Key Takeaways:
- Under-resourced communities experience several barriers to accessing funding for Safe Routes to School. Barriers included the ability to come up with the local match often required for federal funds; the lack of resources and personnel to apply for, write, and administer grants; and simply the lack of knowledge of what is available and how to apply for grants.
- Of the states surveyed (n=14), 63 percent provide special considerations to disadvantaged communities when they apply for funding for Safe Routes to School and apply additional points when scoring their grant applications. Some respondents also describe their state’s efforts to address barriers to funding by providing training, consultation, and proactive outreach to underserved communities.
- How states determine the effectiveness of their Safe Routes to School programs vary widely and differ from state to state. Examples of how states evaluate their programs include the number of schools involved in Safe Routes to School programs, the amount of funding that reaches priority populations, the number of people who access resources and training, the mode split of students walking and biking to school, percent of schools or districts with a dedicated Safe Routes to School coordinator, safety improvements, and pre/post program crash data.
- Only six states that responded have a strategic plan for their Safe Routes to School program. Of those plans, four include equity and a focus on underserved populations.
- Of the “Six E’s” -Engagement was ranked as the most prioritized by state program coordinators. States described the importance of engagement to cultivate community and school buy-in, and the importance of local stakeholders (ex. parents, teachers, students, neighbors, etc.) to the success of a program.
- Of the “Six E’s,” Evaluation was the least prioritized. State coordinators described the barriers to collecting quality data and the lack of staff and resources.
Implications:
- There are several ways that states can improve access to Safe Routes to School funding for low-income communities and communities of color. Strategies that some states are already implementing include prioritizing high-need communities to receive funding, providing workshops, training, and technical assistance, and proactive promotion and outreach so these communities know about grant opportunities.
- States can engage with communities to understand their specific barriers to pursuing Safe Routes to School and tailor strategies to overcome those challenges based on communities’ actual and specific needs.
Methods:
- Web-based surveys were sent to state-level Safe Routes to School program coordinators (n=59), and 22 states completed the survey.
- The survey consisted of 35 questions focused on the state’s Safe Routes to School leadership, participant’s leadership background and experience, the effectiveness of Safe Routes to School programs, participation in Safe Routes to School “Six E’s” framework, creation of equitable opportunities for high-need communities, and additional questions concerning equity through the state’s Safe Routes to School program.
Citation:
Elliott, Lucas D., Michelle Lieberman, Liza S. Rovniak, Mallika Bose, Louisa M. Holmes, and Melissa Bopp. “What Are States Doing to Encourage Safe Routes to School Programming in Disadvantaged Communities? Findings From a U.S. Mixed-Methods Survey.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2677, no. 5 (May 2023): 1151–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221140363.
web resource
