity to educate their children about safe crossing use. Walking buses can be set up."
In addition to this, of those who were supportive of the proposal 11% commented that parents or volunteers could provide the patrols compared to only 2% of those who were opposed.
"Can volunteers from school/parents be recruited and trained?"
Proposal 2
What is driving disagreement with this proposal?
Certain groups of respondents were more likely to disagree strongly than others with the proposed removal of crossing points after measures that would make it safe to do so, in particular:
- organisations (54% disagreeing)
- those under 25 (46% disagreeing)
- those who are family members of children at school in Hampshire (47% disagreeing)
- children and young people who attend school in Hampshire (54% disagreeing)
- people who use or know someone who uses Hampshire school crossing patrols (50% disagreeing)
- people who use or know someone who uses school crossings proposed for improvement (49% disagreeing)
- school governors, employees, and crossing patrollers (45% disagreeing)
- 16-24 year olds (47% disagreeing) and 35-44 year olds (44% disagreeing)
- those who were pregnant (52% disagreeing)
- those with children 0-4 (45% disagreeing) and among those with children 5-11 (48% disagreeing)
- people who use, or know someone who uses school crossings (disagreement was at 50%)
The main reason for opposing this proposal matched that for proposal 1, namely the risk of increased risk of injury and death (60% of those who disagreed mentioned this). There was also concern about the loss of social value of a crossing patrol (24% of those who disagreed) and belief that there would be increased congestion (12% who disagreed), the impact on school children developing safe crossing skills (11% who disagreed) drove opposition.
"I think SCPs are a vital part of school days and make families happier about children walking to school rather than using motor vehicles."
What is driving agreement with this proposal?
Some groups of people were more likely to support the proposal, in particular:
Those who supported the proposal still had concerns over safety but seemed more accepting of the alternatives proposed, with 14% of those who agreed with the proposal saying it would be acceptable if a pelican crossing was installed and 17% saying they agree if a zebra crossing was installed.
"Consider adding pelican crossings at schools - how long would it take to break even, with the cost of a pelican crossing versus the oncosts for a school crossing patrol."
Toucan crossings got far fewer mentions, but this may be due to a lack of familiarity with this type of crossing. Of those who agreed with the proposal and made a comment, 10% said they saw no reason for this type of service, showing that some agreement is based on scepticism of school crossings. Of those who commented, 9% also said that alternatives do the same job.
"So many primary aged children are taken to school in cars so crossing patrols not needed or they are walked to school by an adult so not required either."
Also driving agreement may be less experience of safety issues, as those agreeing with the proposal are far less likely to have seen dangerous behaviour (32% compared to 53% of those who disagreed with the proposal). There was also sentiment that responsibility for safety should lie with parents and individuals (17% of those who agreed mentioned this in their comments).
Interestingly more people who agreed with the proposal commented that more people would drive their children to school (20% of those who agreed versus 10% of those who disagreed with the proposal). This suggests that those who agreed thought this option was more acceptable as an alternative to crossings.
Concerns among those currently using crossing points
Respondents who indicated they currently use one of the 180 crossing points identified in the proposals were asked what their current concerns were. These included:
- drivers going too fast near crossing points (76%)
- poor visibility for people crossing the road (43%)
- parking nearby (42%)
- crossing point being near a busy junction or roundabout (42%)
- poor visibility for drivers (38%)
- narrow or obstructed pavements (27%)
- width of road/ time needed to cross (23%)
Main impacts of the proposed change
440 people out of 1,437 who left a comment (31%) mentioned a potential impact. The main perceived impact was the risk of injury and death with 58% of those mentioning an impact citing that concern. Loss of social value was mentioned by 22% commenting on impacts (this related to the social role that crossing patrols have with conversations and the personalities of the crossing patrol officers cited).
Increased congestion was mentioned by 13% and concern that more parents would drive their children to school was mentioned by 12%. Another impact highlighted was on children having more difficulty developing crossing skills (11% who mentioned an impact cited that concern).
Impacts on protected characteristics
Those who commented were asked whether their comments related to any protected characteristics. They were most likely to indicate that the removal of SCPs would impact people because of:
Other characteristics were also mentioned but at much lower levels.
440 people out of 1,437 (31%) who left a comment mentioned a potential impact. The top perceived impact was the risk of injury and death with 58% of those mentioning an impact citing that concern. Loss of social value was mentioned by 22% commenting on impacts. Increased congestion was mentioned by 13% and concern that more parents would drive their children to school was mentioned by 12%. Another impact highlighted was on children developing crossing skills (11% who mentioned an impact cited that concern).
Suggested alternatives to the proposal
798 out of 1,437 people (55%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal made a suggestion about any alternatives to the proposal or how they felt the service could be carried out differently. The most frequent suggestions mentioned were:
- maintaining SCPs – mentioned by 61% who provided an alternative
- an alternative practical approach (10%)
- parents/individuals should be responsible for road safety (10%)
- parents/ volunteers to provide crossing provision (9%)
- suggestions that SCPs be replaced by an alternative crossing (5%)
- don’t remove if there is no safe alternative (4%)
- reduce speed limits near schools (4%)
- charge extra for existing services to cover the cost (2%)
One unstructured comment summarised the conditional nature of much support for the proposals:
“My recommendation would be 1. Retain the SCP 2. Failing that then for the crossing to be “protected” by a 20 mile speed warning in force during school arrival & departure periods. And the installation of a Pedestrian Signal Controlled Crossing”
One respondent commented that training for children should be thorough if SCPs are removed:
“If they are to be replaced, make sure the children get thorough training in using the alternatives and make them hyper aware of the dangers - as you CANNOT trust self-entitled drivers to look out for anyone but themselves.”
The Hampshire Youth Forum also suggested education on road safety for young people as well as use of lights and sounds at crossings to bring greater safety, citing Australia as a place where this already happens.
There was a wide range of additional and detailed suggestions which have been passed to the Directorate for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.
Comments on the consultation
Some concerns were expressed about how the proposals were developed and the criteria used for selection. These are detailed below:
"It is inappropriate to comment/prioritise cuts to services when there is no evidence of a professional approach to determining the costs of those services and particularly the administrative cost. We do not accept that reducing service levels represents a saving. We cannot see the evidence that the County Council has properly analysed its expenditure to differentiate between added and non-added value activity. Because of this we are presented with a series of service reductions rather than an insight into method/process improvement."
"This work needs to be completed to get a better understanding of what alternative measures might be introduced."
"I’d be grateful if you could explain the PV squared formula used to determine whether a controlled or uncontrolled crossing or School crossing patrol warden may be considered."
"The information provided in the survey including linked information does not explain how the Council will define what is safe. Any proposal which risks the safety of children in any way is unacceptable."
"No crossing has been in Pullen’s Lane for two years. This leads to an impression that the information in this survey is outdated."
"If they were safe places to cross you wouldn’t have put them there in the first place"
"I think the need for improved safety features should not be based on PV2 but instead on healthy streets metrics which are a key component of LTP4. This will ensure much better crossings that meet the needs of all users."
"You have deliberately failed to tell us how you 'might make roads safer' if crossings were reduced to fix the results of the survey to enable you to proceed without limit/public recourse. This is disgraceful. Knowing how draconian councils can be I voted against it as I do not trust you."