NORTHERN IRELAND EDUCATION AND
LIBRARY BOARDS’
HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT
BEST VALUE
FUNDAMENTAL SERVICE REVIEW
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT UNIT FOR
EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS
May 2000
This report has been prepared by the Central Management Support Unit (CMSU) for Education and Library
Boards.
The CMSU is an inter-board unit established to manage the process of Best Value across all five Education and
Library Boards. Its role includes leading out a programme of Fundamental Service Reviews.
The review of Home to School Transport is the first Service to be examined in a five-year programme which will
cover all services delivered by Education and Library Boards.
Further copies of the report may be obtained from the CMSU, The Southern Education and Library Board, 3
Charlemont Place, The Mall, ARMAGH, BT61 9AX (Tel: 028 3751 2222/3751 2327).
E-mail [email protected]
This report is also available on the Southern Education and Library Board’s Internet Website at www.selb.org
Notes:
(1)
The Appendices referred to in this report are bound in a separate booklet
(2)
The use of the term ‘parent in this report refers to parent or person with parental responsibility.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
CONTENTS
Page No
1.0
Introduction
4
2.0
Terms of Reference
5
3.0
Methodology
6
4.0
Challenge
7
5.0
Compare
8
6.0
Consult
13
7.0
Compete
16
8.0
Finding and Recommendations
18
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
Application/Entitlement
Operational Arrangements
Vehicle Maintenance, Fuel and Insurance
Management Information
Management of Staff
Concessionary Seats
Special Education
Policy Issues
General
18
23
32
36
39
45
51
54
61
9.0
Conclusion
62
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Labour Government, as part of its commitment to modernise Local Government introduced a Bill
“The Local Government Act 1999” more commonly known as “Best Value” which came into effect on 1
April 2000 in England and Wales.
1.2
One of the key principles of the Act which primarily centres around a culture of continuous improvement
with a major focus on customers and quality, requires organisations to be committed to and effect a
programme of “Fundamental Reviews”.
1.3
The Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland, in response to the legislation effected in England
and Wales, entered into arrangements, voluntarily to develop a comprehensive approach to managing
Best Value in the Education Sector.
1.4
The establishment of the CMSU, managed for the five Boards by a Project Board, agreed the broad terms
of reference for the Unit which included the responsibility for leading fundamental reviews on behalf of
all five Boards.
1.5
An agreed programme of reviews was established with the Transport Service being selected as the first
major service for review, on the basis of its significant spend within education, coupled with the fact that
as a service it had also previously been the subject of an independent audit by the Northern Ireland Audit
Office.
1.6
The review of the Transport Service can be regarded as a pilot, not only in terms of Fundamental
Reviews, but also in terms of a new and challenging approach to the examination and delivery of all
service.
1.7
The review has been carried out within a climate of ongoing change in public services and against a
background of continuous feedback from the Pilot Authorities managing Best Value in England.
1.8
The significant contribution of all those directly involved in the review is to be commended.
1.9
In particular, the contribution of Transport Officers and their staff, both in terms of time, effort and
honest commitment to the review process, has been most welcome and an invaluable part of the review.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
2.0
TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.1
The Project Board agreed the following terms of reference for the review of the Transport Service:
The Fundamental Performance Review of Transport will examine the area of home to school transport or
travel assistance in accordance with arrangements approved by the Department of Education under
Article 52 of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986 (as substituted) (The 1986 Order), for eligible
pupils enrolled at grant-aided schools and institutions of further education.
The review will examine the delivery of services in pursuit of the Boards’ statutory duties in the above
area but will exclude any specific examination of transport in respect of youth, meals, library and
building or grounds maintenance activities.
With regard to the home to school component of the Transport Service the review will clearly define the
scope and standards of the service; challenging and questioning the existing arrangements and making
meaningful comparisons and benchmarks with other providers, both external or otherwise.
The review will involve extensive consultation with stakeholders in this service area and will make
recommendations for the future delivery of the Home to School Transport Service, based on an
evaluation of a range of options.
2.2
The confines within which the Transport Service operates is defined within DENI Circular 1996/41 and
the joint five Board Transport Strategy (Appendix I and II respectively).
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
3.0
METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW
3.1
In drafting a methodology for the review, reference was made to a range of published materials from the
Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), guidance from local councils and
general information from the Local Government Association.
3.2
The Project Board subsequently approved the methodology (Appendix III). The management of the
project was controlled with reference to the Government recommended methodology, Projects in a
Controlled Environment (PRINCE).
3.3
The review follows the classical four ‘C’s approach of Challenge, Compare, Consult and Compete, the
details of which are described in the following sections.
3.4
The project Board also approved the working group framework of a Review Team in each Board who
were made up of functional managers, transport managers and staff, Best Value Officers, finance
representatives, maintenance staff, drivers, school principals and independent service staff and Board
members in some cases (Appendix IV).
3.5
The role of these teams in liaison with the CMSU was to critically challenge and evaluate all information
in relation to their own Board and be appraised at each step of the review of ongoing arrangements across
Boards.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
4.0
CHALLENGE
4.1
The first critical stage in the review of Transport began with the establishment of the Review Teams in
each Board. The first meeting took place in the Belfast Education and Library Board in September 1999.
In terms of commitment to the review it should be noted that approximately 50 meetings involved the
CMSU during the process. This does not take account of the numerous other internal meetings which
took place across the five Boards in support of the review.
4.2
While appearing as the first ‘C’, in the process of the four ‘C’s, the process of challenge, completely
underpins the approach to carrying out a review.
4.3
By its very nature all information should be challenged as to its validity and necessity and as such the
challenge function remained uppermost throughout the course of the review.
4.4
In challenging the Transport Service a number of basic questions were identified as follows:
•
Why do we provide the service? Is it still relevant?
•
Do we have to provide the service or could someone else do it instead?
•
Are there new ways of providing the service or other ways of reaching the desired outcome, e.g.
would there be merit in increasing the proportion of the service currently delivered by external
providers?
•
What would happen if we stopped providing the service? Would someone else provide it?
For example, it we paid all those entitled to transport assistance a cheque there would be no need
for fleets of vehicles, vehicle maintenance workshops, drivers and escorts; but what effect would
this have on the quality of service offered? Is the Best Value with a customer focus?
•
What would happen if we increased or reduced the standard of service? What would be the
financial and service implications?
4.5
These basic questions and their answers helped to define and examine the existing transport arrangements
across the five Boards.
4.6
This initial exercise allowed the Review Team in each Board and the CMSU to gather and document a
comprehensive picture of arrangements in the provision of a Home to School Transport Service and
helped develop the first steps in identifying the critical issues for the delivery of this service.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
5.0
COMPARE
5.1
The comparison stage entailed gathering data both internally and externally in terms of both costs and
processes. While the review primarily concentrated on inter-Board comparisons, significant reference
was also made to practices in GB local education authorities, local councils and some local trusts.
Furthermore, reference was also made to extensive research carried out by Sian Thornthwaite, a well
established and recognised consultant in the Home to School Transport area.
5.2
The comparison of specific costs and processes is contained within each section of the report.
5.3
This section provides high level information on cost only, gathered during the course of the review. The
detailed information on trends relating to specific means of provision is listed in section 8.2 Operational
Arrangements (Appendix V).
5.4
On the basis of 1998/99 figures approximately £46m was spent on Home to School Transport. This
equates to 114,000 children out of a pupil population of 350,000. In terms of provision the main blocks
are:
Public Transport has 55% or £24m, 59% pupils
Boards have 22% or £10m, 28% pupils
Taxis/Private Operators 21% or £9m, 11% pupils
These percentages are calculated on total expenditure excluding the cost of escorts and administration.
The totality of spend over all services is shown on page 11.
5.5
From 1991/92 – 1999/2000 expenditure has increased from £27m to an estimated £49m, i.e. and increase
of 81%.
TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE (£000’s)
Board
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
Belfast
North Eastern
South Eastern
Southern
Western
Total
1,797
6,434
5,933
6,983
6,300
27,447
1,900
6,989
6,503
7,850
6,774
30,016
2,045
7,549
7,142
8,529
6,935
32,200
2,162
8,211
7,866
9,242
7,223
34,704
2,579
8,971
8,784
10,106
7,672
38,112
2,635
9,573
9,708
10,935
8,075
40,926
3,440
10,108
10,100
11,493
9,776
44,917
3,451
10,580
10,336
12,459
9,366
46,192
1999/2000
Estimate
3,400
11,217
10,865
13,769
9,894
49,145
Note: Administration costs only included since 1995/96
5.6
Since September 1997 when legislation was introduced to control transport expenditure, the costs have
continued to rise.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
5.7
5.8
Post September 1997, fewer pupils are now being transported to school. The reduction is from 116,000
to 114,000. However, this general picture conceals a number of other factors:
i.
the number of pupils on Board vehicles is largely unaltered at 32,000;
ii.
public transport has seen the most significant reduction form approximately 72,000 pupils pre
September 1997 to 67,000 in the 1998/99 financial year, despite a growth in the number of pupils
being transported to integrated schools; and
iii.
pupils transported by taxis and private operators have increased by approximately 3,000 or 33%.
Typically for local education authorities transport accounts for approximately 2% of total expenditure. In
Northern Ireland, expenditure on transport is approximately 5% of total expenditure. The higher level of
expenditure in Northern Ireland is attributable to the denominational and selective system in operation
and continues to increase. For example, pre-September 1997 legislation transport spend accounted for
4% of total Boards spend. Details of the figures for 1996/97 to 1998/99 are tabled below. The increasing
spend on transport is arguably at the expense of other Board services.
TRANSPORT EXPENDITURE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BOARD EXPENDITURE
Board
Belfast
North Eastern
South Eastern
Southern
Western
Total
1996/97
Total Spend
(£000’s)
175,977
208,068
185,540
212,215
188,087
969,887
%
1.50
4.60
5.23
5.15
4.29
4.22
1997/98
Total Spend
(£000’s)
177,353
209,931
182,385
215,910
192,891
978,470
%
1.49
4.56
5.32
5.06
4.19
4.18
1998/99
Total Spend
(£000’s)
160,684
199,374
172,286
205,872
174,757
912,973
%
2.15
5.31
6.00
6.05
5.36
5.06
5.9
By 1998/99 Transport for Special Education (including transport to special units and special schools)
accounted for 21% of total spend yet provided for only 6% of pupils (page12). The number of pupils
provided for under Special Education has risen at approximately 4% per year since 1996/97.
5.10
The average per pupil cost and the minimum and maximum costs per mode of transport for 1998/99 are
shown in the table below in descending order of cost.
AVERAGE UNIT COST PER PUPIL PER MODE OF TRANSPORT 1998/99
Total All Boards
Taxi*
Private Operator*
Public Transport
Board Vehicles**
Private hire of Public Transport
Parents Car
Average
Average
Per Pupil
Cost
£
p
1,279.83
561.74
352.94
300.96
269.58
236.11
397.08
Range
Minimum
Maximum
£
p
1,084.21
318.05
273.06
251.97
216.35
200.00
317.38
£
p
1,428.57
932.29
375.37
862.35
447.06
1,269.23
534.67
These figures exclude administration costs.
*
Separate costs not available for taxis and private operators in the North Eastern Board. This average
is based on information from the other four Boards.
** In comparing costs of Board vehicles and other operators the figures shown for Board vehicles do not
reflect the capital costs required for the replacement of vehicles.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
5.11
In terms of main providers, i.e. public transport and Board buses, Board transport is the lowest at
approximately £301 per pupil. However, the issue of capital funding is of major concern, with the
backlog for replacement of vehicles standing at approximately £10m. This factor is addressed in the
Economic Appraisal (Appendix IX) and further expanded upon in Section 7.0 Compete.
5.12
Sian Thornthwaite quoted the average unit cost for transport on the basis of approximately 100 local
education authorities as more than £500 per child.
5.13
While taxi and private operator provision is the most expensive means, it is this element of provision
which has increased most in terms of the number of pupils transported in the last few years.
5.14
Vehicle Maintenance, fuel and insurance accounts for approximately £3.9m expenditure, with a range
from £1735 to £3598 per vehicle. Further detail is contained in Section 8.3 Vehicle Maintenance.
5.15
Transport administration accounts for £900,000 expenditure with the average cost of administration per
pupil at £7.81 within the range £4.82 to £12.97. Further detailed information in relation to staffing is
contained in Section 8.5 Management of Staff.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT PERCENTAGE EXPENDITURE BY MODE OF TRANSPORT 1998/99
21%
1%
22%
1%
Board Vehicles
Public Transport
Car Allowance
Taxis/Private Operators
Private Hire of Public Transport
55%
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
PERCENTAGE EXPENDITURE COMPARED TO PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Costs
Pupils
20%
10%
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
ia
l
Sp
ec
at
io
n
Ed
uc
Fu
r
th
er
&
H
ig
h
er
Po
st
Pr
Pr
im
ar
y
im
ar
y
0%
6.0
CONSULT
6.1
The concept of consultation and customer involvement underpins the current drive for “Best Value”.
Listening to and involving users of services in making improvements, setting standards and reviewing
services is now fundamental to the process and is arguably the most important of the four ‘C’s.
6.2
The general research across other authorities currently undertaking Fundamental Reviews has shown that
there is no particular blueprint for effective consultation, but a wide range of approaches. The test is to
ensure that a wide range of representative views are obtained.
6.3
In terms of mapping out an approach to consultation, an agreed list of stakeholders for the Transport
Service was identified and a range of Methodologies for carrying out consultation approved by the
Project Board (Appendix VI).
The main approaches to consultation were:
i.
ii.
focus groups;
questionnaires.
6.4
Each of the five Boards developed a Consultation Plan which included the main transport stakeholders:
staff, pupils, parents, school principals and boards of governors (Appendix VII).
6.5
In addition, a range of other organisations and authorities were approached by the CMSU on behalf of all
five Boards (Appendix VIII).
6.6
A summary of the main groups consulted and the number of responses is as follows:
82 principals
40 principals (special)
588 pupils
582 parents
100 drivers
20 escorts
50 Transport staff
25 private operators
13 Special Education staff
6.7
Each Consultation Plan highlights the issues for each Board respectively and should be actioned
accordingly where local issues have been identified. In summary the key issues/themes identified are as
follows:
•
Application/Entitlement
Process works reasonably well
Assessment/scheduling requires experienced staff
Checking disputed distances per statutory walking distance rule time consuming
Potential for smart card technology
Information from Boards to school is generally good
Bus passes should be provided for all pupils
Collection of unclaimed passes while necessary is time consuming
Growing number of appeals
Referrals from Senior Clinical Medical Officers inconsistent
Interpretation of word ‘walking’
Cost of duplicate pass excessive
•
Operational Arrangements
Board
Good relationships with schools
Board bus highly valued/clean/good driver attitude
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Board service perceived as reliable and caring
Driver consistent
Ageing fleet
Three for two rule should not apply over 10 years of age.
Translink
Reasonable and acceptable service with some exceptions
Overcrowding on Translink
Time-keeping on Citybus
Journey time to and from school
Attitude towards customer care and the Board
Changing drivers means difficulties on routes
Private
Reasonable and acceptable service with few concerns
Concerns regarding general condition of vehicles
Training for private operators
Child protection and taxis
Management of taxi service gives cause for concern
General
Use of security video cameras
Extra curricular activities affected by mode of transport
Holiday closures contentious
Scheduling relies on experienced staff
School opening and closing times have a major impact on cost of service
Behaviour and code of conduct required – collective responsibility
Comprehensive vetting of all drivers
Review of routes irregular and time consuming
Liaison with Department of Regional Development required on road gritting
Concern regarding Child Protection Issues
Need for formal complaints mechanism
Policy required in relation to Reading Units
•
Vehicle Maintenance, Fuel and Insurance
Potential use of mobile phones/radios, flashing lights in cases of emergency
Nature of heating in buses
Improved access for children (lower steps)
General condition of drivers’ facilities inadequate
Power steering in all buses
Competent in-house service
•
Management Information
Lack of technology
•
Management of Staff
Need for improved communication between Headquarters, schools and providers
Training in relation to special needs/first aid/sign language/safety equipment
Availability of PCV drivers and relief
Need for schedules
Good service provider
Need to examine provision and quality of uniforms
Need for quality information
Need to feel valued
Staff suggestions scheme and reward should exist
Updated training for vehicle maintenance staff on new developments
Greater demands from public
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Need to examine transport staffing structures
Identity cards would be useful
•
Concessionary Seats
General charging will have administrative implications
Concessionary seats welcomed by schools
Split views in relation to charging
•
Special Education
Need Transport Policy for Special Education
Need emergency contact numbers
Drivers/escorts need information on child’s medical condition
Internal arrangements between Special Education and Transport Branches need addressed
Very high level of service provided
Good relationship and communication between Boards and schools
Need for training on behaviour management for drivers and escorts
Issues on child protection raised
Clarification of roles and responsibilities
Concern regarding potential cuts in service
Perceived by staff as caring and reliable
Parents trust drivers
Ensure adequate provision of first aid kit
Necessity for contact between parent and provider regarding commencement of service and ongoing
Statemented pupils not attending nearest school
Journey time difficult to control
Increase in number and size of wheelchairs
Increase in number of children in respite care
•
Policy Issues
Seatbelts a necessity
Statutory walking distance unreasonable
Statutory walking distance impacts on parental choice
Parental choice should be uppermost
Safety of pupils boarding and disembarking buses
6.8
The findings from the consultation process have been documented under the relevant headings in the
section on findings and taken into account in the recommendations where appropriate.
6.9
In general, consultation on the review of Transport has been welcomed by stakeholders who valued the
opportunity to comment on the service provided.
6.10
The benefits of consultation in terms of its contribution to continuous improvement can only be observed
through regular review.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
7.0
COMPETE
7.1
GENERAL
7.1.1
In terms general good practice, this section should normally cover options such as market testing, private
finance, strategic partnerships and even strategic contracting out.
7.1.2
At present, approximately 75% of Home to School Transport is provided by external sources including
Translink and private operators.
7.1.3
Furthermore in terms of private operators this is already subject to competition.
7.1.4
The thrust of this section is therefore to focus on the comparison of methods of private provision and the
options for replacement of Board vehicles.
7.1.5
As part of its review of Transport in 1997 the Northern Ireland Audit Office recommended that
alternatives to outright purchase should be considered, e.g. lease purchase.
7.1.6
In addition, continued pressure remains in the public sector in terms of accessing capital resources.
7.1.7
Against this background the Department of Education asked for the inclusion of an “Economic
Appraisal” on the replacement of vehicles to be carried out as an integral part of the Fundamental Review
of Transport.
7.1.8
A summary of the main issues arising from the Economic Appraisal (Appendix IX) follows. The full
appraisal should be read in detail.
7.2
ECONOMIC APPRAISAL
7.2.1
The appraisal was carried out in line with the basic steps outlined in the Northern Ireland Preface to the
Green Book which sets out HM Treasury’s general principles regarding public sector economic appraisal
and evaluation.
7.2.2
The basic steps entailed:
i.
the identification of need and strategic context for the appraisal;
ii.
objectives;
iii.
identification of options;
iv.
consideration and costing of options; and
v.
recommendations.
7.2.3
The Department of Education’s Economic Appraisal Branch was approached initially regarding the
framework and again on completion of the appraisal. This was to ensure both the appropriateness and
completeness of the appraisal exercise.
7.2.4
Eleven options were initially identified. These were further refined and four were retained for costing.
7.2.5
These options were:
i.
replace all vehicles currently due replacement;
ii.
replace all vehicles currently due for replacement and thereafter adhere to normal replacement
guidelines;
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
iii.
lease vehicles without maintenance;
iv.
lease vehicles with maintenance.
7.2.6
In summary, two options have been recommended for further detailed examination, namely options ii and
iv.
7.2.7
A difference of approximately £10m exists between replacement and leasing with maintenance over the
lifecycle of the appraisal, i.e. twelve years.
7.2.8
Replacement if the more cost-effective option at this stage subject to ongoing access to capital funding,
but leasing would be a viable option in an environment where capital funding is limited.
7.2.9
This appraisal is the first stage in the process of examining the means by which Boards might acquire
vehicles for the Home to School Transport Service.
7.3
TAXIS
7.3.1
As previously indicated taxis are the most expensive means of transporting children to and from school at
approximately four times the cost of a Board vehicle.
7.3.2
Currently, 4,000 pupils are transported by this means of provision.
7.3.3
Information gathered during the appraisal highlighted the fact that minibuses can be leased at
approximately £6,000 per annum for a 16 seater.
7.3.4
Whilst it is acknowledged that taxi provision will have to remain as a means of prevision in some
instances, use of leasing could potentially move children from taxis into minibuses.
7.3.5
The cost of transporting 4,000 pupils by taxi is £6.1m.
7.3.6
The transporting of 4,000 pupils by minibus could potentially cost £2.4m for the leasing allowing for 10
pupils per minibus. Including an average salary of £8,000 per driver, salaries could account for £3.2m.
7.3.7
A net cost of £5.6m excluding insurance and fuel could be incurred using leasing.
7.3.8
Consideration would also need to be given to whether there would be an increase in the number of escorts
employed as a result of a move from taxis to minibuses.
7.3.9
This option removes many of the issues identified under consultation in terms of Child Protection,
flexibility, checking on operators, and potentially offers significant savings against the use of taxis.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.0
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During the course of the review and following the agreed methodology, the Review Teams established a
number of separate areas for consideration. These were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Application/Entitlement
Operational Arrangements
Vehicle Maintenance, Fuel and Insurance
Management Information
Management of Staff
Concessionary Seats
Special Education
Policy Issues
General
While the findings and recommendations, which follow, are outlined within each of these specific areas
they are all closely linked and should be viewed as a composite package of recommendations for the
Transport Service.
8.1
APPLICATION/ENTITLEMENT
8.1.1
APPLICATION PROCESS – PRIMARY
Notification of potential entitlement to transport assistance
•
This stage marks the customer’s first contact with the Boards in respect of potential entitlement
to transport assistance. It is at this stage they become aware of the fact that a child may be
eligible for transport assistance.
•
This process is essentially subject to two main approaches:
i. inclusion of information in open-enrolment booklets prepared by each Board;
ii. in addition relevant details are included in correspondence accompanying application
forms for admission to primary schools.
•
The consultation process during the course of the review did not identify any particular
problems from an administrative or customer perspective.
•
In some Boards, however, application for admission to primary schools, did not include a
reference to potential transport assistance.
Application for entitlement to transport assistance
•
On the application form four Boards request confirmation from the appropriate school
principal in relation to particulars regarding pupils, age, home address etc.
• Such information on pupils is forwarded from schools to each Board’s Open Enrolment
Section, after the school has issues confirmation to parents that their child has gained
admission. It is following this confirmation that an application for transport assistance is
made.
•
Confirmation of this data from school principals causes in some instances unnecessary delays
in information being forwarded to Transport Branches and places an unnecessary “bureaucratic
burden” on schools to provide information already available at Board Headquarters.
•
Detachable notes of guidance issued to parents with transport application forms are used in
some Boards. These notes advise parents of entitlement/non-entitlement arrangements. Where
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
these notes of guidance are not retained there is potential for confusion among some parents
regarding entitlement/non-entitlement.
•
The return date for completion by parents varies from Board to Board and in one instance was
not identified at all. This process creates undue pressure on transport administration and also
creates inconsistencies in approach across the Boards.
•
Consultation with Transport staff highlighted a number of concerns in relation to the
application process, namely:
i.
the interpretation of the word “walking” by parents;
ii.
the checking of disputed distances is time consuming;
iii.
the number of appeals has increased since September 1997; and
iv.
the assessment of entitlement requires experienced staff with good local
knowledge.
•
Notifications are issued in some Boards to parents of new children in respect of transport
arrangements; this system improves communication with parents and reduces uncertainty
regarding new pupils accessing transport for the first time.
•
In terms of an example of good communications, the South Eastern Education and Library
Board issue both a Home to School Transport Code of Practice and a booklet on Procedures
for Dealing with Behavioural Problems on Public and Board Transport.
•
Consultation with schools has highlighted a need for information on scheduling. This was
previously issued in one Board, but has since been stopped.
Recommendations: Application Process – Primary
1.
A paragraph reaffirming potential entitlement should be included with all school applications.
(B/NE/SE/W)
2.
Application forms should be included with confirmation of the child’s place in school. (Schools)
3.
All application forms should have an agreed return date e.g. last Friday in April common to all Boards.
(All)
4.
All transport applications should be forwarded directly form parents to the Transport Section. (B/NE/SE/W)
5.
A random sample of applications should be selected for checking against school records. (All)
6.
Boards should examine the potential for verifying pupil information with the open Enrolment Section and
the development of a system to manage such. (All)
*
For other recommendations which relate to primary, post-primary and colleges of further and higher
education see Recommendations – General.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.1.2
•
APPLICATION PROCESS – POST-PRIMARY
The application process for post-primary schools operates in two ways:
i.
in four of the Boards an application form is submitted as in primary schools. The application
form is enclosed as part of a package of information issued at transfer stage;
ii.
in the Western Education and Library Board the application system works on the basis of
information supplied by the Transfer Branch in the Board (unlike the primary method). The
Transport Branch received information on all pupils transferring to post-primary schools. The
transport pupil database is examined to determine whether or not the pupil has existing transport
provision and on this basis transport requirements are determined.
•
The system used in the Western Board maximises the use of information already in existence in the Board
by the multiple use of data which is captured once.
•
Post September 1997 legislation regarding the application of “nearest suitable school” rule has made
decisions regarding entitlement extremely complex.
•
Students transferring post GCSE Level to undertake ‘A’ Level studies in another educational
establishment would appear to be treated differently across the Boards. Issues such as number of
available subjects being offered and what category of school those subjects are available in, impact on the
decision whether or not a pupil/student will be entitled to assistance.
•
The issues identified in the consultation process are as listed previously above in the Primary Section. An
additional issue has been identified regarding the amount of time involved in the collection of unclaimed
passes.
Recommendation: Application Process – Post-primary
7.
A consistent approach should be adopted to students transferring post GCSE. (All)
8.1.3
APPLICATION PROCESS – COLLEGES OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
•
Boards still administer the provision of transport assistance to approximately 8,500 students in colleges
post incorporation at a value of approximately £3m.
•
Processing of Further Education transport applications begins very late, i.e. mid-August. This causes
unreasonable pressure to provide passes, a situation which is added to by the delay in colleges confirming
availability/non-availability of courses in either a particular college or on a particular campus.
•
In the Western Board the practice of issuing a temporary pass (with a five day duration) exists. These
temporary passes are issued by colleges and reduce the likelihood of confusion between drivers and
students as well as alleviating pressure on the Transport Officer at an extremely busy time. These
temporary passes can be issued as required until the end of September.
•
There is concern regarding the number of duplicate passes being issued.
•
There is an issue regarding the appropriateness of all pas validation. In one Board approximately £30,000
was recovered last year as a result of procedures which entail a thorough comparison of passes issued to
students actually on roll.
•
At present there is no onus on colleges to initiate any action in this area, as they are not responsible for
this element of the Transport budget.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
A number of students currently in receipt of discretionary awards are also receiving transport assistance.
Recommendations: Application Process – Colleges of Further and Higher Education
8.
The Western Education and Library Board practice of issuing temporary passes during September should be
examined with a view to extending this to all Boards. (B/NE/SE/S)
9.
Initially the process of verifying continued attendance at colleges should be thoroughly followed up and an agreed
common format developed. (All)
10.
An agreed policy and procedures should be established in relation to discretionary awards and entitlement to
transport assistance. (All)
8.1.4
MEDICAL TRANSPORT
•
Assistance with transport will be provided for eligible pupils/students on medical grounds following a
recommendation form a medical professional.
•
Exceptional circumstances allow for the rule relating to statutory walking distance to be relaxed. This
provides assistance to children who would not normally be entitled to transport assistance as well as to
those entitled. The basis upon which this decision is made varies between Boards, depending on the
nature of a medical condition, a distance factor of the category of school.
•
The process by which referrals for assistance are handled also varies between Boards, with formal
arrangements existing in some Boards, e.g. the North Eastern Board and the onus being placed on parents
in other Boards. (Appendix X)
•
Consultation has highlighted that there is inconsistency in medical referrals from Senior Clinical Medical
Officers.
Recommendations: Medical Transport
11.
An agreed policy and procedures should be established on which decisions are made. The existing
protocol in the North Eastern Board could be used as a basis for considering requests for transport
assistance on medical grounds. The procedure should ensure information is received in a consistent
format from medical professionals. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.1.5
APPLICATION PROCESS - GENERAL
•
Pupil information is already held on the CLASS system and the potential exists to establish links with
CLASS/schools to automate the transfer of information to Boards.
•
A number of recommendations applicable to all sectors are listed below:
Recommendations: Application Process – General
12.
Detachable notes of guidance should be issued with all transport application forms. (B/SE/S/W)
13.
All ineligible applicants should be notified within a specified period. (All)
14.
In terms of providing a quality service all successful first time applicants should be notified of
entitlement and arrangements for transport provision including the issue of a Code of Behaviour and
Code of practice by a specified date. (All)
15.
All documentation in relation to the application process should be examined on an inter-board basis
for consistency and clarity. (All)
16.
Confirmation of scheduling should be issued to all schools. (B/NE/S/W)
17.
The potential for transfer of information from the CLASS/CLASPS system should be examined.
(All)
18.
The use of the CLASS system should also be examined for the possibility of simplifying the
validation of pupils in attendance for the purpose of collecting unclaimed passes. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.2
OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
8.2.1
Having identified in the previous section how parents make application for transport assistance, this
section deals with arrangements for the provision of transport to and from school.
8.2.2
ROUTE PLANNING
•
Initial route planning is a time consuming and difficult exercise. Boards have previously examined
the potential purchase of software to assist in this process, but this was not progressed for a number
of reasons: including cost which was considered to be prohibitive and secondly the available
software tended to follow routes which would not be deemed by Boards to be the shortest walking
distance.
•
Stakeholders, e.g. governors, principals, parents, are sometimes involved in initial route planning
where schools open or close or existing schools amalgamate.
•
The Boards will not introduce new bus routes or extend or vary an existing route for individuals or
small groups of pupils where the cost of such transport would result in unreasonable pupils where
the cost of such transport would result in unreasonable public expenditure.
•
Existing routes in many cases have been in operation for some considerable time and are normally
reviewed only as the result of a request from the school.
•
Discussions with Sian Thornthwaite have indicated that many local education authorities review
routes on a regular basis, say 2-3 years and many also use route planning software.
•
During consultation desire by some schools/ governors to be involved in determining routes other
than in cases of new school opening or school closures was identified.
•
The unwritten, but generally applicable standard of one hour maximum travelling time further adds
to the complexity of route planning and also has potential implications for the mode of transport
provided. It should be recognised, however, that Boards normally make a determined effort to
adhere to this standard where possible and that in some instances this has resulted in increased
costs due to alternative provision being made.
Recommendations: Route Planning
19.
All routes should be reviewed on an agreed cycle, either on a time basis or triggered by the
performance indicator – Load factor as a ratio of total capacity. (All)
20.
Consideration should be given to involving stakeholders in the setting/review of routes where this is
likely to result in a more efficient and effective service. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.2.3
SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING TIMES AND HOLIDAY CLOSURES
•
Boards of Governors having the power to decide upon opening and closing times of schools has increased
the pressure on the Transport Service in its efforts to provide an efficient and cost-effective service.
•
The advantage of being able to determine or influence opening/closing times is that maximum use can be
made of vehicles.
•
This is further exacerbated by the issue of teachers supervising children for a period not exceeding 15
minutes before and after school.
•
Opening and closing times was also an issue strongly reinforced during consultation with schools/parents.
•
Information obtained form Sian Thornwaite indicates that local education authorities have in the past
considered charging schools for increased transport costs as a result of change in opening times made by
them.
•
The determination of school closures during which transport is not provided has caused difficulties
between schools and boards.
•
Differences are also acknowledged across the Boards in the treatment of transport for pupils at 2.00pm,
e.g. the Southern Board provides a service for all pupils at this time. Other Boards provide an early
service only where it will ease congestion on the 3.00pm run. It is estimated that this service costs the
Southern Board approximately £200,000 per annum.
Recommendations: School Opening and Closing Times and Holiday Closures
21.
Establish an improved understanding between schools and Boards of the impact of opening and
closing times on the Transport Service. Schools should be encouraged to formally involve Transport
before establishing or changing opening and closing times. (All)
22.
Boards should critically re-evaluate the existing arrangements for holiday closures. (Working Group
on Harmonisation)
23.
Southern Board should review its practice of a universal service at 2.00pm. (S)
8.2.4
PROVISION
Board Vehicles
•
Approximately 28% of pupils granted transport assistance travel by Board bus.
•
This equates to almost 32,000 children of whom 48% are primary school pupils. Another 42% are
post-primary and the majority of the remainder is special needs children. Many of this latter group of
pupils are transported by use of specialist vehicles with lifting equipment, harnesses, etc. In the
Belfast Board special needs pupils are the only children transported on Board vehicles. The average
cost per pupil on a Board vehicle (excluding special needs is £227.07. The individual costs for each
Board (Appendix V) are broadly similar for this mode of transport.
•
At an average unit cost of £300.96 (including special needs) the cost for transporting a child on a
Board vehicle is competitive with public or private operators.
•
The consultation process has consistently shown across the Boards that this mode of transport
achieved the highest degree of satisfaction with regard to perceived quality of service. This is
attributable to factors such as the absence of overcrowding, the standard of buses is generally good,
drivers are known and staff are generally perceived as reliable and caring.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
On the negative side, the service poses limitations on extra curricular activities in that there is a
single run after schools close and pupils must make their own arrangements outside of this.
•
The major issue with this provision is the backlog of replacement of vehicles, which is dealt with in
the attached Economic Appraisal. (Appendix IX). Currently the backlog is approximately £10m.
•
The attached appraisal has illustrated that leasing buses is a viable option in the absence of adequate
capital funding to address this backlog.
The potential advantages of leasing are:
i. no injection of capital resources required;
ii. administrative responsibility associated with vehicle maintenance can be removed if leasing
option includes maintenance;
iii. permits organisation to maintain a modern fleet;
iv. allows flexibility in size and number of vehicles.
•
When the Northern Audit Office reported on Home to School Transport (1997) the five Boards had a
fleet of approximately 700 vehicles in total. This number has now decreased to approximately 600.
However, the number of pupils being transported by Board vehicles is largely unchanged at
approximately 32,000.
•
Generally local education authorities in England and Wales contract out the home to school service
but there is evidence within recent Best Value home to school transport service reviews that a
number of authorities are investigating the option of returning to some form of in-house provision,
e.g. Northamptonshire.
Recommendations: Board Vehicles
24.
Boards should continue to optimise the use of existing arrangements and closely examine the
potential to expand this means of provision to cover pupils currently with private operators and taxis.
(All)
25.
A five Board team comprised of representatives from Transport and Finance and staff experienced in
economic appraisals should be established to fully investigate leasing as an option for replacement of
vehicles.
Public Transport
•
Approximately 59% of pupils are carried by public transport. The majority of these are post-primary.
This mode of transport includes Ulsterbus, Citybus and Northern Ireland Railways.
•
This is the largest sector of provision both in terms of pupils numbers (67,000) and expenditure
(£24m).
•
The existing contract with Translink does not include specific references to standard of service.
•
In the regulated system, which exists in Northern Ireland, the Boards have no realistic alternative but
to use Translink and to pay the charges as levied by Translink on an annual basis. Traditionally these
annual charges have been increased by more than the rate of inflation.
•
Translink manages the bulk of passenger-carrying routes in Northern Ireland. Private provision only
exists subject to the approval of the Department of Regional Development.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
The decrease in the number of pupils from 72,000 pre-September 1997 to the current 67,000 has not
been reflected in any corresponding reduction in the overall expenditure.
•
In effect the re-introduction of under utilisation charges has negated the intention that the change in
legislation would achieve a reduction in costs.
•
Ongoing attempts to negotiate any reduction in costs by reducing the number of operational days
have failed.
•
The rate payable per pupil is calculated on the total number of children using the service across the
five Boards. The rate for 1999/2000 is £375.00. This has increased by 17% since 1997/98 when the
rate was £320.00
•
However, in comparison to typical rates paid by local education authorities in England for public
transport (where the market is deregulated and alternative competition exists) Translink rates
compare favourably. Overall the United Kingdom rate per pupil is now greater than £500 per annum.
•
Whilst Translink operates as a commercial undertaking, albeit, under arrangements agreed with, and
with some subsidisation from the Department of the Regional Development; in essence, one
Government Department, i.e. Department of Education is paying another, i.e. Department of
Regional Development.
•
Until such times as deregulation is introduced, existing arrangements with Translink are likely to
continue.
•
Translink has installed hardware and software in Boards to facilitate ticket production, but the
number of terminals is inadequate.
•
The potential for further development of smart card technology exists with the introduction of the
new ticketing arrangements.
•
From an administrative point of view a number of issues have been identified. These include the
following:
i.
the process of verifying ticket renewal is onerous for Boards, schools and Translink.
This verification has traditionally been requested in May of each year leaving a limited
time for schools to verify the information before summer holidays. This in turn
decreases the timescale available for production and issue of a ticket for the following
school year;
ii.
the provision of dual passes has not been extended to cover combined bus/rail journeys;
iii.
the refund system for Ulsterbus/Citybus and Northern Ireland Railways is inconsistent;
iv.
there is concern about the number of passes issued which are used infrequently.
•
The consultation exercise across the Boards showed that the service provided by Translink is
generally satisfactory but some areas were identified as being in need of improvement. These
concerns focus on over-crowding, bad behaviour, driver attitude, journey time and a regular change
of drivers on routes.
•
A five Board policy has been drafted on Behaviour and has already been well received by the broad
spectrum of stakeholders.
•
It has been highlighted that there are many issues being resolved directly between schools and
Translink of which Boards are unaware.
•
Consultation carried out with Translink has highlighted a number of issues:
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Concerns
Early benefits of harmonisation reduced due to pressure from schools
Impact on rural services if current arrangements altered or services withdrawn
Abuse of duplicate ticket facility
Benefits
One supplier – reduced administration
Translink management – supervision network
Early resolution to problems
Local knowledge
Local relationship with schools
Modern fleet
Timetable services available outside school hours – extra curricular activities,
e.g. sport – including Saturdays
General benefits to schools, e.g. reduced private hire rates sponsorship of ‘Voyager Pack’ for primary
schools
Opportunities
Proposed Translink integrated ticketing system, e.g. Smart Card – other uses – school meals,
attendance records, etc
Review school/opening/closing times – potential cost savings/better utilisation of vehicles
Use double deck buses
Potential for joint bus/rail ticketing
Proposed ‘Code of Practice’ for Home to School Transport – improved behaviour, improved
relationships – better understanding
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Public Transport
26.
Formal arrangements should be re-examined with Translink specifying terms and conditions of
operation and standards of service. (All)
27.
In association with more formal monitoring arrangements procedures and guidelines for special
circumstances should be drawn up on the approach(es) to be taken by different stakeholders in
dealings with Translink, with the underlying principle that Boards should be fully informed of all
difficulties regarding the service provided. (All)
28.
In view of continuing relationships with Translink, the potential for development of a remit for
strategic partnership arrangements should be pursued in the areas of management, maintenance and
particularly procurement. (All/DE)
29.
Development of smart card technology should be pursued in conjunction with Translink. (All)
30.
With greater use of technology the process of verifying passes for renewal should be done on an
exception basis where schools are asked to verify information on year 12 pupils who are continuing
in education and any other exceptional leavers (e.g. family moving house). (All)
31.
Arrangements should be pursued with Translink to increase the number of terminals provided to
Boards. (All)
32.
The refund system for Ulsterbus/Citybus and Northern Ireland Railways should be consistent to
avoid confusion amongst parents. (All)
33.
The provision of dual passes (at a favourable rate) should be pursued with Translink. (All)
Private Hire of Public Transport
•
In some instances under-utilised routes have been taken from Translink and put out to tender only to be
re-awarded to the company as private hire.
•
Approximately 1.65% of pupils travel by private hire of public transport, accounting for just over 1% of
expenditure.
•
The majority of pupils carried are primary and post-primary.
•
The average unit cost per pupil for this mode of transport is £234.73 excluding Special Education.
Recommendation: Private Hire of Public Transport
34.
Where such routes are awarded evaluation of the costs should be undertaken on a regular basis to
ensure that the average cost per pupil does not exceed that of a sessional ticket. (B/NE/SE/W)
Taxis
•
Almost 4,000 (4%) pupils are transported by taxi of which more than half are within the Special
Education Sector.
•
The provision of taxis is the most expensive option at an average cost of £1,280, (including special needs)
being approximately 4 times more expensive than a Board bus. (This average cost excludes the cost of
Board employed escorts but does include charges for escorts provided by the taxi operator).
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
While the overall number of pupils being transported has decreased, this segment of provision is
continuing to grow.
•
Market forces have a major impact on the rate payable per mile. The rate ranges form 25p to £1.50 per
mile.
•
The current practice of tendering for taxis is not consistent across all Boards. One Board pays loaded
miles, whilst the other four pay base to home to school to base.
•
Whilst it has been argued that paying loaded miles increases control there is no evidence to suggest that
these Boards are running the service more economically than those who pay using the alternative way.
•
Boards are required to record taxi mileage for the Assessment of Relative Needs Exercise
•
The practice of acquiring select lists, tendering and subsequently awarding runs to taxi firms has been
pin-pointed by the Transport Branches as one of the most problematical areas to deal with.
•
External problems include: firms handing runs back, having insufficient vehicles to cope with the number
of runs awarded; changing runs without the approval of the Board; ensuring that all drivers are vetted;
amended runs mid-year as a result of pupil changes and failure of drivers to meet parents/pupils before
commencing work.
•
Internal problems such as a delay in getting information from Special Education on the number of
children requiring transport can result in runs being tendered on the basis of out of date information.
•
In some Boards the processes of awarding contracts, authorisation of invoices and payment of invoices
are not sufficiently segregated to ensure probity.
•
A recent Audit Report on the procedures relating to the management of taxi operations identified a
number of control weaknesses in relation to areas such as checks on entitlement to transport, invoice
authorisation and mileage checks.
•
In terms of consultation the standard of taxi provision was generally satisfactory.
•
Issues identified concentrated on vetting of drivers, inadequate number of spot checks on licences,
insurance etc.
•
The implication of the Children Order and other Child Protection legislative issues in light of one to one
contact between a driver and a pupil was raised.
•
Alternative options to the provision of taxis are discussed in Section 7 Compete.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Taxis
35.
The procurement of taxi services should be standardised across the five Boards. (All)
36.
A five Board working group should be established in association with Internal Audit to draw up
procedures to improve efficiency of operations and standardise recording of taxi mileage. The work
currently being undertaken by the Area Boards’ Legal Service in relation to tendering should form
part of the focus for the group. (All)
37.
Segregation of duties should be established in all Boards to ensure that no officer is involved in all of
the processes of awarding contracts, receipting services and processing payments. (All)
38.
Careful consideration should be given to the implications of Child Protection legislation and the
potential for employing escorts on all taxis. (All)
39.
Boards should consider leasing vehicles as an alternative means of provision. (All)
40.
A level of checking on private operators should be agreed on a five Board basis. This checking
should be carried out on a termly basis. (All)
Private Operators
•
In addition to taxis approximately 7,000 (6%) of children are transported by the private sector either
in large passenger vehicles or minibuses.
•
The average unit cost for transporting a child by private operator is £561.74 (including special
needs).
•
The emergence of this form of provision has been largely due to the non-availability of capital to
either acquire additional vehicles or to replace existing ones.
•
Whilst it can be argued that the tendering process should ensure that this service is competitive there
has been no thorough analysis undertaken of how cost effective it is in comparison to leasing of
vehicles.
•
Consultation has shown that school and parents are generally well satisfied with the service with the
most significant concerns being centred around whether drivers have been vetted and trained, an
inadequate number of spot checks on licences, insurance etc.
•
Many schools have reported having excellent relationships with the operators, which could in some
instances be attributed to the flexibility that this ‘commercial’ service offers, e.g. schools paying the
operator from school funds for a second run to facilitate extra curricular activities.
•
Where private operators have a scheduled route parents can also avail of that service for their
children as paying customers, thereby reducing traffic congestion on the roads and potentially
reducing the risk of accidents at school.
•
Recent checks by the Department of the Environment’s Transport Licensing and Enforcement
Branch on independent operators carrying children to school detected that approximately 21% of
vehicles checked were operating with defects or without the requisite Road Service Licence, PSV
Certificate or tax. A number of drivers without the appropriate licence were also detected.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Private Operators
41.
Regular checks should be carried out to ensure that transport by private operators is as cost-effective
as use of an internal service. (B/SE/S/W)
42.
A level of checking on private operator should be agreed on a five Board basis. This checking should
be carried out on a termly basis. (All)
Car Allowances
•
There are approximately 1,600 car allowances (1% pupils) payable costing £374,000 per annum.
•
Car allowances account for less than 1% transport expenditure.
•
There are two types of car allowance payable:
i.
Pure Car Allowance
Where a child lives more than the statutory walking distance from the nearest school and there is
no Board, no public transport or no taxi service available in the area. Parents are paid a rate per
mile for four journeys per day.
ii.
Refund of Bus Fares
Payable in some Boards where a pupil is entitled to a sessional pass but parents choose to take
their child to school by car rather than travel by bus. The maximum payable does not exceed the
cost of a sessional ticket. The Belfast and Western Education and Library Boards operate a
policy that where a sessional ticket is available no car allowance is offered.
The rate payable has been agreed across the five Boards to be in the range of 11p to 20p per mile,
but the application of this is inconsistent.
•
For the allowances payable averaging £213.90 (excluding Special) per pupil there is considerable
administration involved at both school and headquarters ranging from checking of actual distances,
validation of attendance and ensuring that an updated Department of the Environment Exemption
Certificate is held in respect of the allowance.
•
The payment of these allowances often negates the need to tender for a taxi route and on some occasions
may avoid the need to employ an escort.
•
The practice operated by the Belfast and Western Boards eliminates administration of any sort and would
also be supportive of the Government’s stated policy to reduce traffic congestion.
•
The existence of the ‘refund of bus fares’ allowances reduces the number of sessional tickets being
supplied. This impacts on the under-utilisation charge and it could be argued that Boards are paying
twice by allowing this provision to continue.
Recommendations: Car Allowances
43.
Where payment of allowances continues the amount payable should be standardised where
circumstances allow. (All)
44.
Subject to legal opinion, the Belfast and Western Education and Library Boards practice in relation to
refund of bus fares should be adopted by all Boards. (NE/SE/S)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.3
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, FUEL AND INSURANCE
8.3.1
GENERAL
•
Boards have approximately 600 vehicles which are used to provide the Home to School Transport
Service. These include 17 seaters, 33 seaters, 53 seaters and tail lift vehicles which are used for special
care.
•
Approximately £2m is expended on vehicle maintenance per annum, £1.7m on fuel and approximately
£0.7m on insurance.
•
Planned maintenance should avoid serious problems occurring thereby minimising maintenance costs and
ensuring maximum safety in the transport of children.
•
All vehicles are scheduled for regular servicing either on a time basis or mileage basis. The driver has an
allocation of time prior to the start of each day in which to carry out the daily vehicle check on oil, water
etc. This daily vehicle check is not recorded with the exception of the North Eastern Board, but a defect
book/sheet exists in the other four Boards to record any fault found. If a serious defect was not detected
and a driver found negligent disciplinary procedures would be invoked. Details of the daily check to be
carried out are to be found in the Driver’s Instruction Booklet. On finding a defect drivers contact the
garages to arrange repair.
•
The Belfast and South Eastern Boards contract out their operations while the other three Boards have inhouse maintenance workshops. The Belfast Board’s contract is for two years and the South Eastern
Board’s is for five, both with provision for an annual price review. In each case the detail of the contract
sets out a pricing schedule for the work undertaken, with any major repair over a specified limit requiring
the authorisation of these two Boards.
•
The arrangements in the three Boards with in-house provision largely reflect how the operation worked
during the period of CCT. In the Southern and Western Boards the maintenance is carried out at a
number of depots throughout the Board area whilst the North Eastern Board operate from a single depot
in Ballyclare.
•
Each Board faces a number of pressures in relation to depots, the Southern Board requires more space in
Dungannon and Newry and the North Eastern Board requires more space in Ballyclare. The need for
more space has been generated by new vehicles being larger in size and requiring larger lifting
equipment. The Western Board requires new premises as a result of a number of limitations with the
current accommodation. Any extension of the existing depot would hamper the proposed development of
the school which is located on the same site.
•
The value of stock held by the three in-house Boards equalled approximately £350,000 at the end of
1998/99. The level of skilled manual staff (Appendix XV) is fairly consistent across the 3 boards with inhouse provision but the North Eastern Board has no clerical support.
•
Visits to a depot in each Board area showed that in the North Eastern and Western Boards record-keeping
systems are not computerised. The Southern Board has operated a computerised system, Tranman, for a
number of years and has recently moved to an updated windows version of the software. This allows
information to be held in terms of job cards, hourly rates and parts, which allows total job costs to be
generated at a vehicle level. This information is then transferred manually to journal entries for input to
the Board’s financial system.
•
There are a number of modules within the Tranman system details which can be found in the section on
Management Information.
•
The Northern Ireland Audit Office Report (1997) quoted that the Audit Commission recommended that
vehicle servicing for commercial vehicles should be undertaken on the basis of mileage as servicing on a
time basis led to vehicles being serviced too frequently. The Southern Board is the only Board which
services vehicles on the basis of manufacturer recommended intervals (with allowances made for the age
of the vehicle).
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
The lack of capital resources over the past number of years to replace vehicles has resulted in buses being
maintained beyond their expected useful life. In the interests of safety, Boards have therefore had to
place greater emphasis on repairs and maintenance and this is reflected in a higher level of expenditure.
•
Three performance indicators are published annually for vehicle maintenance, which are: maintenance
cost per mile, per passenger and per vehicle (Appendix XI). The figures shown do not take account of
distance, terrain, the age of the vehicle or driving conditions.
•
Transport Officers have agreed a number of performance indicators to be reported on whenever a fleet
management system is introduced. Details of these are included in the section on Management
Information and it should be noted that the weightings for vehicle maintenance recommended in the 1992
Audit Commission Report should be incorporate.
•
Not all Boards hold information at cost centre level, regarding vehicle maintenance. Even where costs do
exist the actual breakdown of constituent parts is unavailable.
•
The maintenance component can be broken down further into a number of parts and this report examines
three main elements, i.e. parts, tyres and fuel.
8.3.2
VEHICLE PARTS
•
There is no common tender for parts in the three Boards with an in-house maintenance service.
•
The sole Northern Ireland supplier of parts for commercial Mercedes vehicles provides a range of
discounted prices (10-35%) to all Boards. However, this discount is not passed on in full to those Boards
where the Maintenance Service is contracted out.
•
It has also been highlighted that a greater rate of discount may be available from suppliers outside
Northern Ireland.
•
A range of commonly used parts and the various prices paid by Boards for these is attached (Appendix
XII). This Appendix demonstrates the potential for savings on each part if all Boards purchased parts at
the cheapest rate currently available.
•
To quantify the volume of these parts is not easily achieved. Firstly, because a non-computerised
environment exists in two Boards and secondly in those Boards where the service is out to private firms
there is no record available in the Board of the parts used for vehicles.
•
However, the Tranman system in the Southern Board could be used to provide an indication of the
volume of those parts used.
8.3.3
TYRES
•
Tyres are tendered on a five Board basis with the option of receiving a tender for the entire province or
for specific areas within the province with the result that Boards obtain the best offer possible.
•
Four of the five Boards avail of this contract. In the South Eastern Board, tyres are provided by the
private vehicle maintenance contractor on a supply and fit basis. The North Eastern and Western Boards
buy tyres from the tender, but fitting is carried out in their own depots. The Belfast and Southern Boards
call off the tender on a supply and fit basis. The various rates for a specific make of tyre are shown
(Appendix XII).
8.3.4
•
FUEL
Approximately £1.7m is spent on vehicle. Fuel. No five Board tender exists. In some Boards the fuel for
vehicles is tendered along with heating oil. With the exception of the Belfast Board all other Boards have
at least one bulk fuel tank, supplemented by local garages. The Belfast Board uses fuel cards. The use of
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
fuel cards has been trialled in the past, but has been unsuccessful due to difficulties with providers.
Current use of fuel cards is limited, but Boards would be willing to explore this option again.
•
8.3.5
•
8.3.6
•
The Southern Board operates a fuel monitoring system. This facility allows for the effective monitoring
of fuel consumption and currently covers approximately 60% of their vehicles. Data on driver, vehicle
and the amount of fuel usage is collected on software (Timeplan) and transferred to the Tranman system
by disk.
VEHICLE INSURANCE
The North Eastern Board hold a five Board contract for third party vehicle insurance. This policy is
apportioned on an equal rate for all vehicles taking account of a total assessed risk.
TRANSLINK
As indicated earlier Translink is the largest provider of Home to School Transport and sole Public
Transport Authority in Northern Ireland with approximately 1,500 vehicles.
A brief examination of their practices for vehicle maintenance has highlighted the following:
−
Translink apply maintenance and inspection standards required in Great Britain as opposed to
Northern Ireland. This is done on the basis that their standards represent “Best Practice” and are
better supported with documented technical standards. The application of such standards allows a
mechanism for benchmarking performance.
−
Previous benchmarking exercises carried out by PriceWaterhouseCoopers against a range of Great
Britain providers gave Translink a positive assessment on all factors.
−
Translink procedures are developed in accordance with the Department of Transport Guidelines
entitled “Guide to Maintaining Vehicle Roadworthiness” and the Vehicle Inspectorate,
“Categorisation of Defect” Manual.
−
In general, all vehicles receive a monthly detailed inspection with mileage related servicing items
scheduled to the nearest monthly inspection. Every 12 monthly inspection coincides with annual
PSV licence preparation.
−
Independent auditing of fleet standards is carried out on 10% of the fleet annually by the Freight
Transport Association. (FTA).
−
Engineering standards are maintained by applying prescriptive standards for planning and
documenting maintenance instructions and maintenance records. The management of maintenance
procedures is further supported and independently audited by the application of ISO 9002
management systems which are being pursued for all garages in 2000.
−
In general, parts are purchased directly from GB manufacturers and substantial discounts on bulk
purchases are available. Similar purchasing arrangements exist for tyres and fuel.
−
Monthly oil sampling of approximately 1000 samples allows significant preventative maintenance
which contributes to more effective vehicle management.
−
Technology is generally being rolled out across all outlets on a staged basis.
−
In general, maintenance systems alone cannot ensure that vehicles are roadworthy. This must be
coupled with good quality maintenance practice and skills, together with supervision and effective
management of the system. There must be firm management commitment to reviewing and
improving systems where defects are identified, or where the fleet size or nature of the business is
changing.
−
A strategic approach to vehicle management is essential.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Vehicle Maintenance
45.
Board should seek to maximise their combined purchasing power through greater use of five Board
contracts. (All)
46.
As owners of one of the largest Mercedes fleet in the United Kingdom the potential for greater
discount from UK suppliers should be investigated. (All)
47.
Boards should consider wider advertising of tenders in the United Kingdom in a bid to secure more
economical rates for parts. (All)
48.
Boards should investigate whether there is any substantial saving to be made through the purchase of
parts from alternative suppliers (even if this is only after the warranty expires on vehicles). (All)
49.
Consideration should be given to developing strategic partnerships with Translink in the area of
purchasing parts, tyres and fuel. (All)
50.
Translink should be approached to examine Best Practice on maintenance systems, including the use
of fuel monitoring systems. (All)
51.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers should be approached to examine the potential of applying the GB
benchmarking exercise to Board services. (All)
52.
Considering the location and proximity to Belfast of the North Eastern Board Depot, the Belfast
Board should carry out a detailed examination of its potential use in comparison to its existing
contracted-out service. (BELB)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.4
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
•
There are basically two types of management information required by managers of the Transport
Service:
i. Pupil related data e.g. the number of children by type of school attended.
ii. Vehicle related data e.g. maintenance costs.
The Boards’ Information Systems Programme Directorate (BISPD) has already identified Home to
School Transport as an area for early action, but agreed that as a fundamental review was being
carried out it would be prudent to await its findings before making any decision.
•
Gathering information for the review has been an onerous task. Compiling and analysing the large
volume of data on pupil numbers, by type of transport by type of school has been extremely timeconsuming and more prone to error in a situation where little of the information is computerised
despite the fact that this type of information is requested frequently for various purposes. It has not
been possible to obtain completely accurate information on the cost of transport for various
categories of school.
•
The dearth of performance indicator information in this report is further evidence of the need for such
computerised systems.
•
Sian Thornthwaite indicated that the information technology situation in local education authorities
ranges from limited to good. With regard to management information the situation varies across the
five Boards with Boards having information technology strengths in different areas.
•
The Western board has a good pupil database comprised of individual pupil and guardian details
which are related to entitlement and schedules. This system provides a very comprehensive record of
where children are at a particular time and is invaluable for parental/school type queries. This is a
bespoke solution which was established in house in the McDonnell Douglas system and therefore has
a limited life as a legacy system.
•
The Northern Ireland Audit Office Report (1997) identified that an effective system of collecting,
analysing and disseminating key transport data has an important contribution to make to ensuring that
vehicles are well maintained and their usage and running costs controlled. Inadequate information on
transport services may lead, for example, to an unsound strategy, poor decisions and missed
opportunities to correct operational deficiencies.
•
The value of a good management information system lies in the quality of information provided on
all fleet vehicles. The minimum requirement is:
i. an up-to-date vehicle inventory;
ii. utilisation records;
iii. fuel consumption records;
iv. cost-comparisons – budget/actual;
v. exception reports on vehicles falling outside performance limits;
vi. maintenance analysis by vehicle category and;
vii. service and maintenance history.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
For fleets with more than 100 vehicles computerised fleet management systems are virtually
indispensable.
•
The Southern Board has operated “Tranman” software for vehicle maintenance for a number of
years. Some of the modules within this are fleet management, service scheduling, stores, vehicle
costing and hire management.
•
The North Eastern Board produces some performance indicators, e.g. cost per pupil. This is also a
McDonnell Douglas bespoke solution.
•
The level of financial information available also varies with some Boards holding costs at individual
vehicle level whilst others do not;
•
It is considered that a combination of information systems would provide the basis of a satisfactory
management information solution for the Transport Service, of which a fleet management system
would be one element of this. Other bespoke development work would need to be undertaken to
provide other elements of the management information solution required, e.g. the attribution of total
and per capita costs to the various modes of transport and school sectors. To assist Boards in
estimating future expenditure requirements, the system should also have the facility to project costs
based on various assumptions in relation to estimated pupil numbers and changes in unit costs.
•
There is no evidence of any widespread practice of performance monitoring on transport operations,
because it is largely a manual operation.
•
As referenced previously in Section 8.1 there is also a need to make more use of existing information
available elsewhere, e.g. pupil information in class system/open enrolment/transfer.
•
In the absence of introducing technology, many of the findings in the Northern Ireland Audit Report
still hold. However, significant progress has been made in this regard with the production of a
Project Initiation Document (Appendix XIII) for the five Boards, followed by the development of a
Statement of Operational Requirements (Appendix XIV) for the South Eastern Board.
•
There have also been a number of site visits to organisations which currently operate fleet
management systems coupled with demonstrations by companies offering similar software for
purchase or lease. The products which have been seen are widely used by a number of local
authority reference sites. All packages appear to offer the broad requirements outlined in the
Statement of Operational Requirements and include good report writing features which would in turn
provide good management information.
•
An indication of costs at the upper end of one of the solutions examined would indicate a cost of
approximately £20,000 per Board or £100,000 in total.
•
In general, the introduction of a fleet management system will only be of benefit to the Boards if
there is consistency of data definition to enable inter and intra-Board comparisons.
•
As three Boards have in-house maintenance workshops, the networking and associated aspects would
need to be considered for the introduction of an on-line fleet management system.
•
It would also be feasible to develop an in-house system as opposed to buying a system. This option
would require specific resources in terms of finance, staff and time to enable the project to be
successfully implemented across the five Boards.
•
The general culture of reporting on performance indicators has been given greater emphasis with the
recent Audit Commission findings on performance indicators. These include public sector corporate
health, national and a new set of Best Value indicators for 2000/2001. In addition, local authorities
have been encouraged to develop service specific indicators which would contribute to improved
management of the service. These indicators should be designed to focus attention on users’
experience of service delivery (outputs and outcomes) rather than just the resources devoted to them
(inputs).
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
At present only three performance indicators in respect of transport are formally reported in the
Board’s Annual Report. These are maintenance cost per mile, per passenger and per vehicle.
•
A number of core performance indicators were highlighted in the Northern Ireland Audit Office
Report and as part of this review these have been both refined and supplemented. Detailed
discussions have taken place to agree a broad set of relevant performance indicators which will allow
for improved management and inter-Board comparison. The agreed list of performance indicators is
detailed in the list below:
•
Efficiency Indicators – measurement of service inputs to outputs
Cost per mile of vehicle
Vehicle miles per active vehicle
Vehicle miles per gallon/litre
Maintenance cost per mile
Fuel cost per mile
Percentage absenteeism (overall and by category of staff)
•
Effectiveness Indicators – measurement of resource utilisation in achieving transport objectives
Cost per pupil/student journey
Cost per pupil/student mile
Pupil/student carrying hours as a ratio of total working hours (wheel turning efficiency)
Average travelling time per pupil/student
Local factor as a ratio of total capacity per journey
Number of accidents
•
Quality Indicators – measurement of quality
Number of complaints (Definition of complaint to be established)
Complaints per vehicle (by type of transport by source of complaint, e.g. parent, principal)
Number of appeals upheld as percentage of appeals submitted
In addition, an independent quality audit should be developed
•
While the introduction of management information systems will address technical and administrative
aspects of the service, there is still a requirement to monitor customer satisfaction on a continued
basis. This is an issue supported by the consultation exercise.
Recommendations: Management Information
53.
The procurement and installation of a management information system encompassing a fleet
management system and pupil/school type data should be progressed as a matter of urgency. (All)
54.
Preparatory work for the introduction of a management information system should be commenced
immediately. This should encompass establishing agreement on areas such as approach, common
coding within the accruals system, common interpretation of the performance indicators and
maximised use of existing information systems. (All)
55.
Boards should introduce reporting on the required performance indicators as soon as possible with a
suggested target date of April 2001 taking into consideration the weightings recommended by the
Audit Commission. (All)
56.
A Transport Satisfaction Survey should be developed and carried out on an annual basis. Link with
existing PriceWaterhouseCoopers research could also be developed. The potential for developing the
consultation exercise on an agreed five Board basis should be considered. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.5
8.5.1
MANAGEMENT OF STAFF
•
There are four main categories of staff employed by the Board to ensure the provision of a Transport
Service. These categories are administrative staff, drivers, escorts and vehicle maintenance staff (this
latter category is not applicable to the Belfast and South Eastern Boards).
•
Other staff employed by Translink and private firms are also engaged in the delivery of the service,
e.g. bus and taxi drivers and escorts. These staff are discussed in Section 8.2 Operational
Arrangements. Expenditure on staff accounted for approximately £10m or 21% of the 1998/99
expenditure. Details of the number of grades of administrative and vehicle maintenance staff
employed directly by Boards is included (Appendix XV). The findings on staff are detailed within
each of the following categories.
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
•
The functions of the administrative staff normally include:
Assessment of transport entitlement
Management of Board vehicles
Management of Board employed drivers and escorts
Organisation of sub-contracted bus and taxi services
•
The Northern Ireland Audit Office Report “Towards Better Practice in the Management of Education
and Library Boards’ Transport Services” refers to the disparity between Boards in respect of
management and administration. A hope is expressed that job evaluation would lead to up-to-date
job descriptions in all cases.
•
In terms of administrative costs per pupil for 1998/99 the amount for each Board is shown below in
descending order:
BELB
WELB
SELB
NEELB
SEELB
Average
£
12.97
11.31
8.00
5.22
4.82
£7.81
Full details of costs are attached (Appendix XVI).
•
While the Belfast Board has the highest per pupil cost, it does in fact have the lowest number of staff
and the smallest number of pupils transported with the focus primarily on the provision of a service
for special needs pupils.
•
In terms of segregation of duties, it is difficult to envisage the efficient and satisfactory management
of the service with any fewer staff.
•
Consultation with special schools in Belfast resulted in the Transport Service provided being very
highly commended.
•
The Western Board costs more than twice as much to administer per pupil as the South Eastern
Board. Although overall running costs for the service are at significantly less cost in the Western
Board, this may be attributed to the fact that a good pupil database exists. This may result in more
efficient scheduling coupled with the fact that a number of Transport Officers who have detailed
local knowledge are in post. The Northern Ireland Audit Officer reported that these District
Transport Officers in the Western Board help to filter out and deal with the everyday difficulties,
leaving the Chief Transport Officer with the freedom to fulfil a more strategic role in relation to
Transport management.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
The South Eastern and North Eastern Boards manage a similar number of pupils and vehicles with
broadly similar running costs. The lower unit cost of administration in these two Boards reflects the
absence of District Transport Officers in their staffing structures and a lower level of clerical support.
•
The Southern Board which manages the greatest number of pupils, using the second largest transport
fleet does have District Transport Officers. Because of the higher level of use of private operators in
the Southern Board than in the Western Board, there has been a need (identified through
consultation) for extra resources at this level to increase the level of checking on private operators
and to assist in the process of checking disputed walking distances.
•
A paper on a Proposed Common Management and Administrative Structure for Board Transport
Branches has been presented to the Association of Chief Administrative Officers following the
Northern Ireland Audit Office Report. This paper recommends the strengthening of structures in
Boards to a level similar to that operating in the Western Board (Appendix XVII). The absence of
comparator information in local education authorities is recorded. The paper advocates a number of
ratios, e.g. one Transport Officer per 5000 pupils in receipt of transport assistance but there is no
rationale included to support this. The principle for the existence of a certain type of post is
acknowledged. However, in the absence of a formal efficiency evaluation to determine numbers and
grades, it is not possible to quantify appropriate staffing levels.
•
The Business Efficiency Programme carried out in the South Eastern Board in January 1998 by a
number of senior drivers acting in the capacity of District Transport Officers realised savings of
£200,000 showing the benefit of such a structure.
•
The North Eastern Board currently have a Staff induction Book defining roles and responsibilities in
relation to all aspects of the service.
•
The South Eastern Board currently hold ISO 9002 accreditation for their Quality Manual which
includes documentation on transport administration systems.
•
The consultation exercise with staff raised many concerns and comments relating to issues such as
statutory walking distances, appeals, taxis etc have been included in the appropriate sections of this
report. However, there is a general concern that in terms of Board priorities the Transport Service
not being considered to be directly classroom related tends to have a low profile, despite the fact that
this service marks the beginning and end of the educational day for 114,000 pupils.
There is a feeling that other departments, senior management and Board members do not fully realise
the pressure which transport staff have to endure from an increasingly demanding public who have a
perception that transport is a free service to which they have an automatic right.
•
8.5.2
The consultation exercise with staff also highlighted the view of the lack of esteem for the service
which is reflected in the low priority given to investment for example information technology
systems or in the fact that they tend to be frequently the last branch consulted, if at all, in relation to
development proposals.
DRIVERS
•
There are approximately 290 full-time and an equivalent number of part-time drivers employed in the
five Boards costing £6.4m. Legislation requires that drivers are qualified to PCV standard. Boards
vary in their approach to recruiting drivers with some Boards employing only those who are qualified
to PCV level and others recruiting drivers and training them to PCV level and putting them through
the test. This latter process is considered to be expensive and the introduction of the theory test has
slowed the process. Drivers frequently leave after passing the test.
•
There appears to be little difficulty in recruiting permanent drivers with a full Category D Licence,
but all Boards have difficulty getting qualified drivers who have kept up their licences to cover shortterm temporary absences.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.5.3
•
The North Eastern Board is in the process of training all drivers in the Institute of Advanced
Motoring. This process exceeds a Category D Licence and requires drivers to undertake a 2 ½ hour
test. It will improve driver effectiveness and efficiency and will also demonstrate to schools and
parents that the drivers are well qualified and competent. The North Eastern Board propose to pay
drivers’ membership fees to the Institute for the first year.
•
Regular checks are carried out on drivers’ licences by the Board for endorsements or restrictions.
The responsibility for withdrawal of a licence on medical or any other grounds rests with the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency, however, Transport Officers are concerned about the risk of drivers
who have medical conditions (such as heart problems) continuing in employment.
•
Drivers are issued with a Handbook (Code of Good Practice) covering their responsibilities regarding
driving and pupil welfare.
•
General training for drivers is limited and does not always happen before they actually commence
their runs. This can be due partly to the fact that they are recruited in insufficient numbers within a
particular Board to warrant organisation of a course. Some Boards train drivers of private firms.
Training covers elements such as manual handling, behaviour, maintenance of equipment, weather
conditions and emergency procedures. However, as the training tends to be 1-2 days these elements
are not covered in any great detail. Transport Officers are investigating further training on a range of
issues such as specific medical conditions, fire evacuation etc for both drivers and escorts.
•
The management of drivers especially those who do not pick their vehicles up from a central location
such as a depot or large school is difficult. Drivers do not have mobile phones and there is no radio
system for contact with Headquarters.
•
Whilst these may not be regarded as a suitable means for regular contact they may be useful as a
contact to Board Headquarters, school or emergency services in the case of an accident.
•
The Western Board is currently piloting the operation of mobile phones with a limited number of
drivers.
•
All of the above factors are relevant to Risk Assessment which is more fully covered in Section 8.8.
•
Consultation with drivers identified a number of issues, namely;
i.
need for improved communication between Board Headquarters and drivers, e.g. leaflets, press
releases, mobile phones etc;
ii.
lack of appreciation of drivers’ values;
iii.
examination of depot working conditions;
iv.
examination of quality of uniforms.
ESCORTS
•
There are approximately 360 part-time escorts employed by the five Boards at a cost of £1.5m.
Escorts can be employed either in relation to an entire bus of special pupils or for an individual pupil
with a specific requirement, e.g. a child with a tracheotomy being transported by taxi. An escort
employed for a specific pupil is a consequence of a recommendation received from Special
Education.
•
A Handbook on the Code of Good Practice also exists for escorts, however, training is limited. There
are exceptions to this as in the example above where an escort for a child who has a tracheotomy is
given specific training on the use of suction equipment.
•
The future role of escorts may warrant further investigation in light of the Children Order.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
An updated Handbook is due to be forwarded to Trade Union Side of the Joint Negotiating Council
in the near future.
•
Escorts are increasingly provided by private operators as part of the taxi contract due to difficulties in
recruitment.
•
Where this arrangement exists, the onus for management of issues such as attendance, cover, etc lies
with the operator.
•
The average hourly rate for private sector escorts is £4.50-£5.00 compared with Board escorts at an
hourly rate of £4.45 excluding employer’s contribution.
•
An escort training needs specification was identified and has been drawn up and will be tendered on a
five Board basis. This will ensure that all escorts employed by the Board or private operators are
trained to the level as dictated by the National Register of Escorts.
•
Consultation with escorts established a number of issues, namely:
i.
lack of information on special needs children;
ii.
need for more specific training;
iii.
need to communicate with parents;
iv.
need for the examination of general safety on vehicles;
v.
potential for use of mobile phones in emergency situations
vi.
uniforms should be provided as standard.
A number of these issues are covered under Section 8.8 Risk Assessment.
•
8.5.4
A number of other comments were made with regard to escorts. These relate to special needs
provision and are included in detail in Section 8.7.
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE STAFF
•
An in-house provision for the maintenance of vehicles exists in three of the five Boards. In Southern
and Western Boards this function is carried out at a number of depots located throughout the Board’s
area. In the North Eastern Board it is managed at a single location in Ballyclare. The Southern
Board held but has not renewed ISO 9002. As with the administrative staff the structure varies
across the Boards more markedly so in the administrative element within the maintenance operation,
e.g. the North Eastern Board or the Western Board do not have any clerical assistance to maintain a
largely manual record keeping system.
•
While vehicle maintenance is contracted out in the Belfast and South Eastern Boards the organisation
of this function is carried out by Headquarters administration staff and senior drivers. There are no
specific staff in these two Boards to deal with maintenance related issues such as analysis of fuel
consumption and the road-worthiness of vehicles and as such there is a large dependence on the
private firms/drivers to highlight problems.
•
The existence of client/contractor relationships is still in evidence in the Boards, in that Transport
Officers as the client find themselves having no bargaining power in the cost of maintaining vehicles.
In addition in one Board there still remains a division of responsibilities between sections within the
vehicle maintenance operation. All garage staff have City and Guilds or equivalent qualifications.
The detailed costing of vehicle maintenance including staffing is contained in Section 8.3 (Appendix
XI).
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.5.5
STAFF ABSENCE
•
The levels of staff attendance vary across the categories of staff. However, in general, higher levels
of absenteeism are displayed by drivers and escorts. The number of days/hours lost in 1998/99
equate to a value of approximately £360,000 (assuming a minimum hourly wage of £4.45).
•
Information on levels of staff absence is not received on a regular basis by managers. There is a
belief that a ‘sickness culture’ exists amongst some types of staff which is encouraged by the fact that
sickness leave is paid leave. The standard procedure for managing attendance is not implemented for
all categories of staff in all Boards.
•
Staff absence has been identified as a Corporate Health Indicator within the recent review by the
Audit Commission on General Performance Indicators.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Management of Staff
57.
The review of a common approach to transport management structures should be completed, with
further consideration being given to the ratio of administrative staff to pupils. Particular
consideration should also be given to the role of District Transport Officers and Senior Drivers.
(All)
58.
Develop improved systems of communication and information exchange to and from Transport
Branch. (All)
59.
The information issued with job application forms should be examined in order to make jobs more
appealing to qualified drivers. (S/W)
60.
Boards should consider setting a target of having all Boards drivers as members of the Institute of
Advanced Motoring within an agreed timescale. (B/S/SE/W)
61.
More specific training should be given to drivers and escorts in dealing with emergencies. An
awareness of what not to do can be as important as what positive action should be taken. (All)
62.
Consideration should be given to the appointment of a Fleet Engineer for those Boards who do
not currently have this expertise. This post could be on a shared basis. (B/SE/NE)
63.
The formal arrangements between the Transport Branches and the Vehicle Maintenance Branches
should be reviewed in light of the replacement of CCT. (S/W/NE)
64.
Information should be made available on a regular basis on absence for all categories of staff. As
an annual performance indicator this should be developed and reported on for the 2000/2001
financial year. Targets should be set for reducing the levels of absence. (All)
65.
Review existing provision of uniforms for drivers and escorts. (All)
66.
Consider application of ISO 9002 Standards. (B/S/NE/W)
67.
In conjunction with the Managing Attendance Policy, consideration should be given to good
practice on medical referrals and the introduction of regular health checks for all drivers. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.6
8.6.1
8.6.2
CONCESSIONARY SEATS
LEGISLATIVE POSITION
•
The provision of concessionary seats by education and library boards is governed by Article 52(3) of
the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986, as substituted by Article 23 of the Education (NI) Order
1997. Article 52(3) enables Boards, with the approval of the Department, to provide transport for, or
pay the whole part of the reasonable travelling expenses of pupils attending grant-aided schools for
whom the Board is not required to make provision under Article 52(1). Article 52(5) provides for
Boards to make charges for such transport and for the remission of charges in certain circumstances.
•
Article 52(3) therefore enables a Board to provide transport where it is not considered necessary to
facilitate the attendance of pupils at grant-aided schools, for example, on a concessionary basis to
pupils who live within statutory walking distance of the school attended and where there are seats
available on Board transport. It does not, however, confer a duty on, or power for, the Board to
provide transport to an independent school.
POSITION IN BOARDS
•
Concessionary seats are available to pupils who live under the statutory walking distance on Board
buses and on vehicles provided by private operators. Concessionary seats are not available on public
transport routes as Translink would charge for such provision.
•
Information regarding the existence of concessionary seats is published in the Boards’ Open
Enrolment Booklets. These seats are offered subject to availability on vehicles.
•
Generally there is a variation in approach to the management of concessionary seats. The existing
procedure in each Board is identified below.
BELFAST
•
As all Board buses and private operators service special schools concessionary seats do not exist.
NORTH EAST
•
Concessionary seats are available to pupils who live under the statutory walking distance to the
nearest suitable school. Confirmation that a seat is being offered is issued to the parent including a
proviso that the seat may be withdrawn if a pupil with full entitlement requires that seat.
•
In the event that concessions have to be withdrawn to provide for a child with full entitlement all
seats are withdrawn on a particular bus.
•
Concessionary seats are available on Board buses and with private operators.
SOUTH EASTERN
•
Concessionary seats are available to pupils who live under the statutory walking distance to their
nearest suitable school.
•
In the event that concessions have to be withdrawn to provide for a child with full entitlement all
seats are withdrawn, on a particular bus.
•
Concessionary seats are available on Board buses and private operators.
SOUTHERN
•
Concessionary seats are available to pupils who live under the statutory walking distance to their
nearest suitable school. Parents are verbally informed that a concessionary seat may be withdrawn at
any time.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
In such an event only the requisite number of concessions would be withdrawn to make provision for
a pupil(s) with full entitlement to transport assistance.
•
The decision as to which pupil loses the concessionary seat is taken following discussion with the
driver.
•
Concessionary seats are available on Board buses and with private operators.
WESTERN
8.6.3
•
Concessionary seats are available to pupils on any route (not restricted to nearest suitable school).
•
A formal application process exists specifically for concessionary seats.
•
Parents are advised that concessionary seats
i.
are provided at the discretion of the Board;
ii.
may be withdrawn at any time;
iii.
may be charged for.
•
Parents are also advised to consider the suitability of this school for their child if concessionary
transport was not available.
•
If they wish to proceed the application includes signing to verify that all of the above conditions are
understood and accepted.
•
In the event that concessionary seats have to be withdrawn the order of withdrawal is as follows:
i.
concessionary not attending nearest school (no other siblings);
ii.
concessionary not attending nearest school (sibling or not);
iii.
concessionary within walking distance (by distance i.e. concessionary pupils nearest to school
withdrawn first).
•
concessionary seats are also offered on a bus route (other than to the child’s home) to facilitate childminders etc.
•
concessionary seats are available on Board buses with private operators. A small number are also
available on taxis,
NUMBER OF CONCESSIONARY SEATS
The number of concessionary seats across Boards is as follows:
Board
(a)
Concessionary
Seats
(b)
Total No of Pupils
Board Vehicles
(c)
Total No of Pupils
Private Operators
B
NE
SE
S
W
Total
N/A
328
253
1,075
4,635
6,291
850
2,307
2,919
10,313
15,609
31,998
545
1,024
355
3,330
1,374
6,628
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
(d)
Total
Pupils
(b+c)
1,395
3,331
3,274
13,643
16,983
38,626
May 2000
(e)
Concessions
As % of (d)
N/A
9.85
7.73
7.88
27.29
16.29
8.6.4
CHARGING
POSITION IN LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
•
The 1998 Annual Report on School Transport produced by Sian Thornthwaite recorded that
authorities (with the exception of those in Scotland) are permitted to make a charge for spare seats
available on school transport.
•
Overall 52% of authorities charge for concessionary places and more than 60% of those who are
permitted to charge do so. In 1996, Sian Thornthwaite’s report indicated that most authorities
charged between £30-£50 per term; with some authorities having charging bands based on variables
such as age or distance, e.g. one authority charged £27.50 for children living less than three miles
from school and £55.00 for children living less than three miles from school and £55.00 for children
living over three miles attending a “non-appropriate” school. Currently charges range from £30-£100
per term. At the meeting held during this review Ms Thornthwaite confirmed that charges still range
from ‘nominal’ to ‘hefty’ and in authorities which have introduced post 16 charging, the amount
payable can be as much as £350/£400 per year. The experience of these local education authorities in
charging for the post 16 age group provides useful guidance on issues which will require
consideration if charging is introduced regardless of the age group. These include such issues as the
‘Green Policy’ and social exclusion. A number of interesting questions can be posed including – if
demand falls will this result in a greater number of private vehicles, i.e. parents’ cars on the road?
What if parents cannot afford to pay and currently have no other means of getting their child(ren) to
school? The tendency in local education authorities has been to remit charges if the family is in
receipt of income support or if the child has special needs.
•
Where charging has been introduced, payment is generally made, termly in advance.
IMPLICATIONS OF INTRODUCING CHARGING TO EDUCATION AND LIBRARY BOARDS
•
At present no Board charges for concessionary seats, but the Department of Education’s Business
plan for 1999/2000 referred to reviewing this position. However, the introduction of charging raises
many issues which can be categorised under the following headings:
i. Rate to be charged
ii. Pupils/parents
iii. Vehicles/drivers
iv. Administration
v. Society
•
Schools are not listed here as separate category as the implications for them are affiliated to each of
the categories (with the exception of rate to be charged).
i.
Rate to be Charged
•
Options might include:
a.
Public transport rate per mile
b. The equivalent rate per mile as payable to parents in receipt of car allowance or
c.
An annual amount not exceeding the cost of a sessional ticket
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Answers to a number of significant questions are required including:
•
Should charges be remitted for families in receipt of Income Support? On the basis that
approximately 25% of children receive free school meals, the potential for income generation is
substantially reduced.
•
Should charges be remitted for children with special needs?
•
Should a lesser rate be charged for second and subsequent children in a family?
ii. Pupils/Parents
•
At present there are differences in the system since concessionary seats are not available to
pupils/schools served by public transport.
•
In addition, where concessionary seats are available there are differences in that one Board
grants concessionary seats to schools other than the nearest suitable school. Whilst it can be
argued that this is contrary to the 1997 legislation, this policy could be said to have many
favourable points. These include facilitating parental choice in keeping with the concept of
open enrolment and the potential continuity of a chosen school for families who have
children eligible for transport assistance pre and post September 1997.
•
The consultation exercise in the Western Education and Library Board has shown that
schools regard this flexible policy as a life-line for rural schools, again raising some
interesting questions.
•
If charging were to be introduced would the Transport Service be more accessible?
Could charging re-activate an ethos of open enrolment as referred to above?
•
Would charging discriminate against those who cannot afford to pay?
•
Could children attending pre-school provision based in a primary school (whether Board
funded or private) avail of the service? GB local education authorities are allowed but
not obliged to make provision for pre-school children. If Boards were to allow preschool children to avail of a seat not only would the potential for income generation
increase, but it would assist the policy of promoting attendance at pre-school provision.
•
If a concessionary seat has been paid for could Boards legally withdraw the facility if a
seat is required for a child with transport entitlement? A policy would need to be
established to determine what seats (if any) could be withdrawn.
iii. Vehicles/Drivers
•
Confirmation will be required from the Department of the Environment as to whether or
not a Roads Service Licence is required if charging is introduced.
•
A PSV Certificate would be required for each vehicle operating in a charging
environment. It is only in recent years that all vehicles purchased for home to school
transport have been built to PSV standard, the majority of the fleet therefore do not meet
this requirement. The Boards, however, only get a letter from the Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency to verify the standard of the vehicle, but do not received a certificate
as they do not comply with the insurance requirements for passenger carrying in an
environment of charging for hire or reward.
•
On the basis of the above finding there would be increased costs for insurance. This
cost would need to be established before charges were set in order to ensure that the
income generated contributed to a viable proposition.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
The current insurance policy is a five Board contract based on overall risk in which
Boards pay an equal rate for all vehicles. The total amount paid in 1998/99 was
£218,000 for home to school vehicles. In a situation where the overall insurance costs
will increase a methodology will need to be established to take account of allocating this
increase bearing in mind that charging for concessionary seats would not be applicable
to the Belfast Board and would only be a minimal source of revenue to two of the other
four.
•
Only drivers with Category D (PCV) Licence can operate for hire or reward. A small
(but decreasing) number of Board drivers do not have the requisite licence.
•
Concerns have been raised as to how the Board’s fleet would cope if demand for places
was to increase. This argument would appear to be invalid in that presumably most if
not all pupils likely to avail of concessionary places are doing so already and
additionally the school population is generally declining.
The argument would only be valid if concessionary seats were made more widely
available than at present, e.g. to pre-school provision.
•
It has been argued that if paying concessionary seats were allowed Boards would not be
able to downsize their vehicles to a size appropriate to the number of pupils with full
entitlement. However, there is no widespread evidence to suggest that current practice
is to displace concessionary seats to facilitate purchase of smaller vehicles (even given
the current backlog for replacement of medium/large sized vehicles). This fact is also
supported by the argument that the total number of concessionary seats is comprised of a
small number of children across many vehicles. Comprehensive evidence is not
available to verify this assertion.
•
It has also been stated that in many instances outside of home to school transport a large
vehicle may be in greater demand, e.g. school trips, swimming etc all of which reduce
downtime and generate income for the overall service.
iv. Administration
•
As with other aspects of charging for concessionary seats, careful consideration should
be given to the area of administration. A formal application process will need to be
introduced to support charging. Having established a policy on who should have access
to concessionary seats there are a number of options as to how the money might be
collected. These include:
a. The driver collecting the fares
Whether daily or weekly this method is probably the most unsuitable as it is likely to be
the most time-consuming and expensive. There would be risks associated with nonpayment by pupils and cash handling, combined with the costs of counting and banking
small amounts of cash on a regular basis. It would be impractical for all cash to be
brought to a central point(s).
b. The school collecting the fares
Given the current objective of reducing the bureaucratic burden on schools this option is
not favoured. Information would need to be given to schools on paying pupils, but it is
entirely feasible that a situation similar to the collection of school meals income would
work in schools.
c.
Administered by each Board issuing bills
This option would appear to be most favoured. The Board would have all the necessary
information on the pupils, parents, distance and charge to issue a bill.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
If the Boards were to adopt the GB local education authorities approach of termly
payments in advance payment could be made in full or consideration given to setting up
periodical direct debits in respect of the amount due.
d. Administered by a single Board issuing bills for all pupils in Northern Ireland
Given the staffing implications of introducing this system and the fact that only two
Boards would generate any substantial income from concessionary seats it may be
appropriate to establish a ‘charging unit’ in only one or at most two Boards.
The mechanism whereby information on pupils for whom invoices are to be generated
should be addressed via an integrated management information system. It is
acknowledged that granting a concessionary seat must be carried out in the local Board
given its knowledge of the local area, fleet capacity etc. The granting of concessionary
seats if already in existence and there should be no increased administration unless
provision is extended. The only increase in resources required would relate to invoicing
and payment systems which are currently in existence in all Boards but which would
generate some extra work. The extent of this would need to be established but is not
reckoned to be a significant burden in the South Eastern and North Eastern Boards.
v.
Society
•
8.6.5
There is increasing emphasis in our society on what an organisation’s approach is to
quality of life, the environment and preservation of global resources. In this regard
concessionary seats can be viewed from two aspects.
a.
If charging is introduced those who may cease to use the service would
potentially add to the number of cars on the road and to the already
congested situations at schools with an increased risk to safety.
b.
Alternatively if the provision of concessionary seats was widened to either
schools other than nearest if a suitable service already exists (as a residue of
pre-September 1997 legislation) or to pre-school children the reverse of (a)
could well apply.
POTENTIAL INCOME
•
If charging were to be introduced at the minimum local education authority rate of £30 per term
on the basis of the above numbers there is the potential to generate income of £566,000. A
charge of £50 per term, (less than £1 per day) would generate almost £1 million. However, this
would have to be offset by the cost of administration and also reduced by any increase in the cost
of insurance. Even at a rate of £30 per term, if 25% of pupils were to have charges remitted, the
potential for income, pre-insurance and less administration exceeds £400,000, i.e. the capital cost
of four large buses.
•
At present the Western Education and Library Board carry 4,635 concessionary pupils. Total
transport expenditure is largely unaffected by the carriage of these pupils and in fact is reflected
in their lower unit cost per pupil than any other Board. The introduction of charging would have
the effect of not only further reducing the unit cost, but in fact reducing the overall net
expenditure on Transport.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Concessionary Seats
8.7
68.
Boards should introduce a policy and supporting arrangements for charging for concessionary seats.
Arrangements for the management of such a system have previously been developed in the Western
Education and Library Board and could be used as a framework for development of such a policy.
(NE/SE/S/W)
69.
As a minimum this policy should cover those who are currently eligible for concessionary seats and
look to extending the provision where possible to maximise the use of existing resources whilst at the
same time providing the maximum possible choice to users, e.g. the uptake of pre-school pupils and
the wider use of the service by the local community. (NE/SE/S/W)
SPECIAL EDUCATION
•
The definition of Special Education pupils within transport covers able-bodied pupils attending
special units and children with moderate and severe learning difficulties attending both special
schools and special units. Statemented children attending mainstream schools with a transport
requirement that has been stipulated as part of the statementing process are also included in this
definition.
•
Approximately 21% of the total 1998/99 expenditure (excluding administration was spent on
transporting the 6% of pupils that make up the Special Education sector within the Transport
Service.
•
On average in the United Kingdom 38% of Home to School Transport expenditure is accounted
for by Special Education transport, whilst the sector accounts for only 10% of the pupils
transported.
In terms of the average unit costs for transporting Special Education pupils based on 1998 figures
Northern Ireland costs were significantly below the average of all UK authorities.
•
Just over 42% of the seven thousand plus children in Special Education transport are carried by
Board buses; a further 34% approximately travel to school by taxi and the majority of the
remaining 24% travel with private operators. The overall number of special children being
transported has grown at a rate of 4-5% per year over the last three years.
•
The process by which special children received transport begins with a referral from the Special
Education sectors within the Boards. The bulk of these referrals are received between May and
August, but can happen at any stage during the year. The format in which this referral is made is
not consistent across the Boards. In some Boards in the referral takes the form of a letter, in
others various forms have been devised to elicit as much information as possible on the child’s
needs. However, where forms do exist these are not in a common format and nor are they
always completed with sufficient detail often leaving the Transport Section with inadequate
information on which to arrange provision.
•
The information required is held within the Special Education sector but is not always
forthcoming due to concerns regarding confidentiality.
•
In addition where that information is being received in late July/August there is a limited
timescale to organise transport. This may result in taxis being arranged for a pupil rather than
disrupt an already agreed bus schedule. This is also true of referrals ongoing throughout the
year.
•
In some instances where adequate information is provided, e.g. on the nature of a disability, or
restrictions on travelling time, there may be inconsistencies in the type of equipment specified
for children by external specialists such as occupational therapists.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
This situation is exacerbated by the increasing number of children with wheelchair requirements
and the frequency with which models of wheelchairs change. The increase in size of wheelchairs
now means that fewer pupils can be transported in a vehicle, generating the need for more
vehicles. Additionally, Transport Officers are concerned that only one model of wheelchair has
actually been crash tested.
•
Transport Officers have serious reservations about the health condition of some of the pupils
being transported. Many of these children have life threatening or degenerative illnesses with a
low life expectancy. A death from natural causes has already occurred on a Board bus.
•
There is no mechanism whereby a doctor signs that a child is fit to attend school and there is a
view that children attend school when not physically fit as school provides a respite environment
for parents.
•
Drivers and escorts are not adequately trained to deal with the severe medical needs of pupils.
This point was reinforced during consultation where drivers and escorts identified the need for
specialist training.
•
All of these difficulties are set in a context where parents, senior clinical medical officers,
physiotherapists etc are placing increased demands on the service.
•
The transport requirements of children with moderate and severe learning difficulties, whilst
sometimes inconsistently referred, are generally not disputable. This could not be said of ablebodied children who attend special units. Whilst some pupils would be unable to travel by public
transport there is a feeling that all statements carry an implicit transport entitlement even where a
pupil lives within statutory walking distance. Efforts have been made in the Boards to change
this culture and to nurture independence in pupils where possible. It is not always apparent why
a child is not being transported to the nearest suitable unit.
•
The demands on transport are subject to frequent change at short notice with regard to the
increasing number of children in respite care and temporary accommodation. Whether transport
is provided or not there tends to be inconsistency across and even within Boards; with some
Boards making provision and others not, with exceptional arrangements sometimes being made
for some foster homes/respite care centres within a Board.
•
It has been reported that dual funding potentially exists in that transport is being provided for
some Statemented pre-school children whose parents are also in receipt of motability allowance
in respect of their child.
•
In some Boards provision to part-time reading units is charged to the Transport Service even
though it is not home to school.
•
Consultation has unanimously shown across the Boards a vast appreciation for the service
provided to children with sever learning difficulties.
•
The provision of a high quality and effective Transport Service is integral to the continued wellbeing and condition of these young children.
•
Schools are concerned that senior clinical medical officers and psychologists who have only
limited interaction with a child determine that child’s need for transport assistance. There is a
view that if a child is transferring from a school to a unit that the principal/teacher in the school
from which the pupil is transferring is best placed to comment on potential transport
requirements.
•
Consultation with a number of representatives from Special Education has identified a range of
issues, namely:
-
a need for an agreed protocol between Transport and Health and Social Services Trust in
relation to equipment
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
-
determination of responsibility in relation to children in respite care
-
vulnerability of children in relation to Child Protection
-
increasing demands in relation to travel requirements from Health and Social Services
-
increasing demands from parents
Consultation with drivers/escorts indicated the following issues:
-
more information is required in relation to a child’s needs
-
advice required on how to deal with emergency situations
-
suggest a help card for each relevant child
-
lack of space on buses in relation to special pupils
•
Consideration has previously been given to incorporating the cost of transport for special pupils
in both special schools and special units attached to mainstream schools within the overall
Special Education budget, but this has not yet happened.
•
In some GB local education authorities responsibility for this aspect of the transport budget has
been passed to Special Education to manage. This ensures the availability of accurate
information and locates accountability with the decision makers.
•
Currently the Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) in England are about to publish
good practice guidance on Special Education Transport.
Recommendations: Special Education
70.
A policy should be drawn up for provision of transport assistance for special needs. This should
include transport to severe learning difficulty (SLD) schools, units and mainstream provision. It
should also cover transport in relation to respite care etc. (All)
71.
The referral process from Special Education should be formalised across the five Boards. This
should include a date by which all information is forwarded to the Transport Section and a standard
methodology for gathering information from external specialists. (All)
72.
Consideration should be given to allocating the budget for transport for special pupils in both special
schools and special units to Special Education. (All)
73.
Drivers and escorts should receive specific training in relation to a range of illnesses. This should be
targeted at Board employees and private operator staff engaged in the delivery of a service to pupils
with special educational needs. (All)
74.
A common approach to costing non-home to school transport, e.g. to part-time reading units should
be adopted. (All)
75.
Improved communication should be established between Special Education Branch and Transport
Branch in relation to the establishment of new special units/schools. This principle should be
extended to include all development proposals. (All)
76.
The guidance from the Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) should be considered as a
source of reference in relation to refining policy and procedures mentioned above. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.8
POLICY ISSUES
The section examines a number of policy areas which were highlighted during the course of the review.
These areas include:
Statutory Walking Distance
Nearest Suitable School/Category of School
Parental Choice
Green Policy
Income Generation
Seatbelts
Risk Assessment
Some of these areas are closely related and whilst examined separately have common themes.
Consequently the recommendations on these policy areas have been grouped where appropriate at the end
of this section.
The five Education and Library Boards have duties in accordance with the following:
1986 Education and Libraries (NI) Order
DENI Circulars 1996/41
Prevailing Transport Legislation
Health and Safety Legislation
DENI Strategy – Education and Library Boards’ Transport Services Strategy
8.8.1
STATUTORY WALKING DISTANCE
•
According to DENI Circular 1996/41 to determine those pupils who should be assisted with transport
Boards should have regard to the walking distance as defined in paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 13 to the
1986 Order, i.e. two miles in relation to a pupil under 11 years of age and three miles for older pupils
measured by the nearest suitable route.
•
The issue of statutory walking distance and its use in determining eligibility for transport assistance is
contentious with parents, schools and governors. The DETR publication “A New Deal for Transport
: Better for Everyone” stated that twenty years ago nearly one in three children from five to ten years
old made their way to school by themselves. Now only one child in nine does so. In addition, the
application of the rule is onerous for transport staff. Whilst it is acknowledged that a factor of some
sort is required to determine eligibility the use of distance is controversial for a number of reasons
including:
•
i.
distance as a criterion was first established in the 1950s. While the first two miles of a school
journey are deemed to be parental responsibility, consultation has identified that the distance
may no longer be appropriate given the increased volume of traffic;
ii.
added to this there is increasing emphasis on child protection and a concern that children who are
unaccompanied on their journey may be at risk;
iii.
consultation has also highlighted that the existence of statutory walking distance as a means of
assessing entitlement to transport assistance contradicts the philosophy of parental choice since
some people argue that pupils who live within statutory walking distance are discriminated
against;
iv.
in light of the new Equality legislation the current distinction between children under and over 11
years of age will need to be assessed. The absence of provision for children who are not
compulsory school age will also be an issue.
Sian Thornthwaite’s 1998 School Transport Report quoted that a number of authorities continue to
make some reduction to the statutory walking distances.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
The Scottish Authorities are amongst the most generous in terms of entitlement criteria, with walking
distances as low as one mile in four Scottish Authorities. In Wales several of the new unitary
authorities have reduced the distances to 1.5 miles for primary and two miles for secondary.
•
In its Best Value Review : A Safer Journey to School, Northamptonshire County Council reported
that it was amongst a minority of local education authorities which do not use statutory distance as a
basis for entitlement to transport assistance. The Council use the concept of ‘qualifying distance’
which is less than statutory distance. They further report that consideration could be given to
introducing some changes for those children living between qualifying and statutory distances. It is
emphasised that careful consideration should be given to the impact of any change and in particular
that steps are taken to ensure that transport continues to be made available and preferably at a cost
which will deter a shift from bus to car.
•
The reduction of statutory walking distance with the possible introduction of urban pick-up points
would support Government policy to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. These issues for
Boards are covered by Section 8.6 and paragraph 8.8.4.
•
Any reduction in the number of cars in the vicinity of a school would be welcomed by principals on
the grounds that this would reduce the potential for accidents.
•
From an administrative point of view the statutory walking distance creates three main difficulties:
i.
the amount of time spent measuring distances to ascertain eligibility; and
ii.
the interpretation of the wording. Parents interpret this as the Boards requiring children to walk,
when in reality the Board is merely determining that transport assistance will not be given and
that it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that the child arrives at school.
•
The issue of means-testing in relation to entitlement to transport was identified as another potential
criterion for assessing entitlement, in particular to those more socially disadvantaged.
•
Statutory walking distance is the sole criterion for assessing eligibility for transport assistance.
Parents who live within two miles of their nearest school do not receive any assistance. Parents who
are deemed to suffer financial hardship may be entitled to free school meals or to a clothing grant for
uniform costs, but financial circumstances are not taken account of in assessing transport entitlement.
As previously referred to in Section 8.6.4, where post-16 charging is in operation, authorities tend to
remit charges if the family is in receipt of income support, but entitlement rules on distance are
normally applied first.
8.8.2
NEAREST SUITABLE SCHOOL/CATEGORY OF SCHOOL
•
Circular 1996/41 states that:
3.3
3.5
“Where there is a suitable school within statutory walking distance from a pupil’s home and a
pupil attends a school outside the statutory walking distance, transport assistance will be
provided only where the pupil has been unable to gain a place in any suitable school within
statutory walking distance”.
A suitable school is a grant-aided school in any of the following categories:
Primary
Secondary
Grammar
Catholic Maintained
Catholic Maintained
Denominational
Controlled or other voluntary
Controlled
Non-denominational
Integrated
Integrated
Irish-medium
Irish-medium
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.8.3
•
As with statutory walking distance there is a view that ‘nearest suitable school’ contradicts the
philosophy of open enrolment and parental choice. This is particularly so in the case of parents who
may wish to choose a school on the grounds of single sex or co-educational.
•
The issue of single-sex or co-educational schools not being included as separate categories will need
to be assess in light of the new Equality legislation.
PARENTAL CHOICE
•
8.8.4
The consultation exercise in relation to parental choice has highlighted two views:
i.
as referred to in the above points on statutory walking distance and nearest suitable school, there
is a feeling among parents that parental choice is being restricted; and
ii.
that parents wishing to exercise choice should be entitled to pay for such, whether that choice
entails attending a more distant school or a school chosen on grounds of sex and should also
include integrated and Irish-medium schools.
GREEN POLICY
•
Reference has already been made under the section on statutory walking distance The Labour
Government Policy “A New Deal for Transport” promised to “safeguard our environment and
develop an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution”.
•
The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Transport Policy Statement “Moving
Forward” reports that “school journeys have a major impact in adding to the morning traffic peak and
mid-afternoon congestion” and there are a number of initiatives being designed to tackle the issue of
the school run which is estimated to account for one fifth of car journeys in the morning peak.
•
The initiatives being undertaken by the Department of Environment include:
-
introducing safer routes to schools pilot projects (e.g. the walking bus)
-
setting up a School Travel Advisory Group similar to that recently established in England to
assist in the dissemination of Best Practice and to contribute to the development of policy.
-
influencing children and parents through the development of a range of information packs for
schools.
The aim of these initiatives is to encourage more children to walk, cycle or use public transport to get to
school.
•
The Government has set out a strategy for improving the quality and take-up of public transport. A
cornerstone of this strategy is quality partnerships between local authorities and public transport
operators. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland publication “Moving Forward”
refers to the complex relationship which exists between the extent of the public transport network and
demand for school transport. “In many rural areas public transport services cannot be sustained
without the patronage of school children travelling with bus passes”. The New Deal states that “local
authorities will be expected to consult widely and involve their communities and transport operators
in the decisions they take”.
•
In the course of the review contact was established with the Community Transport Association where
there is potential to assist rural communities in developing partnerships with other public services,
particularly in the area of transport.
•
There is evidence of a growing partnership between community transport and public transport
providers and other statutory agencies, such as those involved in health and education transport, rural
development agencies and community interests.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
8.8.5
8.8.6
These new working relationships have the potential to unlock transport resources and meet transport
needs more effectively through better co-ordination.
INCOME GENERATION
•
The issue of charging for concessionary seats has been addressed in Section 8.6. If it is assumed that
Boards will be in a position of operating for hire and reward, then it is obviously imperative to
maximise the potential for income generation. There have previously been legislative impediments
which restricted the use of assets purchased by Boards for educational use and specifically excluded
use for religious or political purposes.
•
There is potential to market the use of Board vehicles in schools for both curricular and extracurricular activities. Many schools currently use private operators as opposed to Board Vehicles.
•
The Department of Education’s Business Plans for 1999/2000 referred to the possible introduction of
charging for pupils who are over compulsory school age.
•
Sian Thornthwaite reported (January 1999) that most GB authorities now only provide post-16
transport free of charge for pupils with special educational needs or to families in receipt of income
support. The amount charged per term for transport ranged from £39 per term to more than £100 per
term.
•
To introduce charging in Northern Ireland would require a ministerial decision. In addition many of
the issues listed under Section 8.6 (Concessionary Seats) would need to be addressed.
•
During the course of the review a potential need was identified for the use of Board drivers,
particularly in the area of Health and Social Services.
SEATBELTS
•
The law requires seatbelts to be fitted in coaches, minibuses and taxis/taxi-buses only at present.
Service buses such as those operated by the Boards and Translink are exempt.
•
Consultation showed that stakeholders were unanimous in their view that the safety of children is
paramount at all times. However, it was acknowledged that even if seatbelts were fitted it would be
impossible for a driver to ensure that all children would wear them.
•
The fitting of seatbelts would also have implications on the “three-for-two” situation. Circular
1996/41 (6.3) states:
“Pupils should be able to travel in safety and reasonable comfort. Boards should ensure that the
number of pupils being carried on their vehicles does not exceed the maximum laid down in the
Public Service Vehicles Regulations. Where vehicles are fitted with seatbelts Boards should
encourage pupils to wear them. The Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment and
Use) Regulations (NI) 1995 removed the “3 for 2” concession allowing three children under 14 years
of age to sit in a seat fitted with two seat belts”.
•
8.8.7
The fitting of seatbelts in all buses (whether Board or otherwise) would therefore create a need for
more seats and consequently additional vehicles.
RISK ASESSMENT
•
All Boards currently have a Health and Safety Policy for the Transport Service.
•
As an employer, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992
require Boards to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks arising out of their work
activities. This risk assessment should cover not only the risk to Board employees, but also anyone
else who may be affected by the undertakings of the Boards.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
•
Essentially, a risk assessment is finding out what in the Boards’ work could cause harm to people and
deciding if enough has been done, or more needs to be done to protect people. The health and Safety
Executive for Northern Ireland have described Risk Assessment as a five stage process which
consists of the following steps:
i. Dividing work into manageable categories;
ii. Looking for the hazards;
iii. Evaluating the risks;
iv. Preparing a plan for controlling the risks;
v. Reviewing and revising the assessment.
•
The five Boards Health and Safety Officers have recently provided Transport Officers with training
on Risk Assessment. This training has considered identifying manageable categories within the
service including those components of the service which are concerned with procedures, systems and
people management, alongside where parts of the service are delegated and which are not.
•
The potential hazards for the Transport Service have been broadly classified as:
-
the act of driving
vehicle roadworthiness
access/egress to school
embarkation/disembarkation
pupils as a hazard
drivers as a hazard
•
A number of options are available as a means of hazard identification including quantitative
methodologies; safety inspections and assigning responsibilities.
•
Whilst elimination is the preferred option, plans must be put in place to control risk.
•
The Health and Safety Officers have identified a number of measures in the following areas which
would assist in controlling risk:
-
driver selection and training
accident management
maintenance procedures
age and condition of fleet
dealing with multi-accident drivers
drink/drugs policy
discipline
effectiveness of plans may be measured in terms of accident statistics, down-time, absenteeism
etc
•
Revaluation of risk assessment may be triggered by items such as changes in personnel/activity,
change in the law, or an upturn in accidents or absenteeism.
•
The legislation governing Risk Assessment has been in existence since 1992 and the potential for
prosecution exists in the event of non-compliance.
•
The Transport Service has no formalised approach to Risk Assessment. Action is therefore required
to address this deficiency.
•
The methods of Risk Assessment require to be established, understood by all and become an active
element of daily operations. Such a process will take considerable time and effort.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.8.8
•
It is likely that a private company with a fleet of vehicles comparable in size to the Boards would
employ a dedicated Health and Safety Officer.
•
If this is not to be the case in the Boards, each board should nominate a person form the Transport
Service to be trained in Health and Safety.
ASSESSMENT OF RELATIVE NEEDS EXERCISE (ARNE)
•
Boards are currently funded on the basis of the number of children in the controlled and maintained
schools in their area. The block grant funding received on this basis includes an element for Home to
School Transport. The Translink element of this is termed “unavoidable”.
•
As the system operates in arrears the level of funding does not always match the actual level of
expenditure.
•
Expenditure on transport is triggered by a pupil’s home address. Those Boards exporting pupils
either to another Board area or to the integrated/voluntary sectors believe they do not receive
commensurate funding under the ARNE exercise.
•
The current practice of funding related to taxi mileage may act as a disincentive to maximise
efficiency in the most expensive means of transport provision.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
Recommendations: Policy Issues
77.
Examine the potential for revising statutory walking distance to a common distance for all pupils
regardless of age in light of Equality Legislation. (DE)
78.
Examine the potential for introducing a means test as a further criterion for entitlement to Transport
assistance. This criterion only to be applied to those pupils who have been excluded on grounds of
statutory walking distance. (DE)
79.
Consideration should be given to examining the real effects of September 1997 legislation and to reevaluating its impact on managing the Home to School Transport Service with particular reference
to:
Statutory Walking Distance
Nearest Suitable School
Parental choice, and the
Inter-relationships between all of these (DE)
80.
Examine the potential for engaging the Community Transport Association in relation to local
partnerships. (ALL)
81.
Formal meetings should be established with the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers
(ATCO) with a view to remaining in contact with the Association’s work on the integration of public
and educational transport. (ALL)
82.
Boards should consider the possibility of developing partnerships with health Trusts in the use of
drivers. (ALL)
83.
Risk Assessment Policy in relation to Transport should be developed. (ALL)
84.
A member(s) of Transport staff from each Board should be trained in Health and Safety. (B/SE/S/W)
85.
The Department of Education is asked to examine the rationale within the ARNE mechanism. (DE)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
8.9
GENERAL
•
While the majority of issues have been identified against specific headings a number of general
points merit further consideration.
•
Boards essentially manage their own operational service locally while meeting regularly on an interBoard basis and working together on occasion on joint ventures such as tendering and procurement.
•
The Report highlights many areas which need addressed on an inter-Board basis in the future to
ensure consistency in approach namely:
•
−
Specification, procurement and installation of IT systems
−
Revision and standardisation of policy and procedures
−
Refinement of Economic Appraisal
−
Development of a strategic approach in relationships with Translink
−
Development of Transport staff training and development plans
Section 75 Statutory Equality Obligation of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires public authorities
in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland to have due regard to the need to promote
equality of opportunity. Any revision of policy would need to take this into account.
Recommendations:
86.
Consideration should be given to identifying a lead Board for the strategic management of transport
arrangements, e.g. the development of an IT system on behalf of and in association with all other
Boards. (All)
87.
In relation to Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, Boards and the Department of Education
should consider Transport policies in the context of their Equality Schemes. (All)
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000
9.0
CONCLUSION
•
This review has highlighted many examples of good practice across the Transport Service and has
recommended the general sharing of good practice across the five Boards for the benefit of the sector as a
whole.
•
While the review has been challenging and rigorous in examining all aspects of Home to School
Transport, it is important to note that the quality and cost-effectiveness of existing Board provision is
without question.
•
The consultation process, both during the review and following the issue of the draft report, was
welcomed and gave a clear signal of intent to involve service users in the review process.
•
A summary of this report will also be made available to all those involved in the consultation process.
•
Following acceptance of an agreed programme of recommendations, Performance Improvement Plans
will be prepared both locally by individual Boards and on an inter-board basis.
•
The CMSU thanks all those involved for their contribution during the review and as part of its own
process of “continuous improvement” welcomes any further responses relevant to the nature of review
process applied.
Home to School Transport
Fundamental Service Review
May 2000