Archived decisions

Contact: Mr Terry Rath, Education Officer. Tel. 01962 846457

1. Summary

The report provides updated information about the implementation of the Spend to Save Initiative for Home to School Transport and seeks agreement to the continuation of the initiative.

2. Background

2.1. In November 1999 the Education Resources Sub-Committee approved a "Spend to Save" initiative to tackle the rising costs of providing home to school transport. The report considered a variety of approaches, including:

- the rationalisation of transport on an area basis

- use of school based minibuses

- purchase of school buses to be operated by the County Council

- increasing the rate of parental allowances

- improving the systems providing management information

The immediate actions proposed for 1999/00 were agreed.

2.2. The net savings from the initiatives were estimated at:

Low estimate High estimate
2000/1 -£46,000 £36,000
2001/2 £120,000 £243,000
2002/3 £111,000 £172,000

Total £185,000 £451,000

2.3. The report recognised that these estimates were necessarily uncertain because it was not possible to judge the impact of all the initiatives until they were being implemented. The benefits arising from area and school replanning exercises would be gradually eroded from year to year. Tender prices were running ahead of inflation and demand, particularly for high cost SEN transport, was strong. The initiatives were designed to moderate the impact of these influences on the budget.

2.4. Subsequently, the Spend to Save initiative was endorsed by the Best Value Review of home to school transport and the Best Value Cross Cutting Transport Review.

2. Outcomes

3.1. The focus of the initiative has been on the transport of pupils to special schools as this is the highest cost provision and has been the area where there has been greatest growth in demand.

3.2. A programme of reviews of home to school transport to special schools has been undertaken. These reviews have reduced the number of contracts serving the schools and usually the number of escorts. The table below sets out the schools reviewed and the savings made. The reviews are undertaken in the spring term for implementation at the start of the summer term. The savings shown are the full year savings in that financial year, comparing the cost of the new contracts with the cost of continuing the old contracts. Cost reductions will continue from year to year, but gradually be eroded as new contracts are added. Therefore, the impact year by year on cost reduction of these initiatives is understated.

Contract and Escort Staff Saving
2000/01 Hawthorns
Rachel Madocks
Heathfield £270,000

2001/02 Dove House
Maple Ridge
Wolverdene
Riverside £162,000

2002/03 St Francis
Henry Tyndale
Salterns
Cedar School £240,000

3.3. Another successful initiative has been the supply of minibuses to schools for them to undertake some home to school transport, with a share in the cost savings. The 14 schools with 17 minibuses are listed in the Appendix to this report. It is likely that a further four to five minibuses will be supplied during the financial year 2002/03. Up to the end of the 2001/02 financial year this scheme had produced contract savings of £180,344, after the `savings' share with schools.

3.4. Education Resources Sub-Committee agreed an increase in the parental mileage rate to 22p per mile. Although parents of children travelling alone in taxis were contacted to see if they would consider undertaking the journeys, only a few agreed to take on this task.

3.5. Although it has not been possible to identify areas where the reorganisation of home to school transport alone would produce significant savings, the Testbed project in Andover, set up by the Cross Cutting Best Value Review of transport, has identified the potential for significant savings in the HTST budget linked to changes in school hours.

4. Sustaining the Initiative

4.1. In order to generate the gross savings mentioned in paragraph 2, additional expenditure has been incurred in the County Surveyor's Passenger Transport Group. In 2000/01 some £146,000 of additional cost was incurred, £50,000 of which was on improvements to the computer and information systems. In 2001/02 this was reduced to £91,000. These costs reduce the net saving to some £374,000 in these financial years, compared to the `high estimate' in the original report of £279,000 .

4.2. For 2002/03 savings of £240,000 have already been generated by area reviews conducted at the end of the 2001/02 financial year for implementation from April 2002. Further savings from the minibus scheme can be anticipated, of about £40,-50,000. Against this needs to be set budgeted additional costs of £96,000 for 2002/03 to enable this work to be continued. During the first three years of the Spend to Save initiative it is probable that the net savings will exceed the original high estimate of £451,000 by some £107,000. This is in excess of other cost savings produced by earlier and more effective data handling, assisted by the new computer systems and additional staff available during the peak summer months.

4.3 There is some data, drawn from Section 52 statements, which shows that Hampshire is being more effective in holding down home to school transport costs than other Ofsted comparator County Councils. Between 2000/01 and 2001/02 Hampshire's home to school transport budget increased by 6.0% in comparison with the average for this group of counties of 9.7%. No comparable data is yet available for the 2002/03 budgets.

4.4. The spend to save initiative was originally agreed for three years, to end at March 2003. It is clear that the initiative has had an impact on the home to school transport budget and further initiatives are being planned. Further work on, for example, area surveys, similar to the Testbed project in Andover could also begin to generate further savings. Although it was not possible to recommend the adoption of the "yellow bus" model for a small fleet of HCC operated vehicles for home to school transport, further work is being done looking at the use of passenger vehicles across County Council services, including public transport to see if this will provide a more viable alternative. Further savings could then accrue to the HTST budget. A programme of reviews of transport to special schools will continue to produce cost reductions, although probably at a lower level than those achieved to date. The mini-bus scheme may be capable of some further expansion, particularly towards the new enlarged Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), but it is unlikely that the savings at most mainstream schools, for example, would justify the costs. It is planned to produce a report by the end of the autumn term on the advantages and disadvantages of delegating or devolving HTST budgets to some or all schools, following work with representatives of primary, special and secondary headteachers. In order to sustain and increase the rate of these activities it is proposed that the spend to save initiative should be continued, subject to an annual review of its cost-effectiveness.

Recommendation

It is recommended that

The spend to save initiative should be continued, subject to an annual review of its cost-effectiveness.




Appendix 1

Minibus Scheme

Participating Schools

Special Schools

Limington House
Icknield 2 buses
Glenwood
Oak Lodge
Sundridge
Samuel Cody
Baycroft 2 buses
Lankhills 2 buses
Dove House
Henry Tyndale
Whitedown



Pupil Referral Units (PRUs)

Phoenix

Mainstream Schools

South View Junior
Testbourne Secondary School


Appendix 2

Impact of Spend to Save Initiatives

*Actual