Page 50 - Linkline Autumn 2015

In short, the key objective is to ensure a shift away from car use in the transporting of pupils to and from school. Funding for the programme over the period 2008-2011 was ∑ 6.89 million, with an estimated 177,000 students participating.
The Conclusions
FPA outcomes were produced under three headings ∑ (i) the rationale for the intervention (ii) ef ciency of programme delivery and (iii) effectiveness of programme delivery in relation to agreed objectives. The summary presented in the report gives a avour of these outcomes:-
“1. The overarching objectives of the programme were unclear ∑ for example whether behavioural change or attitude change is most important ∑ or whether the volume of students in the programme is more important than the mode share change achieved.
2. The speci c targets for the programme were poorly de ned, drove expansion of the scheme rather than effectiveness, and potentially do not target the key goal of mode shift away from the car;
3. Programme management, and speci cally the links between inputs ( nancial & staff) and outputs (activities) and outcomes were poor;
4. Ef cient delivery will not be assured through current programme management and measurement;
5. The programme had a limited and/or uncertain effect on travel behaviour; and
6. There was a lack of robust evidence regarding the impacts of the programme and uncertainty will remain around independence of measures of success”.
The Recommendations
The assessment of the Green-School Travel Programme included a set of useful recommendations. These are summarised in box 2. Following-on from the recommendations, the FPA presents a number of different options for the future of the programme. The report notes that the main options around future delivery include continued direct grant award, a tendering process, or discontinuation of the programme. With regard to the latter recommendation, the report observes that suf cient policy rationale remains to intervene to address pollution and congestion issues including through some form of mobility management scheme in schools. The FPA does state that ∑ “this does not necessarily have to be the Green-Schools scheme in its current form. However, should delivery continue through either the direct grant award mechanism, or through a tender process, the recommendations made remain valid through either approach”.
Box 2 fPa’s recommendations for green-schools Travel Programme
The FPA presents seven recommendations, designed to ameliorate the issues raised in the assessment:
1. Deciding on clear and coherent objectives for the programme;
tendering;
5. Measuring the value of each activity in terms of
2. Revising the targets so that they are consistent with the
objectives, achievable and measureable. Speci cally the
targets should focus on those areas that can deliver most
bene ts ∑ such as concentrating on walking and cycling and
rather than mixed modes;
3. Improving ef ciency of the programme by using
ef ciency metrics to benchmark and set cost per school/
pupil/etc. targets;
4. Improving design and delivery of the programme by
considering options associated with direct award versus
7. Developing a long-term plan of continuous development that considers the merits of a sunset clause, making the programme self-sustaining and the bene ts of working with similar programmes such as the Health Service Executive Active Flag Programme.
achieving modal change;
6. Putting in place an independent monitoring and
evaluation process and improving data management;
Some Final Comments
The Public Spending Code outlines how Focused Policy Assessments are needed to provide evaluations that are ∑ “...sharper and more narrowly focused...”. This particular assessment of the Green-School Travel Programme certainly demonstrates evidence of these criteria being to the fore. To that extent the question has to be asked was this assessment too sharp and too narrow? There is a risk that the wider requirements might not have been taken fully into account. A strong case can be made for greater promotion of more sustainable travel
for school trips through increased walking, cycling, public transport and car-sharing. And it is not just pupil school trips that count, there
are also the trips made by teachers, parents and other responsible members of a school community, who can then share and discuss their ‘sustainable experiences’ with pupils. In that regard, it is surprising that the issue of training for green-school travel development of cers was not highlighted in the recommendations of the FPA report.
While some will argue that the FPA of the Green-School Travel Programme has been unduly sharp, however, it does highlight that the State has in place new tools to analyse public policies. As Minister Brendan Howlin argued in a speech last October “... it remains critically important that governments and societies ensure that the resources provided by tax-payers are managed carefully, and that their use has an optimal impact on society.” Today, more than ever before, there is a need for a tool such as Focused Policy Assessment to help ensure how best to allocate resources and to adjust policies, where necessary, to ensure that taxpayers are getting real value-for-money.
The CharTered InsTITuTe of LogIsTICs & TransporT 35
grEEN SChOOLS TraNSpOrT