1. Urban Safe Routes to Schoola national perspective mark plotz Active Living Resource Center
2. Program History Before 2005, state and local Safe Routes to School programs, with a few notable exceptions, focused on getting kids walking (as opposed to improving safety.) It was a suburban program. The City Safe Routes to School pilot program was conceived of in 2005 as a response to the passage of the federal Safe Routes to School program. Launched in 2006, our goal was threefold: 1) deliver direct technical assistance to urban schools; 2) help them access federal funds; and 3) develop a body of practice and preach from the bully pulpit.
4. Program Blueprint Three year timeline Phase 1: Development and testing Chicago, Birmingham, St. Paul Phase 2: Six city rollout and refinement Huntsville, Atlanta, Garfield, Hartford, Brooklyn, Blue Island IL Phase 3: Regional, statewide, and T3 St. Petersburg, North Charleston/Charleston SC, Mobile AL
5. School profile Located in an urban environment. Located in established residential neighborhoods. Walking infrastructure is in place but not necessarily intact. Personal safety concerns: bullying, crime, gangs, dogs. Traffic safety concerns: streets are too wide, too fast. Schools are lacking in volunteers or a champion. Every day is Walk to School Day. Most, if not all, students are on free/reduced lunch. Young principals or principals nearing retirement.
6. There is newly available SRTS money. We have to ensure urban schools have access to the grants. (2006) Where the need is the greatest and the work is the hardest, success will be most elusive. (The public health paradox) Safe Routes paradox
7. Program Design and Recommendations Working through local advocates. Meeting the people where they are. Finding a starting point. Emphasis on storytelling. Bringing your state coordinator to the community. Keeping a small footprint/sustainability. Celebrating where you are at.
8. After three years… The conversation has shifted, but has the funding? How are the states disbursing their funding? How do we ensure there is an equitable distribution of grants?
9. Active Living Resource Center www.activelivingresources.org Mark Plotz Program Manager mark@bikewalk.org 202.223.3621
Editor's Notes
Start with identifying the ALRC’s place in the Safe Routes to School scene.By National perspective, I mean that ALRC is a national organization, that has access to a national platform—through our CenterLines newsletter, our funding that allows us to travel to conferences like this one, in order to share our findings, and
We learned a great deal on inducing demand and implementation. The handout is in the back of the room.Chicago, Portland, and the Bronx both come to mind.
Revisiting the original philosophy of Safe Routes to School.
Phase 1: Interviews of practitioners, including members of the National Partnership.Phase 2: Former industrial cities. Identification of local partners. Schools had to meet our demographic and infrastructure criteria. Have an existing advocacy group.Phase 3: Step back, work with state coordinators and MPOs. Regional obesity prevention/reduction project. Healthy Coastal Connections.
If you were to profile these schools, and I hope you do, here is a typical school…Predictors of which schools need the most help and which ones will be missed by the program.How does infrastructure neglect happen? Could be a money problem, or it could be a problem of representation.Seeing the need for SRTS.
We do not create programs that must depend on state funding.
A few tips on program setup.But again, this was a funded pilot project. This is not a business model.Giving people an excuse to get together.
When Safe Routes was a new program, there was a lot of emphasis on startup, hiring coordinators, training them, and getting money out the door. Now that the program has matured, how is it doing with putting the money where it is needed the most?I want to describe how and why we felt the need to identify these schools.
