Transcript Education & Encouragement Programs - I-WALK

Safe Routes to School
Improving Health,
Safety and
Transportation
Lenexa, KS
Safe Routes to School goals
 Where it’s safe, get
children walking and
biking
 Where it’s not safe, make
changes
Winston-Salem, NC
The need for Safe Routes to School
1. Fewer kids today
walk and bike to
school
2. Unintended
consequences
have resulted
3. SRTS programs
are part of the
solution
1. Fewer kids are biking and walking.
More parents are driving.
 2001: 16% walked
 1969: 42% walked
(CDC, 2005)
Parents driving…
What caused the shift?
Parents driving children to school:
20%-25% of morning traffic
(NHTSA 2003; Dept.
of Environment)
School siting issues: A generation ago
 Small schools
 Located in community centers
(EPA, 2003)
School siting issues: Today
 Mega-schools
 Built on edges of towns and cities
School consolidation has lengthened
the trip between home and school
It’s not just distance
Students who live
within 1 mile and
walk or bike:
2001: 63%
1969: 87%
(CDC, 2005)
Most common barriers to walking and
bicycling to school
 Long distances
62%
 Traffic danger
30%
 Adverse weather
19%
 Fear of crime danger
12%
Note: Sum of percentages is more than 100% because
respondents could identify more than one barrier.
(CDC, 2005)
Traffic danger
Adverse weather
Centreville, VA
Howard’s Grove, WI
Individual community issues
 Fear of crime (both
real and perceived)
 Abandoned
buildings
 Other reasons
2. What are the unintended consequences
of less walking and bicycling?
 For the environment
 For individual health
Air quality
Measurably
better around
schools with
more walkers
and bicyclists
(EPA, 2003)
Chicago, IL
Physical inactivity
 Most kids aren’t
getting the
physical activity
they need
 Recommended
60 minutes on
most, preferably
all, days of the
week
(US Depts. of Health
and Human Services
and Agriculture, 2005)
U.S. youth overweight rates
(National Center for Health Statistics)
Overweight children have an
increased risk of…
 Type 2 Diabetes
 Low self esteem
 Decreased physical functioning
 Obesity in adulthood
 Many other negative emotional & physical
effects
(Institute of Medicine, 2005)
3. Safe Routes to School programs
are part of the solution…
...to improve
walking and
bicycling
conditions!
...to increase
physical
activity!
...to decrease
air pollution!
Dallas, TX
More benefits of SRTS programs
 Reduce congestion around schools
 Can lead to cost savings for schools
(reduce need for “hazard” busing)
 Others: increase child’s sense of
freedom, help establish lifetime
habits, teach pedestrian and
bicyclist skills
Elements of SRTS programs
 Education
 Encouragement
 Enforcement
 Engineering
 Evaluation
Lenexa, KS
Education
 Imparts safety skills
 Creates safety
awareness
 Fosters life-long safety
habits
 Includes parents,
neighbors and other
drivers
Chicago, IL
Encouragement
 Increases
popularity of
walking and
bicycling
 Is an easy way
to start SRTS
programs
 Emphasizes fun
Enforcement
 Increases awareness
of pedestrians and
bicyclists
Richmond, VA
 Improves driver
behavior
 Helps children follow
traffic rules
Denver, CO
Engineering
 Creates safer
conditions for
walking and
bicycling
 Can influence
the way people
behave
West Valley City, UT
Federal Safe Routes to School program
 $612 million to States
2005-2009
 Funds infrastructure
and non-infrastructure
activities
 Requires State SRTS
Coordinators
 Iowa funds allocated
through IDOT
More information:
www.saferoutesinfo.org
I-WALK Partnership & Purpose
Iowa
Department of
Public Health
Local Public
Health
Public School
System
Iowa State
University
Extension
Assist communities
in the
development,
implementation,
and evaluation
of local Safe
Routes to School
programs
I-WALK Goal
To develop a sustainable model for
community coalitions to continuously
update, implement, and evaluate the local
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan.
I-WALK Components
1. Community coalition
2. Evaluation
a) Teacher Tally
b) Parent & Student Online Survey
c) GPS Walkability Assessment
3. GPS & Program Training, TA
4. Presentation of data results
to community
1. Community Coalition
Community coalition members
• Local Public Health
• School Representatives: teachers,
principals, parent, student
• Citizens
• Parks and Recreation department
• Public safety/School Resource Officer
• City Planners
• Others?
2. Evaluation: Teacher Tally
 Conducted by classroom teacher for 5 consecutive
days
 Completed weeks of October 4-8, 2010 &
Aug/September 2011
 Determines how students get to and from school
2. Evaluation: Parent & Student
Online Survey
 Parent and student to complete
together at same time
 Identifies current routes students take
to/from school
 Identifies barriers to walking or biking
to school
2. Evaluation: GPS Walkability
Assessment
 Coalition and community members
walk routes identified by the parent
& student survey
 GPS is used to collect
data and sent back to
ISU Extension for analysis
3. GPS & Program Training, TA
 1 Day Regional Training
 Overview of GPS use and data
collection
 Occur between February & May 2011
 Technical Assistance provided by
IDPH & ISUE
4. Presentation to community
 Aug/Sept 2011 present data results
and recommendations to Community
 Next steps to Safer Routes to School
 Coalition members to extend
invitations to community
Coalition Member
Responsibilities
 Teacher tally –Oct, 2010 & Aug/Sept
2011
 Determine desired % increase in kids
who WOB to/from school
 Recruit parents & students to
complete online surveys
Coalition Member
Responsibilities
 GPS & Program training
 Walkability assessment
 Presentation of data
 Program feedback
www.I-WALK.org
www.I-WALK.org will provide all resources
related to the I-WALK project
Additional resources
• Iowans Fit for Life (IDPH)
http://www.idph.state.ia.us/iowansfitforlife/
• National Center for Safe Routes to School
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/
• Iowa Department of Transportation
http://www.iowadot.gov/saferoutes/