Walking School Bus Best Practices Report by FabianColon

Walking School Bus Best Practices Report Tim Pehlke Center for Public and Nonprofit Management University of Central Florida February 2015

Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................3 Introduction...........................................................................................................4 Marketing................................................................................................................5 Partnerships...........................................................................................................6 Site Management................................................................................................7 Walking Routes....................................................................................................10 Risk Management...............................................................................................11 Supplies..................................................................................................................12 Discussion.............................................................................................................13 References.............................................................................................................15

Executive Summary UCF Walking School Bus was founded in April 2013 with funding from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). In a Walking School Bus (WSB) young people, typically elementary aged, walk to school together regularly along a designated route under the supervision of trained adult volunteers. Through involvement with WSB young people learn pedestrian safety, develop health habits and form new friendships. This report attempts to provide an overview of this programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activities and to make recommendations for the future. Topics addressed include marketing, partnerships, site management, walking routes, risk management and supplies. The program was tasked with (1) expanding access to WSB programming in the East Central Florida (FDOT District 5) region and (2) developing program best practices for adoption at other locations across the state. The program grew from three sites developed under a previous Florida Department of Health (FDOH) program serving approximately 100 students in two counties to include nine sites serving nearly 500 elementary school students across a three county region. Overcoming public concerns about the safety of walking conditions represents a significant challenge. This program found success in implementing a multi-modal marketing strategy that included use of a professionally designed logo, photos, print materials, promotional video, traditional media, and social media. These efforts were amplified through the strategic use of partnerships to connect with community decision makers, identify resources and gain access to other helpful tools. Organizations with mutually aligned missions in the area of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health and safety proved most conducive to such arrangements. Another key to success came in developing and maintaining a volunteer management system. Establishing regular lines of communication and conducting regular sites visits were a vital part of this strategy. This program made ample use of new and emerging technologies in an effort to streamline documentation requirements and create a more positive volunteer experience. Use of an online enrollment system and group texting app proved most beneficial to volunteers. The safety of youth participants is a critical concern for WSB programs. It is critical to involve community members in a thorough examination of existing infrastructure as a part of any route development effort. These efforts should be combined with the development of a risk management protocol that includes volunteer screening/training, school agreements, and youth enrollment procedures. Upon formation it is important to outfit sites with adequate safety equipment. This program found safety vests for volunteers, brightly colored t-shirts for youth participants, wagons for student backpacks, and recognition materials to be of greatest need. With regard to the future, it is recommended that further efforts be made to address school district level liability concerns. This would include continuing to refine risk management protocols with input from across the community. Additional efforts should be made to connect with higher risk urban schools, with presentations tailored to address schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most pressing concerns (e.g., car loop traffic congestion, student health, etc.). A multi-faced Safe Routes to School regional authority should be formed to provide training, community education and technical expertise. Lastly, the continuing development of mobile technologies should prove helpful in creating more finely tuned walking routes.

Introduction The UCF Walking School Bus program partners with local communities to organize safe walking routes for elementary school students led by trained adult mentors. In a Walking School Bus (WSB) a group of young people (typically elementary aged) meet regularly to walk to school together under the supervision of trained adult mentors. One of the key advantages of the program is its flexibility. WSB may originate from different locations (including individual homes, community centers, parks, etc.), times (AM, PM or both) and days of the week depending on community needs. WSB began in Denmark in the 1970s (Craddock et al, 2012) and have since spread all over the world. There are currently active WSB in England, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and locations across the United States. This program began in April 2013 through a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and is operated out of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management, the applied research arm of the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. At the time this program began there were three WSB programs operating in the FDOT District Five region (which includes nine counties located in East Central Florida). These programs were started through an earlier Florida Department of Health (FDOH) initiative. By the spring of 2015 the UCF Walking School Bus program had grown to include nine schools serving nearly 500 youth along 13 walking routes in three counties (see Figure 1). Among the original FDOT sites 66% continued operating for the duration of the project. New programs have been added at seven sites, which include a combination of community schools, charter schools, and after-school programs (see Figure 2).

Marketing A lack of awareness of WSB programming, along with a negative perception of walking in general (Napier et al, 2011; Yu & Zhu, 2013) was identified as a key obstacle early in the implementation process. As a result, a concerted effort was made to create a multi-modal marketing strategy in support of the program. This included the following: Logo: A local graphic design firm donated their services to produce a logo in support of the program.

Print Materials: A series of templates were developed for use across sites. This included brochures, fliers, bookmarks, newsletter advertisements, etc.

Photos: Volunteer and professional photographers were recruited to capture WSB programming, with photos used to support other modes of communication.

Promotional Videos: A local film crew donated their services to produce two promotional videos (long and short form).

Outreach Events: Our staff set up at school health fairs, PTA meetings, and other community events.

Traditional Media: The project received free publicity through outreach to newspaper, radio and television outlets.

Social Media: A Facebook page (now with over 125 â&#x20AC;&#x153;likesâ&#x20AC;?) was developed and actively maintained to provide a steady stream of information.

Newsletter: A quarterly e-newsletter was developed through Mail Chimp (a free online platform) with a distribution list that grew to over 400 subscribers by the end of the project. Through use of multiple modes of media we were able to connect with audiences of different ages and technical abilities. This in turn led to increased public awareness of WSB and, subsequently, greater community demand for WSB programming.

Partnerships

A number of earlier projects have highlighted the importance of developing strong community partnerships (Thomas et al, 2009; FDOH, 2012). We found this to be true in our experiences as well. Here is a sampling of the organizations we have worked with on this project:

- Traffic safety committees - Parent Teacher Association (PTA) - YMCA - Department of Health - Physical Education Teachers - Transportation Planning Organizations (TPO) - School health committees - Parks department - Safe Routes to School network - Bike and pedestrian safety committees - Prevention committees - Neighborhood associations - Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cabinet - Child safety committees - City Council

We found that organizations with like-minded missions in support of child health and safety were most conducive to collaboration. Consequently, these partnerships provided access to decision makers, resources and other tools necessary for the completion of the project.

Site Management

The UCF Walking School Bus program was organized around a “middle management” volunteer model. Under this system volunteers serve in the role of managers providing support to specific sites. In this project, UCF students (paid a small stipend) served in the role of “Coach[es]” with a case load of 3-4 schools (see Figure 3). They were then asked to conduct regular site visits and check in calls in an attempt to monitor the status of the project at each site and to troubleshoot any issues that may emerge. Efforts were made to hire students that lived in the actual communities we served. This was done to aid outreach efforts and promote continuity of programming. Additional students provided support with volunteer management, mapping, resource development and marketing. Weekly staff meetings were held in an effort to coordinate the various aspects of the program. A monthly reporting system for sites was implemented in an effort to ensure that ongoing communication was maintained.

Figure 3: Organizational Chart

Assistant Director

Provides overall leadership to the program. This includes building partnerships with local schools, supervising Coaches, conducting volunteer training, re source development, and program evaluation.

Coach

UCF students whose responsibilities include identifying safe walking routes, serving as point of contact for Walk Team Volunteers, and working with School Liaison to ensure programmatic success.

Principal Designates a School Liaison for the program, provides connection to PTA and other community resources. School Liaison Serves as point of contact with Principal (and other School Administration), distributes marketing materials and other resources, handles disciplinary issues as they arise. Walk Team Volunteers Walks a group of registered youth to school along a designated route, maintains regular communication with parents and Coach, completes evaluation tools Parents

Completes registration form, drops off youth participant at the designated time, notifies Walk Team Volunteers when their child(ren) will be absent.

Program sustainability was an ongoing point of emphasis. An annual exit interview was conducted with Team Leaders in an effort to get to them to think about succession planning, as many volunteers transition out of the program upon their childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s graduation. In addition, a series of resources were developed in an effort to provide guidance to future program efforts in the absence of paid staff. This includes a program handbook and a series of fact sheets that address volunteers most commonly cited concerns.

Figure 4: Walking School Bus Enrollment System

Walking Routes Prior to the launch of each site walking routes were reviewed for walkability. This began with a site visit to assess the quality of pedestrian infrastructure. From there a report was completed noting any potential hazards along the route. In most cases this was done through a partnership with the UCF Urban and Regional Planning program. In this project a group of students was assigned to each of our schools and asked to conduct a walkability audit that documented potential safety hazards (Note: One of our local school districts took note of this work, and went on to hire students to conduct walkability audits at all new elementary schools in the county). Students were then plotted on a map (in most cases through Google Map, though Arc GIS represents a more sophisticated option) and assigned to walking routes. We did so with the goal of limiting routes to 1 mile or less and arranging the stops so younger students walked shorter distances. Upon development of the routes, this information was sent to the Team Leader and School Liaison for review. We typically tried to provide a minimum of two weeks for review. Following this the route was sent out to participating families by the leader in an effort to establish initial lines of communication. In instances where we werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t able to accommodate a family an alternate pickup location was proposed, though this was rarely accepted by the family.

Risk Management Overcoming parent safety and school district related safety concerns is often cited as a barrier to WSB implementation (McDonald et al, 2009; Stewart, 2011). While true to some extent, our greatest challenge came in overcoming school district liability related concerns. Indeed, two of our largest school districts were unwilling to sign off on the program despite numerous efforts. We were able to overcome policy barriers in two counties, where after initial resistance the school districts have

The safe transit of children to and/or from school is the highest priority of any WSB program. Safety procedures were developed following consultation with Safe Routes to School authorities, local school districts and University personnel. This began with procedures related to volunteering. All program volunteers were required to fill out a WSB registration form with a signed waiver and complete background screening through their local school district. In this sense they were both WSB and school district volunteers, as reflected in the MOU document used to register schools (see Appendix 1). From there volunteers completed a one hour training program that covered pedestrian safety best practices, policies and procedures, organization, and related topics. Each volunteer received a Program Handbook that covered these topics in greater depth and provided forms for use in the program. Safety materials were provided to each of the groups. All program volunteers were outfitted with a reflective vest, while youth received a brightly colored program t-shirt. We also distributed pedestrian educational materials at set points throughout the school year in an effort to emphasize five key components of pedestrian safety as noted by local school crossing guards. These concepts were then evaluated through a pre and posttest survey instrument, with results to follow at a later date (Pehlke, n.d.).

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The safe transit of children to and from school is the highest priority of any Walking School Bus program.â&#x20AC;?

Supplies From our experience the availability of supplies proved to be the major motivational factor for prospective schools. Many viewed the program as a way to promote health and safety among students without expending increasingly scarce resources. Over the course of the project we were able to secure $9,000 in programmatic support through a combination of grants and corporate donations. Community health foundations and governmental safety funds proved most receptive to such overtures. Material support came in one of the following categories: Wagon – A Mac Sports Folding Utility Wagon was presented to each route at the start of the program. This proved an effective tool for transporting backpacks, musical instruments, class projects, and other school related supplies judged too heavy for children to carry over long distances. One school went so far as to use a golf cart to transport supplies at their alternate drop off location. We recommend the use of bungee cords or other materials to secure items to the wagon. Safety – Each route was provided with a backpack that included first aid kit, ponchos, a whistle and reflective arm bands. In addition, reflective vests were provided for all program volunteers and (when requested) participating youth. The latter proved most useful on cool mornings. We also recommend providing bug spray and sunscreen along more wooded routes. One site requested and received a walkie talkie, though many of the sites communicated through cell phones. Branding – Each participating youth and volunteer received a program t-shirt whose bright colors served as an added safety feature. Sites received yard signs to display along their route and water bottles for distribution at program events. Recognition – Sites were encouraged to recognize youth participation. This often took the form of a “Marathon” or “100 Mile” club, where youth who walked the equivalent distance were recognized for their accomplishments. The Fitness Finders charm bracelets were an effective tool for accomplishing this goal. We also provided pencils, stickers, and other “kid friendly” incentive items (as sold through Oriental Trading and other suppliers).

From our experience a school needs approximately $500 - $1,000 annually to initially outfit their WSB program. From then on a budget of $500 is recommended to continue operating the program at a high level. Furthermore, there is a need for adequate resources to building a sustainable WSB program (Hotz et al, 2004), including paid staff to manage the program (Collins, 2005; Mendoza, 2009; Thomas, 2009).

Discussion

The above sections provided an overview of what we consider to be “best practices” for WSB programs. However, these are just a few of the ideas to come out of our experience. The following section will explore areas for future program enhancement. Any effort to expand the availability of WSB options must firm come to grips with liability concerns. Merited or not, these concerns must be overcome if WSB is to become normalized in the community. We recommend the implementation of a mandatory background screening (preferably Level 2) and training program for all WSB volunteers. It is important to recognize that volunteers are an extension of your office and will prove to be either the greatest asset or liability for your program. By investing resources (both financial and not) in these individuals you are setting the stage for successful volunteer experiences. In our case, use of graduate students as “Coach[es]” provided an important ongoing source of support to our sites. Much of this investment took place at the beginning of the project. We were able to shift resources to developing new sites and program evaluation over time as volunteers, especially Team Leaders) became more accustomed to their role. In identifying and approaching potential schools, here are several tactics that proved most successful in our program. First, it is more effective to approach the school directly, as opposed to working through the school district. The latter presented a major stumbling block that in many cases was never overcome. This is often due to the sheer volume of requests that senior administrators must address. In such instances it is often most effective to work through the school PTA or physical education teacher. Some schools also have a health committee that can be a strong advocate of such efforts. A second issue to consider is the issue of school zone traffic congestion. Schools with major car loop concerns are often most willing to try outside the box solutions. In one instance we were able to work with a charter school to remove an estimated 80 cars per day. This proved to be a “win—win” situation, as kids gained access to greater physical activity, parents saved money on gas, and the school built a better relationship with their neighbors. A third point of consideration is the presence of after-school programs such as YMCA and the Parks Department. Many of these sites are located near schools and have missions that are compatible with WSB.

Discussion Continued Another point of consideration is the adaptation of mobile technologies for use in WSB programming. To our best knowledge this program was the first to utilize an online enrollment platform. This proved a valuable tool for volunteers, who were able to access their roster and take attendance from their mobile device in route to the school. We would recommend further development of “app” based resources, including the route tracking tools used by earlier programs (Norgate et al, 2014; Winstanley et al, 2014; Smith et al, 2015). Such measures should be accompanied by user-friendly training modules and, where necessary, in-person training sessions. Lastly, efforts to implement a sustainable WSB program would be greatly enhanced by the formation of a regional Safe Routes to School authority. This entity could serve as a “hub” for all aspects of youth pedestrian safety programming. Potential areas of programming include (1) professionally facilitated trainings for WSB and Bike Trains, (2) community educational programs on pedestrian safety topics (e.g., Walk to School Day), and (3) a team to identify and develop safe walking routes for students through walkability audits and other tools. At the present time there are numerous agencies working in this field. Additional collaboration would have the benefit of maximizing programmatic impact and strengthening funding proposals. Existing programs in Portland, Oregon and Miami, Florida provide an excellent example of the benefits of such collaborative models. The UCF Walking School Bus program proved successful in increasing the number and quality of WSB program options available in the Central Florida community. A total of 846 youth took part in the program over the course of three school years. These efforts were supported by a team of 135 volunteers. We were able to achieve policy breakthroughs with two school districts, including the nation’s 11th largest. Along the way a number of resources were developed in an effort to support future programming efforts. This includes program handbooks, fact sheets, promotional materials, and educational materials.

References Collins, D., & Kearns, R. (2005). Geographies of inequality: Child pedestrian injury and walking school buses in Auckland, New Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 61-69. Cradock, A. L., Fields, B., Barrett, J. L., & Melly, S. (2012). Program practices and demographic factors associated with federal funding for the Safe Routes to School program in the United States. Health & Place, 18, 16-23. Florida Department of Health (2012). Walking School Bus initiative: Final evaluation report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Health. Hotz, G. A., Cohn, S. M., Castelblanco, A., Colston, S., Thomas, M., et al (2004). WalkSafe: A school-based pedestrian safety intervention program. Traffic Injury Prevention, 5, 382-389. McDonald, N., Yang, Y., Abbott, S., & Bullock (2013). Impact of the Safe Routes to School program on walking and biking: Eugene, Oregon study. Transport Policy, 29, 243-248. McDonald, N., & A. (2009). Why parents drive children to school: Implications for safe routes to school programs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(3), 331-324. Mendoza, J., Levinger, D., & Johnston, B. (2009). Pilot evaluation of a walking school bus program in a low-income, urban community. BMC Public Health, 9. Retrieved online from www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/122. Napier, M. A., Brown, B., Werner, C., & Gallimore, J. (2011). Walking to school: Community design and child and parent barriers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 45-51. Norgate, S., et al. (2014). SMART 2014, The Third International Conference on Smart Systems, Devices and Technologies. Retrieved online from http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=smart_2014_2_40_40086. Pehlke, T. (n.d.). Results from year two of the Walking School Bus research and evaluation project. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida. Smith, L., et al. (2015). Walking School Buses as a form of active transportation for children -- A review of the evidence. Journal of School Health, 85(3), 197-210. Stewart, O (2011). Findings from research on active transportation to school and implications for Safe Routes to School programs. Journal of Planning Literature, 26(2), 127-150. Thomas, I, Sayers, S., Godon, J., & Reilly, S. (2009). Bike, walk, and wheel: A way of life in Columbia, Missouri. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37, S321-328. Winstanley, C., Davies, N., Harding, M., & Norgate, S. (2014) Supporting Walking School Buses. Ubicomp, 14, 291-294 Yu, C. Y., & Zhu, X. (2013). Impacts of Residential Self-Selection and Built Environments on Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Walking-to-School Behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 0013916513500959.