Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Walking the walkEvaluation of phases 1 and 2 of the Walking School Bus program
www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/wsb
Published by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation
Po Box 154, Carlton South 3053, Victoria, Australia
Telephone: + 61 3 9667 1333 Facsimile: + 61 3 9667 1375
© Copyright Victorian Health Promotion Foundation 2007
This report was developed by Dr Irina Ross in association with RMIT CIRCLE to evaluate
VicHealth’s Walking School Bus Program
Copies of this publication may be obtained from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
It is also available at: http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/wsb
�
Contents
Executive summary 2
Introduction 3
WSB in Victoria 4
Overview of VicHealth evaluation processes from 2001–07 7
Results 8
1 Characteristics of participating councils 8
2 Level of consistency in WSB program implementation 8
3 The role of the WSB project officer 10
4 Selection of schools & implementation of projects at schools 11
a Number of schools selected to participate & overview of the school selection process 11
b Congruence with schools’ values and philosophies 12
c Establishment of administrative structures at schools 14
d School participation in the WSB program 16
e Ongoing school commitment 18
f Communication with schools and the broader community 20
5 Engagement and maintenance of volunteer ‘drivers’ 23
6 Establishment of WSB routes 27
7 Engagement of partner organisations & partnerships with other council units 27
8 Barriers and facilitating factors to program implementation 30
Individual benefits of WSB 32
Engagement in physical activity 32
1 Frequency of walking and walking distance 32
2 WSB enrolment rate 32
Summary & conclusion 34
Appendix 1 – Methodology 35
Appendix 2 – Key activities associated with implementation of the WSB program 36
�
Executive summary
The Walking School Bus (WSB) program was developed by VicHealth in 2001 and implemented by Local
Government Authorities. Between 2001 and 2007, 58 Local Councils and partnered organisations have engaged
school communities to establish Walking School Buses. Since then, the program has gained considerable public
acceptance and favourable publicity. This report analyses the main facilitating factors and barriers to WSB
implementation by examining data collected between 2003 and 2005 from 12 council areas funded during phase
1 and 2 of the program.
This report is divided into two main streams:
1) Organisational level evaluation: where program implementation is measured against the stated aims of the
program; and
2) Individual level evaluation: where data from surveys and interviews indicate the effects of the program on
individual participants.
Based on available evidence, it is understood that the program’s health, safety and environmental messages are
well known and supported by participating councils and schools. In many areas the WSB program implementation
has been very successful. However in some it has not because school’s have dropped off the program; or there
has been a high turn over of Project Officers. Inadequate preparation for program implementation has also caused
some operational difficulties and disappointing outcomes.
Since the evaluation of phase 1and 2 of the program, the WSB has been implemented by an additional 46 council
areas. Therefore councils and organisations implementing the program have had the opportunity to share the
knowledge and resources required to improve implementation processes. Evaluation of all five phases of the
program has to be considered to comprehensively measure program outcomes.
�
Introduction
The Walking School Bus (WSB) is not a vehicle but an alternative way to encourage primary school children to walk
to and from school rather than being driven. Children walk in a group with an adult ‘driver’ (supervisor) at the front
and an adult ‘conductor’ at the rear. The ‘bus’ travels along a set route picking up passengers along the way from
designated ‘bus stops’.
WSB routes are safety audited by local government and/or VicRoads engineers. The ratio of adults to children
is approximately 1:8. Children and adult volunteers often wear bright distinctive safety sashes. The drivers and
conductors are registered under the participating council’s Volunteer Policy, are subject to working with children
checks and required to undergo training in road safety and duty of care.
There are several international Walking School Bus programs in countries such as New Zealand, United States of
America, United Kingdom, Canada and Denmark. The Walking School Bus Program has the potential to deliver
considerable individual and community benefits.
Health benefits – walking to and from school provides children with regular physical activity.
Environmental benefits – every journey made on foot reduces traffic congestion and pollution around schools
and helps improve the local environment for all.
Safety benefits – walking helps people become more familiar with their community, increases the number of
people on the streets (thereby improving a sense of personal and community safety) and provides children with
the chance to develop and improve road safety skills.
Mental health benefits – the establishment of cooperative relationships between local government, primary
schools, families and the community has the potential to contribute to a more positive sense of community and
increases the opportunities for people to engage in social networks.
•
•
•
•
�
WSB in Victoria
In Victoria the WSB program was developed in 2001 by VicHealth in consultation with the Lead Agency Committee
on Physical Activity. It was piloted in four local council areas. Based on the success of the pilot it was expanded
to more council areas. VicHealth has funded local councils to develop the program since 2001. It has been well
received by the community, and in the period between 2001 and 2007 more than 58 Victorian council areas have
implemented a WSB program.
Funding has predominately gone to councils to implement the WSB program. The few exceptions to this, where the
funding went to another community-based organisation, occurred where there was strong community demand for
the program and where council did not desire to be involved.
Funding to run WSB programs has been offered five times through competitive funding rounds. Table 1 shows the
number of local council areas that have been involved in the program since 2001.
Table 1 Funding phases of WSB programs
Phase and financial year of first funding Local government area funded
Phase 12001/02 Greater Dandenong City Council
Campaspe Shire Council*
Port Phillip City Council
Whittlesea City Council
•
•
•
•
Phase 22002/03 Knox City Council
Kingston City Council
Maribyrnong City Council
Maroondah City Council
Banyule City Council*
Greater Geelong City Council
Wangaratta Rural City Council / The Centre
Horsham Rural City Council / West Wimmera Shire Council /
Yarriambiack Shire Council / Hindmarsh Shire Council
Warrnambool City Council
Greater Shepparton City Council
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
Phase 32002/03 Stonnington City Council
Melbourne City Council / YMCA
Moonee Valley City Council
Moreland City Council
Wyndham City Council / Werribee YMCA
Bayside City Council
Manningham City Council / Manningham YMCA
Darebin City Council
Whitehorse City Council
Cardinia Shire Council
Yarra Ranges Shire Council
Nillumbik Shire Council
Casey City Council
Latrobe City Council
Frankston City Council
Wellington Shire Council
Surf Coast Shire Council
Wodonga City Council
Colac Otway Shire Council*
Ballarat City Council via Central Highlands Sports Assembly*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Phase 42004/05 Hobsons Bay City Council / ISIS Primary Care
Boorondara City Council
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
Yarra City Council
Brimbank City Council
Hume City Council
Melton Shire Council
Macedon Ranges Shire Council
East Gippsland Shire Council
Swan Hill Rural City Council
Baw Baw Shire Council
Central Goldfields Shire Council
Moira Shire Council
Bass Coast Shire Council
Murrindindi Shire Council
Pyrenees Shire Council / North Grampians Shire Council/
Ararat Shire Council
Glen Eira Council via Caulfield CHC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�
Phase 52005/06 Bendigo City Council
Indigo Shire Council
Mildura Rural City Council
Mitchell Shire Council
South Gippsland SPLASH & South Gippsland Shire Council
•
•
•
•
•
* No longer receiving funding
Councils are given funding of $30,000 in year one and $25,000 in year two to implement the program. After the
first two years of funding, councils are also eligible to apply for Walking School Bus Plus funding, which provides
funding of $9000 per annum on a cost-sharing1 basis for three years to enable the development of strategies to
further sustain the current WSB program.
1Cost-sharing requirements:Metropolitan councils – $1 from VicHealth (capped at $9000 per year for three years) for every $1 allocated by councilInterface and regional councils – $1.50 from VicHealth (capped at $9000 per year for three years) for every $1 allocated by councilRural councils – $2 from VicHealth (capped at $9000 per year for three years) for every $1 allocated by council.
�
Overview of VicHealth evaluation processes from 2001–07
The WSB pilot program was evaluated by Victoria University in 2002. This evaluation describes program
implementation and identified both barriers to and facilitating factors for program implementation. It also collected
data on travel patterns to and from school by primary school children. A copy of the evaluation report is available at
www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/wsb.
Funded councils provide VicHealth with annual progress reports on a range of issues, including their achievements
and difficulties. WSB Snapshot data (see footnote 9 later in this report) is also collected twice a year to monitor the
number of children walking with the buses and the number of routes operating in each school. Data from these
sources is being compiled for all projects active during 2005 and 2006. An investigation into the infrastructure
changes that councils implemented as a direct result of involvement in the WSB program is also being compiled.
This evaluation report examines three key issues:
The level of outcomes achieved by the projects implemented by the councils funded in phases 1 and 2.
The extent to which the level of outcomes achieved was affected by the implementation.
The extent to which the level of achieved outcomes was affected by the organisational and policy contexts
which prevailed during implementation.
The findings in this report are derived from a range of information collected over a period of three years
(2003 – 2005) from multiple sources. The evaluation includes 12 of the 14 councils that were funded in the first
two phases in 2001 and 2002. Two councils were excluded from this evaluation because they withdrew after the
first year of implementation.
For an overview of the data collection methods of this report please see Appendix 1.
The evaluation is tailored to two levels:
The organisational level – This examines program implementation against the guiding objectives of the program.
The individual level – This examines program effects for individual participants.
At the organisational level the following issues are explored:
1 Characteristics of participating councils
2 Level of consistency in WSB program implementation
3 The role of the WSB project officer
4 Selection of schools & implementation of projects at schools
a Number of schools selected to participate & overview of the school selection process
b Congruence with schools’ values and philosophies
c Establishment of administrative structures at schools
d School participation in the WSB program
e Ongoing school commitment
f Communication with schools and the broader community
5 Engagement and maintenance of volunteer ‘drivers’
6 Establishment of WSB routes
7 Engagement of partner organisations & partnerships with other council units
8 Barriers and facilitating factors to program implementation
At the individual level the following issues are explored:
1 Frequency of walking and walking distance
2 WSB enrolment rate
•
•
•
•
•
�
Results
1 Characteristics of participating councilsAmong the 12 municipalities that participated in this evaluation, five were located in metropolitan Melbourne, four
were rural councils, two were ‘interface’ councils (located on a fringe of Melbourne) and one was a regional council.
Several issues were identified by councils that might constitute barriers to volunteers and children participating in
the program and which affect the level of community engagement with the projects.
Metropolitan councils, particularly those in inner Melbourne, have well-developed transport infrastructure. Most of
these councils also have well-connected and straight streets. This type of street infrastructure provides a physical
environment that supports walking.
Metropolitan councils at some distance from the CBD have more limited public transport and more areas,
particularly within new housing developments, that have dead-end, winding and unconnected streets. This street
infrastructure may present significant challenges as it does not allow selection of the most direct walking route to
a destination. Four councils mentioned poor walking infrastructure as a barrier to WSB implementation
(see Table 24).
Both interface councils and some rural councils emphasised the lack of appropriate walking infrastructure
(for example, footpaths). Under local planning provisions from the 1960s onwards, building of footpaths was not
mandatory – residents could choose to build a footpath, but had to cost-share with the council. These planning
provisions remain in force today.
Heavy traffic was noted by all metropolitan and interface councils as a significant barrier to walking to and from
schools. Rural councils did not consider traffic as a major concern for their schools, except when a school was
located on a highway or at the intersection of busy roads. Interface councils also noted significant car dependency.
Some councils indicated that social composition of the population might affect the general level of engagement
with any community development or community-based program. The issue of low community engagement may
contribute to the low level of volunteering in the program by community members not being connected to schools.
2 Level of consistency in WSB program implementationImplementation of any local WSB program commences with the council’s decision to apply for WSB funding.
This process involves ascertaining the degree of congruence between the WSB objectives and council’s policies
(for example, transport, health or community engagement policies), and the degree of local schools’ readiness to
implement the projects.
The council also engages in a range of activities and internal negotiations in order to support the implementation
of the WSB projects, reduce policy obstacles to its implementation and develop strategies to sustain the projects in
the future.
Upon receiving VicHealth’s funding the council and the selected schools negotiate the terms of their involvement
in the local WSB project. At the same time, partnerships are built between the council, schools, relevant authorities
(such as VicRoads and Victoria Police) and the community to create a conducive and safe environment for walking
to and from school. See Appendix 2 for more information on key activities associated with implementation of the
WSB program.
�
Two models of WSB implementation emerged in phases 1 and 2:
Model 1: where a council implements all aspects of the WSB project.
Model 2: where the implementation is outsourced to an external agency, such as a Primary Care Partnership or
another agency that has a community development or education role.
Model 1 is the most common implementation model and the majority of the WSB projects have been managed
by the community development units or family/youth services of councils. Other WSB projects were managed by
physical services (infrastructure and engineering), health and aged services, and the office of the chief executive
officer (Table 2).
Table 2 Primary area of focus of the council unit that recieved WSB funds
Council unit (n=12 councils) No. of initial funding applications
Community services (incl. community development)* 5
Family, children’s and youth services 3
Physical services (incl. infrastructure and engineering) 2
Health and aged services 1
Strategic (incl. council CEO) 1
* Includes three units that outsourced implementation to an external agency
When considering Model 2, councils indicated they outsourced the implementation of the WSB if the selected
agencies had closer links with the school community, could link the WSB project with the resources and expertise
provided through other State or Commonwealth-funded community-based projects (for example, Best Start,
neighbourhood renewal), had more appropriate social and health policy links, or had more appropriate resources
to implement the project (for example, a more suitable level of project officer experience).
While only a few councils undertook a significant level of pre-implementation needs analysis to establish the
relevance of the project to the school community, the majority of councils engaged schools, parents and volunteers
to some degree in the decision-making about implementation. Decisions about WSB projects were made in
consultation with the principal or a specifically convened WSB project committee, which represented school staff,
parents and representatives of relevant partner organisations.
Councils undertook extensive and ongoing project promotion within the schools and in the community, which aimed
to encourage a shared vision of the project. Interviews with schools and partner organisations indicated a high level
of project awareness and general understanding of the intent of the WSB projects.
In most schools, councils were able to engage a School Contacts Officer (SCO) – a member of staff or a parent
to liaise with the council and coordinate the WSB at the school. The overwhelming majority of the volunteer
WSB ‘drivers’ are parents. The engagement of a SCO and volunteer parents represents an attempt to use school
resources.
Councils engaged many external organisations and internal council units in project implementation and indicated
that partnerships are beneficial due to expertise sharing.
•
•
�0
3 The role of the WSB project officerAlmost all (10 of 12) councils employed a dedicated project officer to implement WSB projects. One council
allocated this task to a staff member for the whole period of implementation. Another council initially had a staff
member managing WSB implementation, and then recruited a dedicated project officer.
Project officers bring a variety of skills and expertise to WSB projects, including experience in community
development, health promotion, teaching, sport and recreation, road safety, town planning, the environment,
and aged and disability planning.
The key tasks undertaken by the WSB project officers include:
• Liaison with participating organisations and internal council units
• Promotion of the project in schools
• Media promotion and community information
• Route identification and audits
• Recruitment, registration, training and ongoing support of volunteers
• Development of guidelines and procedures
• Liaison with the SCO or implementation team, and problem-solving
• Events, awards and recognition of participation
• Curriculum development
• Data collection, reporting and administration.
Many project officers remained committed and dedicated to their WSB projects despite significant challenges
encountered during implementation. However, several issues arise pertaining to the skills, abilities and continuity
of the project officers:
Four of the twelve interviewed project officers indicated that they did not have sufficient project
management experience.
Project officers with a teaching background found it difficult to understand the dynamics of a local government
agency and experienced difficulties building relationships with other council areas. However, it was easier for
these project officers to build and maintain positive relationships with schools – they felt accepted being ‘among
their own’.
Project officers who did not have a teaching background found it harder to engage schools, especially when a
prior relationship between a project officer (or a council) and the schools did not exist. These project officers
indicated that they lacked knowledge about many aspects of school business, and of the key forums and
players that could be effectively engaged (such as principals’ networks).
Three project officers indicated that they lacked sufficient skills in marketing and promoting the project to
schools and the community.
Some WSB projects experienced a high project officer turnover – two projects experienced three to four
project officer changes within a single year.
•
•
•
•
•
��
On average, a project officer was employed or allocated 16.2 hours per week to implement WSB programs (range:
1.5–38 hours/wk). The time a project officer spends on WSB implementation seemed to be consistent year to year.
Many project officers indicated that the first year of WSB implementation required almost full-time involvement.
While the intensity of work reduced after the walking buses began operating, schools required ongoing support
and encouragement.
Four of the 12 councils considered that having a part-time project officer position negatively affected the
implementation of the WSB project because:
Significant effort is required at the establishment phase of the WSB project and insufficient time is available
to plan or reflect on implementation.
Doing the job part-time prevents project officers from organising or attending steering or school network
meetings about WSB implementation.
Significant and continuous effort and time are required to maintain enthusiasm, commitment and ongoing
participation by schools.
Almost all WSB project officers enjoyed strong support from their immediate managers. This enabled project
officers to gain more leverage in requesting assistance from other areas of council. Managers also provided input
into conceptualisation of the projects and planning their implementation.
4 Selection of schools & implementation of projects at schools4a Number of schools selected to participate & overview of the school selection process
Analysis of the initial councils’ applications for WSB funding indicates that 48 schools supported these applications.
That is, an average of four schools supported each council’s application for VicHealth’s funding (with a range from
one to six), as required under VicHealth’s conditions of funding.
School selection has been managed differently by the councils. In many instances, school selection process begins
before a council makes a funding application. At this point, the initial level of school interest is assessed and a
school is asked to support council’s application for funding. At this stage, the school’s willingness to support the
council may be determined by a pre-existing relationship.
There is insufficient data available to estimate the level of relationships between councils and schools prior to
implementation of the WSB. Six councils indicated that they had some level of involvement with primary schools
prior to WSB. Three of these councils had been involved with the schools through other projects, such as Safe
Routes to Schools program or School Crossing Supervisors program. The other three councils indicated that the
schools initiated the contact with the councils to enquire about the WSB program.
Once a council obtained WSB funds the initial supporting schools were asked to confirm their ongoing commitment
to the project and new schools were engaged through either a formal or informal Expression of Interest process.
At the time of original application for funding only four out of the 12 councils indicated that they would conduct a
formal Expression of Interest process to select schools to participate in the WSB program. Ten councils conducted
some Expression of Interest process to select schools. Nine councils selected schools based on predefined
selection criteria (Table 3).
•
•
•
��
Table 3 Criteria for selecting schools into WSB project
School selection criteria (n=12 councils) No. of councils using it
School expressed commitment to participate and allocate resources 5
Evidence that school has addressed or plans to address issues congruent
with WSB5
School meets specific criteria set by the council 4
School identified specific issue(s) to address with WSB 4
School understands the intent of project 3
Geographic coverage/location of school 3
Number of parents interested and available to volunteer 1
Opportunity to target specific section of community (low SES, CALD) 1
It is not clear whether the same selection process has been applied during the annual selection of new schools.
4b Congruence with schools’ values and philosophies
Overall, schools’ understanding of the WSB is consistent with the program’s aims. Most schools (14 out of 18
schools) noted that the WSB program would provide physical benefit through encouraging exercise and developing
an active lifestyle (Table 4). A significant number of schools (12 out of 18 schools) mentioned the potential safety
benefits of the WSB attained through reduction of traffic congestion around schools, the development of pedestrian
skills and by children being able to walk in a safe and supervised environment.
Table 4 Perceived advantages of WSB by schools
Advantages (n=18 schools)No. of schools mentioning
each advantage
Encourages exercise/fitness/active lifestyle 14
Development of safe environment
(traffic safety/ traffic congestion/strangers)12
Social interaction 11
Health benefits 7
Increased punctuality in attending school 4
Neighbourhood awareness 3
Schools had various reasons to engage with the WSB program (Table 5). Of the 21 schools interviewed, reasons
provided for engagement with the WSB projects varied. Eight schools had multiple reasons and 13 schools had a
single reason or theme for engagement with WSB.
��
Table 5 Reasons for school engagement with WSB program
Reasons (n=21 schools)No. of schools mentioning
these reasons
Health/exercise/fitness/active lifestyle benefits 9
Approached by council 8
Development of safe environment
(increased traffic safety/decreased traffic congestion)7
A parent or a principal had strong interest in the concept 4
Other reasons for school engagement included:
The school was offered a small grant by council
The perception that WSB may contribute to a decrease in late attendance to school
The school was encouraged by other schools’ success in implementing WSB
WSB would help to raise the school’s profile in the community.
Schools’ engagement with the program is determined by an interplay of factors. A significant proportion of schools
got involved in WSB to provide benefits for students. Some schools tried to gain leverage: for example, to create a
positive school image within the community, or to obtain funds or infrastructure improvements through engagement
with the local council.
Schools also seem to place an almost equal level of importance upon the safety aspects (particularly in relation to
traffic safety and safe pedestrian behaviour) and the health aspects of the WSB program. While it is not possible to
draw a definitive conclusion, traffic safety emerges as a significant consideration that may drive schools’ participation
in the program.
Primary schools implement a range of health & wellbeing and safety programs. Of the 22 schools interviewed
during the evaluation, 11 schools specifically mentioned one or more relevant program. These programs are listed
in Table 6.
•
•
•
•
��
Table 6 Complementary programs to WSB run at participating schools
Programs (n=22 schools) No. of schools that mentioned program
BikeEd2 8
Health and safety program 2
Safety House3 2
Safe Routes to Schools4 1
TravelSmart5 1
Police in Schools6 1
No relevant program mentioned 9
While the WSB program may be congruent with the intent of the programs listed above, feedback from both the
schools and the councils indicate that the extent of implementation of these programs is variable.
4c Establishment of administrative structures at schools
Implementation of WSB in each school begins with the school principal authorising the project. School committees
(e.g., school council, parents & friends) do not seem to make decisions about WSB projects in interviewed schools.
In almost half of the interviewed schools, the regular school committees had no involvement with WSB. In the
remaining schools, the school committees were supportive of the project, and in a limited number of schools the
committees assisted WSB with some ideas and resources (for example, through fund-raising; Table 7).
Table 7 Involvement of school committees (P&F, school council)
Level of school committees’ involvement (n=22 schools) No. times mentioned
Not involved 10
Supportive/endorsed/approved project 10
Provided limited assistance/ideas (promotion) 3
Following confirmation of the school’s commitment to the project, council begins to develop a supportive school
environment. To achieve this, the council project officer meets with the school principal, discusses the WSB with
school staff, and presents to relevant school committees and interested parents. Some consultation may occur at
this stage to identify potential barriers to project implementation.
2BikeEd is a national bicycle education program for primary school students aged 9–13 years. It is a road safety program to educate students about traffic and road laws, develop physical and motor skills, and appropriate behaviors (Department for Energy, Transport and Infrastructure, SA).3The Safety House involves establishing a network of Safety Houses in a community to provide a safe haven for children should they face danger while commuting to and from school. See the Safety House Program, Lilydale Region, available at: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~coldcf/Safety.html.4Safe Routes to School is a road safety program that focuses on travel to and from school. It is designed to reduce children’s involvement in road accidents. It involves infrastructure modifications, road safety education, enforcement of road safety rules, and encouraging safe traffic behaviour. See Safe Routes to Schools Program, available at:www.travelsmart.gov.au/training/packaging_schools_routes.html#1.5 TravelSmart is a national program to encourage people to substitute use of private cars with alternative travel options to benefit health and the environment. See the TravelSmart program, available at: www.travelsmart.gov.au/.6 The Police in Schools program (now defunct) was about prevention of criminal behaviour or activities. See ABC Western Victoria, available at: http://www.abc.net.au/westernvic/stories/s1679255.htm.
��
Two types of governance structures have been identified as being established once the school approves the
WSB project:
a) An overall project management committee/team, which may include parents, school staff, council officers
representing a range of council units, representatives of a volunteer management agency, DEET, VicRoads,
members of the Victorian police, and other community members.
b) A school project team (or school implementation committee), which may include a volunteer, a member of the
school council, a teacher, interested parents, and a School Contact Officer for the WSB.
Many councils established one or both types of governance structures. However, it is unclear whether these groups
had any formal terms of reference. While seven councils indicated the importance of these supportive structures,
their contribution to the projects has not been determined beyond provision of ideas and overall support.
A critical element for WSB project success in schools is the School Contact Officer (SCO) – a staff member or a
parent who is allocated responsibility for managing WSB at school (Table 8). Most commonly this was the school
principal. Councils indicated that schools without SCOs required more support to implement and manage
WSB projects.
Table 8 School contact officer
School interviews (n=22 staff/representatives) No.
Principal 9
Assistant principal 5
Teacher 5
Parent 4
Other (welfare officer, integration aide, community liaison person)
4
Table 8 indicates that the principals have taken an SCO role in over half of the interviewed schools. Principals may
share the SCO role with another staff member.
Allocation of an SCO indicates some level of resource commitment from schools. This is particularly significant
when an SCO is a staff member, whose WSB-related activities are integrated into their job role, or when a parent is
given access to other school resources (for example, a room, computer or staff member’s assistance). Staff at three
schools had the WSB incorporated into their routine work role. These staff members were: a welfare coordinator,
a community liaison person and an integration aide.
An SCO may provide the following support to the WSB project officer:
Advice about the best way to conduct activities at school (e.g., project promotion)
Identification of families to be specifically targeted for enrolment
Registration of children
Assistance in route audits and identification of volunteers
•
•
•
•
��
Day-to-day volunteer coordination
Monitoring and coordinating walking buses, for example, timetabling
General support and encouragement
Management of problem-solving matters, for example, illness, children’s behaviour, conflict.
An SCO may also represent some continuity for schools in WSB projects which experience high WSB project
officer turnover.
An SCO is a significant asset and contributes to the maintenance of the WSB project. However, councils did
raise several issues relating to the ability of school staff taking on the WSB role to effectively manage additional
requirements. Principals were often too busy to devote sufficient time to the SCO role or exerted too much control
over the project. When a principal allocates ‘extra curricular’ tasks to staff members, these non-priority tasks
may not be performed to the required capacity. Staff members performing SCO roles may not have sufficient
competencies and support (either from council, the principal or other staff or parents) to implement or manage
WSB on a day-to-day basis. SCOs may lose interest and motivation when a significant level of commitment is
required or when the WSB fails to produce reasonable or expected levels of engagement.
The majority of schools indicated that SCOs experienced a high level of workload at the project establishment
stage. For some SCOs the workload eased to low or minimal over time, but for other SCOs the WSB-related tasks
contributed to a continually high workload (Table 9). Low levels of workload may be associated with routinisation of
tasks or small numbers of children enrolled in the program.
Table 9 Level of workload associated with WSB implementation
School interviews (n=22 staff/representatives) No.
High workload to establish the project 11
High workload to establish but low workload to
maintain/minimal impact5
High workload at all times 5
Unsure about workload 1
4d School participation in WSB program
Of the 305 schools located across 12 participating municipalities, 137 schools (45%) had been exposed7 to the
WSB program between October 2001 and February 2005. However, councils had difficulties meeting the required
minimum number for annual engagement of new schools and the program has experienced a level of school
turnover (Table 10).
Reconciliation of school participation and withdrawal data also indicates that about a quarter of schools that
supported councils’ applications did not get engage in the WSB project. Of 56 schools listed in original funding
applications only 36 (64%) schools were listed by the councils as involved a year later.
•
•
•
•
7Schools were considered ‘exposed’ to the program if they had participated in the program at any time during the project.
��
Table 10 School withdrawals from WSB program
School participation (n=12 councils) Feb 2004 Feb 2005
Total number of schools 97 81
No. of schools participating 64 62
% withdrawn 34% 23%
Table 10 indicates that school withdrawal rate decreased between 2004 and 2005. More longitudinal data is
needed before conclusions can be drawn about the significance of this decline in school withdrawal rates.
Most significantly, of the 137 schools exposed to the program, only 19 schools (14%) retained their participation for
the whole three-year program period. Figure 1 shows the level of school turnover during this period – from October
2001 (original funding) through to the year-2 report (February 2004), and to February 2005 (year-3 report).
The most frequently mentioned reasons for school withdrawal were:
Lack of school engagement and/or ongoing commitment
Lack of volunteer engagement
Lack of interest from parents/low enrolments
Lack of punctuality of attendance/consistency in using WSB
High proportion of CALD parents
Challenging behaviour of children.
These reasons for school withdrawal are consistent with the major difficulties identified by schools as the factors
that could potentially affect the sustainability of projects at schools.
Figure 1 School turnover (n=12 councils)
0%
Funding extension
School participating since original funding
Progress report (Feb 2004) Progress report (Feb 2005)
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Newly recruited schools at reporting time
School participating since extension in 2003 School participating from Feb 05
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
4e Ongoing school commitment
Councils identified lack of school commitment to the project as a significant barrier to the success of a WSB.
Councils expend a large amount of effort in engaging schools, encouraging project ownership and building school
capacity to implement WSB projects. Despite these efforts, councils often found it extremely difficult to obtain
and maintain ongoing school commitment. A high level of school turnover confirms the difficulties the majority of
schools have in committing to the project long term.
The degree of ongoing school commitment seems to relate to three issues:
The extent of perceived relevance of the WSB project to school business and the school community
The level of endorsement by the principal and the interest from parents
Results of the WSB not matching school expectations; for example, WSB enrolments, walking frequency,
decrease in traffic congestion, etc.
The relevance of a project is usually established through needs analysis. Nine of the 12 councils undertook some
consultation with the school community in relation to walking to or from school. Only three of these councils
consulted schools extensively to clarify expectations from all parties involved, to set clear implementation activities,
to ascertain the level of available resources, and to identify potential barriers to implementation and issues to be
considered during project planning (Table 11). Councils may not have had an appropriate level of authorisation to
access the schools to conduct in-depth consultations due to the lack of prior relationships with the schools.
Table 11 Needs analysis undertaken by councils in preparation of the initial funding application
Type of consultation (n=12 councils) No. of applications
Limited needs analysis with schools (e.g., a travel preference survey
conducted with parents and/or children)3
Some liaison with schools occurred before application and
the schools agreed to be involved4
In-depth consultation with schools 3
Consultation with schools not described 2
There is a strong possibility that limited needs analysis prevented councils from making projects relevant to the
needs of the schools and school communities. This finding is supported by the following:
a) Three councils specifically emphasised that preliminary analysis of local issues and barriers to implementation
was one of the factors that contributed positively to implementation of the projects (Table 11).
b) Councils indicated that failure to conduct in-depth needs analysis at the beginning of the projects prevented
them from understanding that:
Schools have significant demands on their time and resources. Any externally implemented initiative has strong
competition with schools’ core activities and other initiatives for already limited resources. For this reason,
schools require significant and ongoing external assistance for an externally implemented program such as
WSB. This level of support, assistance and encouragement should be continued over time to maintain the
achieved level of participation.
•
•
•
•
��
Each school has a different population structure and culture, and faces different issues. Therefore, each school
requires an individually tailored approach.
Schools do not feel that they should be accountable for externally funded non-curriculum activity that ‘happens
outside the school gates’ as the schools do not hold primary responsibility for it. Therefore, schools need to have
clear directions and must endorse the level of activity and output expected from them. Schools are unlikely to
take the initiative, and should be delegated specific tasks.
Older children saw the WSB concept as ‘daggy’ and ‘uncool’ and did not want to participate.
All councils indicated that the primary decision-maker at school is the principal, whose endorsement, commitment,
enthusiasm and level of appreciation of the intent of the WSB projects will significantly affect access to the school
community and allocation of appropriate resources and support.
The dynamics of the school community may determine the level of volunteering, enrolments and overall project
endorsement from the parents. Councils described three types of relationships between schools and families:
‘rule-bound’ schools – schools that have a very hierarchical and formal environment and interaction
with families
‘disconnected’ school communities – where parents often do not come inside the school grounds (‘parents
drop off their children and drive off’) or where parents perceive the school simply as a service provider. In these
environments, parents do not feel the need to contribute to or get engaged in school initiatives.
‘nuclear family’ schools – these have informal interaction, a high level of parental engagement, interest and/or
contribution to school activities, and support networks between parents.
Data from schools supported these descriptions of the school environment (Table 12).
Table 12 School culture as described by the schools
Type of consultation (n=12 councils) No. of times mentioned
High community involvement/participation in
school activities6
High population from disadvantaged communities 5
Individualistic/not much parental involvement/perceive school as
service provider5
Car-dependent parents 2
Medium level of involvement 2
Caring/supportive school environment 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
�0
WSB projects were more difficult to implement in ‘rule-bound’ and ‘disconnected’ school communities.
From the perspective of the schools, the level of ongoing commitment was also determined by the value the WSB
projects produced given the level of commitment required. One-third of schools interviewed indicated that if the WSB
failed to achieve reasonable level of participation it would affect sustainability of the project. Other schools indicated
that sustainability would be affected by the resources and time commitment required to counteract implementation
difficulties, such as:
Lack of punctuality/consistency of attendance on the WSB
Late WSB arrival to schools
Lack of volunteers and difficulties in coordinating volunteers
Excessive expectations held by a council about school’s ability, willingness or skills to implement the project or
deal with day-to-day issues
Too much attention being drawn to WSB walkers at school
Parents treating the buses as another service and expecting the volunteers to pick up children from home or
deliver them back.
Lack of commitment of behalf of the schools may result in three outcomes:
The school withdrawing from the project
The school shifting responsibilities for project implementation and ongoing management back to the council
The school shifting full responsibility for implementation and management to an SCO or volunteers rather than
it being a whole-of-school responsibility.
4f Communication with schools and the broader community
Councils place a high value in communicating about the WSB project to schools and the general community.
WSB project officers used many opportunities and a range of communication tools to promote the project in schools.
Promotional activities take a significant amount of the WSB project officer’s time, particularly at the initial stages of
WSB in each school.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
Promotional activities in schools include:
Personal promotion Discussion of the project with principals and presentations to school staff
and relevant school committees
Presentations at assemblies and parent information nights
(including prep information nights)
•
•
Information materials Inclusion of WSB brochures and notices into enrolment kits and
school newsletters
WSB posters
Letters from principals about WSB
•
•
•
Events Official project launch/announcement ‘Come and Try’, ‘Car-free Day’,
‘Breathe Easy’, ‘Healthy and active breakfast’ events
Joint school open day displays
•
•
Role modelling Engagement of a prominent local figure to ‘drive’ the buses from time to time•
Information to the general public about the WSB was distributed through:
Personal promotion Public information sessions
Promotion through local community groups, such as walking groups,
senior citizens groups
•
•
Events Promotion of WSB during local community events, such as city festivals,
mental health week
•
Information materials Council website
Media coverage (newspapers, radio interviews)
Distribution of info at various venues, including community centres and
local organisations, libraries, schools, seniors centres, sporting clubs, health
centres, recreational centres, general practitioners, other physical activity
programs
Distribution of the fliers, some of which were translated into community
languages, to residents via a distributor and volunteers
Distribution of information at festivals, family events
Posters on shop front windows
Advertising in local papers, council customer phone line, newsletters
Promotion via other council programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
A range of materials was released by the councils to promote the WSB to the general community. Materials
submitted to VicHealth by 12 councils and examined in this evaluation include:
21 media publications in the local newspapers
10 information materials (pamphlets and information sheets)
Eight other types of materials
Three advertisements for volunteers.
The materials published by the councils described the potential benefits of the WSB program. The main messages
conveyed in the communication materials are summarised in Table 13.
Table 13 Benefits of WSB presented in community materials
Benefits of WSB (n=42 materials) No. of materials mentioning benefit
Opportunity to engage in exercise/physical activity 32
Teaching participating children road safety/pedestrian skills 29
Decreased traffic congestion around schools 24
Community involvement 12
Benefits for the environment 11
Alternative way to travel to school 9
Opportunity to make friends/socialise 9
General health benefits 8
Overall, WSB promotion in the community has been consistent with the WSB intent of increasing physical activity
through engaging in unstructured exercise by selecting active transport choices.
WSB has also been significantly marketed as a project to improve traffic safety by developing pedestrian skills and
decreasing traffic congestion around schools. The potential of the WSB to decrease traffic congestion was heavily
promoted in the materials, possibly because traffic congestion around schools had been identified as one of the
significant issues for school involvement with the WSB project. It is also possible that the potential to reduce traffic
congestion was used to attract and/or maintain interest in the project by other schools in the area.
•
•
•
•
��
5 Engagement and maintenance of volunteer ‘drivers’WSB projects rely on volunteers to walk the buses to and from schools. This model emerged because WSB was
perceived as a community development program, where volunteering would represent community engagement and
an opportunity to build program ownership.
Volunteers are expected to:
Take an attendance roll for each trip
Be punctual picking up and dropping off kids
Ensure that children do not cross roads without supervision
Inform parents about changes in the timetable
Notify an SCO of any issues (behaviour, being late etc)
Coordinate with other volunteers.
Most of the WSB volunteers are parents of children attending school (Table 14). Only one council recruited almost
half of the volunteers from other sources.
Table 14 Volunteer sources
Volunteer source (n=11 councils) Feb 2004 Feb 2005
Parents/family member 199 72% 258 75%
Other source of volunteers* 77 28% 88 25%
Total number of volunteers 276 346
Number of active schools 57 60
* Other sources of volunteers include school staff, local community members, sport and recreation groups, volunteers from a volunteer resource centre and council employees.
Table 15 counts volunteers who were recruited to the program, not volunteers who were registered (that is, received
full training) with each participating school. Not all initially recruited volunteers participate in the WSB project.
Between 74% to 86% of the initially registered volunteers proceed to receive full registration with the councils and
engage with the program (Table 15).
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
Table 15 Volunteers recruited vs registered with schools
No. of volunteers (n=11 councils) Feb 2004 Feb 2005
No. of recruited volunteers 276 346
No. of active volunteers that were registered in active schools 237 256
Average number of active volunteers per active school 4 4
Volunteer participation conversion rate 86% 74%
Number of active schools 57 60
Councils recruited volunteers using a range of methods. Most of the recruitment activities were combined with
the promotional activities (for example, parents would be asked to complete an Expression of Interest form at the
information session). Table 16 lists strategies considered successful by councils in volunteer recruitment. Table
17 lists less successful strategies. These tables do not provide any firm reference for identifying key strategies for
successful volunteer recruitment, as some strategies were suggested as being both successful and less successful.
Table 16 Perceived successful strategies for volunteer recruitment
Strategy (n=10 councils) No. of councils who mentioned
Advertisement in a school newsletter 8
Presentations at assemblies & school events 5
Word of mouth 3
Volunteer management organisations 3
Directly approaching parents 3
Advertising in local media/community events 3
Through school committee (P&F, school council) 2
Walking groups 2
��
Table 17 Less successful strategies for volunteer recruitment
Strategy (n=10 councils) No. of councils who mentioned
Advertising in local media/presentations at the community events 6
Distribution of printed information through local
community agencies3
Presentations to school staff/committees 2
Volunteer management organisations 2
Presentations at assemblies & school events 1
Advertisement in a school newsletter 1
Community programs (e.g., weight loss program) 1
Limited feedback from eight interviewed volunteers indicated that they found about the opportunity to volunteer
for WSB from school materials or presentations, from community-distributed materials about WSB, from a council
coordinator, another volunteer or parent, or at a community event.
All but one of the eight volunteers received training. One volunteer was given an information pack. The training
focused on the following aspects:
Insurance and police checks
WSB routes, routine and coordination
Managing a group of children and communication with parents
Road safety
Emergency procedures and first aid
Cultural sensitivity.
Engagement of suitable volunteer drivers has been another challenging aspect of the WSB program. Parents
considered volunteering to WSB for a number of reasons (Table 18).
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
Table 18 Reasons for volunteering
Reasons for volunteering (n=8 interviewed volunteers) No. of times mentioned
Program benefits children 7
Had walked own children to school before WSB 4
Part of my job 3
Need to help school/important for the school community 3
Program benefits community (pollution, less cars, interaction with people) 2
Role model for kids 2
Encourage other parents to volunteer 2
Live close to school/other volunteers 2
Building trust between parents/give & get support 2
Important for own children 2
Can fit into my schedule 1
Recognition in school community 1
Reasons for not volunteering included:
Lack of time or unwillingness to change established routine
Not wanting to take responsibility for someone else’s children or a large group of children
Fear of behavioural problems on the WSB
Too stressful if children do not turn up for the WSB
Parents perceive schools as service providers and have no need to volunteer their support
Weather
Live too far away or too close to school.
While only eight volunteers were interviewed during the evaluation, they indicated that with one exception the WSB
did not have a significant impact on their routine. Four said it had minimal impact (for example, parents usually
integrated WSB duties into their routine, such as not scheduling early meetings at work); two said WSB had no
impact on their routine; one said it had a positive impact, as it helped them get organised and get their own kids to
school earlier; and the remaining volunteer said it had a significant impact, as it made them late for work.
Anecdotal evidence from a variety of sources indicates that not only is it difficult to engage parents, but schools can
be very selective about the type of volunteers considered to be appropriate for the task. The key characteristics of a
suitable volunteer include:
Good communication skills, which include sufficient English language skills
Ability to provide exemplary behaviour
Enthusiasm and good standing in the school community.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
Because of the above, community volunteers may not be perceived as suitable by schools and parents (unless they
have a high profile in the community, such as a local identity, police officers or council employees). This factor may
discourage councils from looking for volunteers outside the school community.
Almost all volunteers interviewed felt valued for their contribution to the WSB project (for example, through feedback
from children and parents, awards or special events for volunteers) and felt that they had a sufficient level of support
from the council and the school (through training, regular contact, resolution of issues and provision of resources).
These volunteers indicated various commitments to continuous engagement with the WSB. Of the eight, four said
they would continue as long as their own children were at school; three said they would continue to volunteer as long
as their children were interested in going on the WSB or as long as the program continued; while one volunteer said
they would continue until the end of the year.
6 Establishment of WSB routesWalking bus routes are sometimes identified by the councils. Some councils identify routes based on the residence
of the potential participating children. Other councils consult children, parents and volunteers. Anecdotal feedback
from a variety of sources indicates that the successful routes were designed in response to volunteer needs. This is
because volunteers are prepared to contribute only limited amounts of time or have a threshold for an acceptable
walking distance. Volunteers prefer to walk the most direct route.
All councils conduct route audits. Councils engage experts to assist with assessment of safety of the route
(for example, Victoria Police members, council traffic engineers, safety officers, etc).
The route audits resulted in some significant infrastructure improvements around some schools: for example, new
crossings, new footpaths and maintenance of footpaths, signage, tree maintenance and, in one case, realignment of
a road intersection.
7 Engagement of partner organisations & partnerships with other council unitsWSB projects have encouraged partnership effort both within councils and between councils and state authorities
and/or community organisations. On average, four external partners and three internal council units are involved
with each WSB project.
External partner organisations are listed in Table 19, and the internal council units working in partnership with the
implementing council unit/agency are listed in Table 20. Based on data from 2003 it shows a total of 72 partners
have been involved in implementing 11 WSB projects. Most of these partnerships were new partnerships, as indicated
in Table 21.
��
Table 19 List of external partners
Type of external partners (n=11 councils) No. of partners
Victoria Police 10
Another council 9
PCP and community development organisations 7
VicRoads 5
Community organisations (e.g., leisure centre, Rotary club, etc) 4
Volunteer management organisations 3
Healthcare organisations 3
Other (local businesses, RACV, University campus, media,
DEET district networks)8
Total 49
Table 20 List of internal council units working in partnership with implementing unit/agency
No. of partners (n=11 councils) Total
Engineering and infrastructure 7
Corporate services (risk management, GIS, media) 6
Traffic management 4
Community development/services 3
Family, children’s and youth services 2
Local laws & community safety 1
Total 23
��
Table 21 Newness of partnerships
Type of partners (n=11 councilsWorked with the
organisation/council unit for the first time
Worked with the organisation/council
unit before
External organisations 37 12
Council unit 9 14
Total 46 26
When asked about the importance of partnerships for achieving WSB project objectives, evidence indicates that
internal partnerships may have more significant influence than external partnerships (Table 22).
Table 22 Importance of partnership for achieving WSB project objectives
Importance of partnership (n=11 councils)
External partners Internal partners Total
Critically important 11 11 22
Very important 15 4 19
Moderately important 15 6 21
Of little importance 4 0 4
Total 45 21 66
Table 22 above indicates that 62% of the partners were considered very or critically important in achieving the WSB
project objectives. More than half of the internal council units were considered to be critically important to achieving
the WSB project objectives, whereas less than a quarter of the external partners were critically important.
Internal partnerships also emerged as a significant factor in facilitating the implementation of WSB projects
(Table 23).
Two councils mentioned lack of contribution and/or buy-in from other council units as a barrier to implementation.
The importance of internal partnerships was clarified in interviews with councils. Councils described this type of
partnership as more of a service-support relationship. Councils that reported having strong delineation of service
and support roles and high level of commitment to service-support dynamics said that WSB projects were easier to
implement. The project officers, however, need to sense this dynamic very early in project implementation to use it
for the benefit of the project.
Engineering and infrastructure council units represent almost half of the critically important units, probably because
these units are instrumental in implementing the improvements to infrastructure identified as unsafe or unsuitable
during route audits.
�0
The key reasons for engaging in partnerships included:
To address a need in the community (19%, of mostly external partners)
To tap into expertise (18%, of almost equal numbers of internal and external partners).
Participating agencies contributed resources in the way of:
Skills and expertise in community building/development
Influence
Input into project planning, decision-making and priority setting
Input into project promotion.
Some external partners interviewed indicated that their key contribution to the project related to supporting
the WSB message in schools and in encouraging schools to participate. Some of these partners had longer
relationships with schools than the council and had a better understanding of individual schools.
8 Barriers and facilitating factors to program implementationImportant lessons have been learnt by the councils involved in this study. Tables 23 and 24 highlight the key
factors identified in implementation of their WSB projects.
Table 23 Facilitating factors
Facilitating factor (n=12 councils) No. of councils who mentioned
Partnership & commitment within the council (inc. support from councillors) 10
Ongoing project promotion to schools and media exposure 9
Endorsement of the project by the principal and school community 7
Good relationship with participating schools 7
Support structures in schools for WSB implementation and administration 7
Ensuring simple and clear processes, instructions and resources 4
Committed, enthusiastic, reliable volunteers 4
Commitment, dedication and perseverance of project officer 4
Offering incentives and rewards for participation 3
Prior analysis of local issues/barriers to implementation & ongoing participants’ input 3
Sufficient resources were available in the council to support schools 3
•
•
•
•
•
•
��
Table 24 Barriers to WSB implementation
Barriers (n=12 councils)No. of councils who
mentioned
Lack of school commitment and support for the project, despite council efforts to
engage and build their capacity and ownership11
Recruitment and retaining of reliable and committed volunteers 11
Lack of school accountability for the project 10
Lack of clarity about the requirements/level & condition of involvement 4
Part-time role of WSB project officer 4
Poor walking infrastructure 4
Lack of parental engagement with the program (through volunteering or
enrolling children)3
These tables show that the following factors significantly facilitate project implementation:
Partnerships and ongoing support within councils
Endorsement from the school, continuous school commitment to the project and good relationships between
schools and the council
Allocation of resources by schools to support implementation
Clear terms of involvement and allocation of responsibilities.
In the absence of these factors, the WSB projects will not be successfully implemented.
•
•
•
•
��
Engagement in physical activityWalking is considered one of the most convenient ways to improve health through physical activity. Therefore, it
is important to estimate the contribution of walking with the WSB towards the daily amount of physical activity.
The level of contribution can be ascertained by understanding:
The amount of beneficial physical activity, which consists of the frequency of walking and intensity of physical
activity (WSB speed)
The proportion of primary school children who engage in beneficial physical activity.
1Frequencyofwalkingandwalkingdistance
Walking buses do not operate every day. The 57 schools that participated in the program in February 2004
operated 92 routes. On average, each route walked to school on three days and from school on two days during
the snapshot week.
The average route length is 1.3km (Table 25). The average travel time with the WSB is 28 minutes.
Table 25 Route length
n=11 councils Feb 2003 Feb 2004 Feb 2005
Number of routes 93 92 108
Total route length (in metres) 123,685 126,106 148,716
Average route length (in metres) 1329 1371 1377
These findings indicate that enrolment in a WSB program provides primary school children with an opportunity to
engage in approximately 30 minutes of moderate physical activity on three mornings a week and 30 minutes of
moderate physical activity on two afternoons a week. Therefore, the WSB can contribute to a minimum of half of
the recommended physical activity for children (currently set at 60 minutes per day).
2WSBenrolmentrate
Table 26 shows the WSB enrolment rate over three years of WSB program implementation, based on enrolment
figures reported by councils. WSB enrolment rate here is calculated as the total number of children enrolled in the
WSB program divided by the total number of student enrolments in primary schools participating in the WSB program
across 11 councils.
•
•
Individual Benefits of WSB
��
Table 26 WSB enrolment rate February 2003–February 2005
n=11 councils Feb 2003 Feb 2004 Feb 2005
No. of children enrolled in WSB 577 595 1115
WSB enrolment rate for each school 2.6% 2.8% 5.8%
Number of current schools 59 57 60
Average No. of children on a WSB 10 6.4 10.3
Table 26 indicates that the WSB program experienced increasing enrolment over the period of three years, with
5.8% of the primary school population in Victoria enrolled in the program in February 2005 across the 11 councils.
Three additional factors affect the WSB enrolment rate.
For every 13 children officially enrolled on a WSB route, one extra child who is not enrolled walks with each trip.
Approximately 25% of children enrolled in WSB do not walk with the bus all the time.8
Enrolment figures take the whole school population into account while anecdotally it is suggested mainly
younger children walk with the bus.
•
•
•
8This figure was derived from the Appendix: Data 2003–2005, Snapshot Report, VicHealth, 2005. The walking rate was calculated as Enrolled walkers recorded divided by No. of routes divided by No. of sessions walked.
��
Based on the evidence gathered from phase 1 and 2 of the WSB program; it has achieved various levels of benefits
for participating children, schools, volunteers and councils. The program has attracted considerable interest from
school communities and councils and has also received and maintained political support.
The WSB concept seems to be well understood and its health, safety and environmental objectives are well
supported by councils and schools. The program has been positively portrayed in the media and seems to be
congruent with relevant policies and philosophies of councils and somewhat aligned with policies of some schools.
The program has also enabled positive linkages that have not previously existed between and within organisations.
It has provided a good opportunity for councils and local primary schools to engage with each other; many for the
first time. In addition to VicHealth funding, some councils and agencies also made financial contributions to
the program.
Some schools had difficulty in maintaining long-term commitment to the program. This was mainly because
the schools did not anticipate being heavily involved in a non-curriculum activity, for which they do not feel
accountable.
While all councils indicated that the WSB program is congruent with many council policies and programs, the WSB
program was rarely integrated into any of the stated policies. Even though supporting environments were created
for implementation, the program has sometimes struggled to become administratively and operationally practicable.
In some instances the program has failed to attract appropriate resources because
In the initial stages, WSB Project Officers have had limitations in the skills and experiences needed to
implement the program
Council have allocated insufficient time for project planning and management; particularly during the early
stages of implementation
Schools have attempted to allocate administrative resources via School Contact Officers; but have not formally
supported their functions
Most schools had difficulty in attracting and maintaining volunteers
The partnerships formed between and within agencies have been beneficial but their full potential may not have
been realised or explored.
In addition to the implementation issues, some council programs have produced lower levels of outcomes than
expected. Lack of resources allocated (for example Project Officer time) during implementation, and operational
difficulties led to the limited levels of outcome achieved by the program in some areas.
This report however provides a wealth of information for those who are running or considering running the WSB
program. Key lessons such as the need to undertake significant pre-program planning to better understand the role
of schools and their interest and capacity to be involved in the program are highlighted. Lessons learnt from the
experiences of these first 12 councils should assist other councils and schools to implement WSB in order to get
more children walking to school more often. The WSB program has evolved at a rapid rate in Victoria and continues
to experience significant community support.
•
•
•
•
•
Summary & conclusion
��
Methodology
Information source Data collection Focus on Notes
Documents Document analysis Congruence with WSB objectives and principles
Outputs relating to walking routes, operating the WSB and volunteer involvement
•
•
Documents included:
original funding submissions
applications for funding extensions
applications for WSB Plus funding
annual progress reports
snapshot reports
•
•
•
•
•
•
Council WSB coordinators Individual face-to-face interview n=12
Structural and implementation contexts
WSB implementation, barriers and successes
Support from within council and external agencies
Engagement and working arrangements with schools
Engagement of volunteers
Program uptake
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collected by VicHealth in conjunction with RMIT
School representatives Face-to-face interview
n=22
Reasons for school engagement with the WSB
Implementation of the WSB
Successes and difficulties with implementation
•
•
•
Collected by GDP Consulting
Volunteers Face-to-face interview and survey n=22
Reason for volunteering
Impact of volunteering
•
•
Collected by GDP Consulting
Appendix 1
��
Key activities associated with implementation of the WSB programActivities Potential outcomes
Councils apply for WSB funding Individual councils’ WSB project objectives are
congruent with the VicHealth’s program objectives
•
Select schools to implement the WSB Minimum four primary schools demonstrate support of
each council’s application for initial round of funding
Schools’ values and philosophy are congruent with
WSB objectives
School communities demonstrate clear support for
WSB program
•
•
•
Project commencement Project officer is employed or a council employee is
allocated accountability for WSB implementation
Project officers are supported by management and
other council areas
•
•
Establish WSB administrative structures in schools WSB project is endorsed by a school principal
A school employee or a parent volunteer allocated tasks
to coordinate WSB at school
•
•
Engage partner organisations Authorities and local community organisations provide
support (goods, safety equipment, expertise) to local
project as required
•
Establish WSB routes in the local area Established routes are safe and meet the walking needs
of children, parents and volunteers
Parents and children are aware of route locations
•
•
Communicate to school and general community Parents and children are aware of the WSB in their
school and can identify its benefits
Most partner organisations are aware of the WSB
benefits
•
•
Appendix 2
Engagement of volunteer ‘drivers’ Number and type of volunteers registered with school
Volunteer length of service
All volunteers are appropriately trained and registered
with the council
•
•
•
Operating the buses Schools maintain participation over time
Schools become independent from the council
over time
Increased number of schools running the buses
Increased number of WSB routes
Increased WSB enrolment/walking rates and frequency
over time
Increased unofficial walking rate
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy development/advocacy within council Number and range of municipal and school policies
that acknowledge WSB
Resource kits document WSB implementation
Range and type of internal council forums where the
continuation of the WSB is discussed
•
•
•
�7
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation PO Box 154 Carlton South Victoria 3053 Australia Phone: +61 3 9667 1333 Fax: +61 3 9667 1375 Email: [email protected]
May 2007
www.vichealth.vic.gov.au
