Contact: Terry Rath, Education Officer, 01962 846153, [email protected]

Keith Willcox, Head of Passenger Transport, 01962 846997

[email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This report summarises the impact of the Spend to Save initiatives in the provision of home to school transport, proposes their continuation and a number of new initiatives.

1.2 This supports aim 5 "improving services" of the Corporate Strategy by developing proposals to improve home to school transport and achieving better value for money and service improvement.

2 Background

2.1 Home to school transport is provided under Section 509 of the Education Act 1996 and Schedule 19 of the Education Act 2002. Broadly, transport to school is provided for pupils living more than the statutory walking distances from their nearest or catchment school. Denominational transport is provided for pupils meeting distance and denominational criteria. Transport can also be provided on medical grounds or because of hazardous walking routes.

2.2 The original Spend to Save proposals were implemented because of concerns about the increasing and sustained pressure on the home to school transport budget as a result of tender prices rising ahead of inflation and strong demand for high cost SEN transport. 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 special needs 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 mileage allowances

- improving the systems for providing management information

2.3 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

2.4 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, particularly as some such as the school minibus scheme were intended both to provide both a cost-effective solution and moderate the demand for price increases from other operators.

2.5 Over the last five years an annual 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 savings made. The reviews are undertaken in the spring term for implementation at the start of the summer term, ie the new financial year. 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 will be gradually eroded as new contracts are added. Therefore, the impact year by year on cost reduction of these reviews is understated.

Contract and Escort Staff Survey		Total
2000/01	Hawthorns, Rachel Maddocks, Heathfield	£270,000
2001/02	Dove House, Maple Ridge, Wolverdene, Riverside	£162,000
2002/03	St Francis, Henry Tyndale, Salterns, Cedar	£240,000
2003/04	Baycroft, Limington House, Riverside, Mark Way, Norman Gate	£185,000
2004/05	Saxon Wood, Oak Lodge	£187,000
2005/06	Portchester , Osborne, Wolverdene	£220,000

2.6 Another successful initiative has been the supply of minibuses to schools for them to undertake some of their pupils home to school transport for a share in the cost savings. The 27 schools with 30 minibuses are listed in Appendix II to this report. Four schools will join the scheme from September 2005. Up to the end of the financial year 2004/5 this scheme had produced contract savings of £366,500 after sharing the savings with schools. It is expected that the minibuses starting in September will save a further £40,000 in a full financial year.

2.7 The original proposals for Spend to Save identified additional costs that would need to be incurred in order to generate the savings. In 2000/01 some £146,000 of additional costs were incurred, £50,000 of which was on improvements to the computer and information systems. The costs of Spend to Save in following years are set out below:

2001/02	£91,000
2002/03	£96,100
2003/04	£64,400
2004/05	£75,500

These costs need to be set against the "savings" made in each year to produce net savings from the Spend to Save initiative. These figures are shown in Appendix II. The costs do produce other efficiencies which are additional but not so easy to quantify. The new computer systems reduce costs by earlier and more efficient data handling while the availability of additional staff during the peak summer months helps to ensure efficient and effective route planning.

2.8 There is evidence from the published Section 52 budget statements that the Spend to Save initiative has contributed to moderating the pressure on the budget. Between 2000/01 and 2004/05 the home to school transport budget in Hampshire has increased by 18%. In comparison, the average increase for the ten Ofsted comparators group of County Councils has been 36.5% with Hampshire as part of the group, and 39.4% without Hampshire in the group. The range of increase is from 18% (Hampshire) to 58%. The details are attached as Appendix III.

2.9 In May 2002 the Education Executive Member decided that the Spend to Save initiative should continue. The second part of this report suggests ways of building on the success of the first round of Spend to Save initiatives. It should, however, be recognised that the level of "savings" potentially available will be lower as the areas with the biggest opportunities are already being tackled.

3 New Savings Proposals

3.1 The following paragraphs set out a range of further "Spend to Save" proposals. They do not cover all the initiatives that will be taken to ensure that the home to school transport budget is used effectively. Further work will be undertaken to ensure that pupils with SEN have their transport needs consistently reviewed, particularly when they reach the age of eight. Government has recently issued guidance on the use of motability vehicles which makes it clear that these should be used, where possible, to take children to school. This will also be taken into account in taking decisions about entitlement to transport. It is intended to take a report to Cabinet in September 2005 about the use of "yellow buses" in Hampshire. "Yellow buses" could work in conjunction with existing home to school transport to produce service improvements and improved cost effectiveness.

3.2 A variety of different approaches are considered to have potential to realise cost savings. Some appear to offer a possible `win-win' situation, with a reduction in cost accompanied by an improvement in quality. Others will be more contentious, with a reduction in cost achieved by providing a service which might be seen to be less satisfactory for the children or school concerned. For each proposal below, indicative cost savings have been estimated, categorised as follows:

Low: up to £30,000 per year

Medium: £30,000 to £75,000 per year

High: Over £75,000 per year

3.3 In-house specialist fleet of wheelchair-accessible minibuses

In some cases, the County Council currently appears to be paying an excessive rate for wheelchair-accessible minibuses contracted from local operators. These are specialist vehicles, of variable age and quality, offered by a limited number of operators, and with limited usefulness for other purposes. A previous study examined the feasibility of operating such minibuses in-house, with drivers employed by the authority. It is suggested that this work be updated, with a view to selective implementation where contract prices are highest. This proposal would dove-tail with the work on "Yellow Buses". The specialist vehicles could also be used during the day by Social Services, Health Service and charitable organisations.

Feasibility study required (updating)

Resource required: to be determined by study

Timescale: 18 months

Cost saving: High

Responsibility: Education Dept/Environment Department

3.4 Review mainstream HTST contracts by area

Individual contracts commence or are modified gradually over successive years. Whilst obvious economies are realised whenever they appear, comprehensive reviews of the contracts serving individual schools may permit more radical action to save costs. There would be risks involved in re-tendering longstanding and cost-effective contracts but this approach has proved worthwhile for certain special schools and reviews could be extended to mainstream schools. If this were to be pursued, it would be beneficial to consider this on an area basis, within each local authority District, to link with the Public Transport and Community Transport review being undertaken on a District by District basis.

No feasibility study required.

Resource required: Nil

Timescale: 6 months

Cost saving: Medium

Responsibility: Environment Dept

3.5 Double-tripping

If it were possible to serve two different schools, with different starting and finishing times, using the same vehicles, substantial cost savings could be made. A previous proposal, involving changing school hours by up to 30 minutes, did not find favour with the schools concerned, but they were prepared to consider changes of up to 15-20 minutes. In some cases, this would be sufficient to enable savings to be made. The decision about amending school hours rests with the governing body of the school after suitable consultation.

An alternative approach, where some contracts operate over short distances (under five miles), is to take children from one area to school early, arriving perhaps 20 minutes before school starts, then using the same vehicle to pick up from a second area just in time for school. In the afternoons, the areas served would be reversed, so that each group of children only had to wait at one end of the day. This approach might not be popular with schools or parents and might involve supervision costs but could potentially be implemented without changes to school hours and would enable savings to be made.

No feasibility study required.

No resource required.

Timescale: 6 months

Cost saving: Medium

Responsibility: Education Dept/Environment Dept

3.6 Provision of "Respite" transport

Under existing policy pupils are taken to and brought from "respite" care providing there is no additional cost to the home to school transport budget. On some occasions this is possible but often it is not, or only possible if the regular journeys of the other pupils are delayed. In these circumstances the costs of organising and providing transport to and from "respite" care fall on Social Services. A better and more cost effective service could be provided for attending respite care if the organisation and provision of their transport was integrated with home to school transport. It is suggested that a "pilot study" in an area of the county is established to establish whether this way of working could be extended. It would fit well within the development of an integrated Children's Service.

Resource Required:	£20,000
Timescale:	Pilot from April 2006
Cost saving:	Medium
Responsibility:	Education/Social Services Departments

3.7 Education Centres to manage transport budgets

Increasingly the Education Centres are providing and arranging a flexible range of educational experience for pupils who have been permanently excluded from mainstream school or who are more able to benefit from approaches adopted by the Education Centres. Locating decisions about the arrangement and entitlement to transport could help to ensure that responsive but cost effective decisions are taken locally within an overall budget allocation. It is likely that there would need to be additional staff included in Education Centre budgets to reflect the additional responsibilities.

Develop further the proposal in light of Education Centre development
Resource Required:	Additional staffing costs
Cost saving:	Low
Responsibility:	Education Department

3.8 Build footpaths to provide safe walking routes

In a few cases, transport is provided for children living within the statutory walking distances as it has been agreed that there is no safe walking route. In some of these cases, it appears that capital investment in a footpath, or shared footpath/cycle path, would obviate the need for transport, recouping the cost in the longer term, perhaps within five or ten years. Engineering feasibility studies would need to be funded to establish the precise costs so that each case can be considered on its merits.

Feasibility studies required

Resource required: to be determined by feasibility studies

Timescale: 2 years

Cost saving: High

Responsibility: Environment Dept

4 Other possibilities

4.1 In order to implement any proposals there must be a focus on a manageable number of initiatives. The proposed initiatives set out in paragraph 3 above have been identified from a longer list of initial proposals as those most likely to provide benefits. Improving the level of parental mileage rates beyond inflation, the use of volunteer drivers, the provision, in some cases, of cycles and the introduction of differential privilege rates were also considered. It might be possible to revisit some of these ideas at a later stage.

5 Legal implications

5.1 None

6 Financial implications

6.1 The financial implications of these proposals are set out in paragraph 3.1.

7 Personnel implications

7.1 No personnel implications have been identified.

8 Impact assessment

8.1 Proposals in this report could improve the service provided to some pupils with Special Educational Needs

8 Crime prevention issues

8.1 No crime prevention implications have been identified

9 Views of the Local County Councillor

10.1 The proposals, when implemented, would have an impact across the County Council.

Recommendations

1 That the success of the first round of spend to save initiatives be noted

2 That the proposals in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 be approved for implementation.

3 That any further investigations required regarding the other proposals in paragraph 3 be carried out and proposals for implementation be the subject of a separate report(s) to the Executive Member for Education

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

Report from Environment Department on further Home to School Transport Spend to Save Proposals.

NB: the list excludes

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II