RSGB East young driver rider intervention survey 2015

RSGB East young driver & rider intervention survey

2015

David Frost David Frost PR & Marketing

September 2015 (updated December 2015)

2

Contents

1. Executive summary ............................................................................................ 3

2. Background ........................................................................................................ 5

3. Summary of interventions .................................................................................. 6

4. Issues with current interventions ...................................................................... 11

5. Numbers of young people involved .................................................................. 15

6. Costs (monetary and staff) ................................................................................ 16

7. Involvement of other public and private sector partners .................................. 17

8. Evaluation and monitoring methodologies ....................................................... 18

9. Opportunities to pool resources across the Region ........................................... 20

10. Future plans to target this age group .............................................................. 21

11. Summary and recommendations .................................................................... 22

Appendix 1: Practitioner questionnaire ............................................................... 25

Appendix 2: Summary of Interventions by LA ...................................................... 31

Appendix 3: Summary of Interventions by type ................................................... 32

3

1. Executive summary This paper has been produced on behalf of the Eastern Region of Road Safety GB (RSGB East) to review the existing road safety interventions delivered to young drivers and riders. Every road safety team within the RSGB East region was asked to complete a questionnaire for each intervention they offer but it should be noted there were some omissions to the data requested. The paper briefly summarises each activity delivered by teams and their strategic partners up to Summer 2015, with a quick review during October to assess if any additional interventions have commenced. Resources available for road safety interventions are increasingly under pressure from austerity measures with a number of teams being reorganised and budgets severely reduced. There is always a need to identify and work with strategic partners to deliver strong, consistent road safety messages via well thought out interventions. There were a number of common issues identified with the delivery of interventions including how they are marketed and publicised to the target audience and how ‘free’ from charge the newer digital channels really are. Initiatives delivered in educational establishments can suffer from the lack of timetabling offered and there remains an issue between the benefits of a series of sessions to reinforce messages versus the one-‐off presentation. Timetabling and advance coordination is not just an issue with schools and colleges but also with partner agencies too. Partner agencies can also raise concerns about the consistency of delivery and evaluation of the approach. Partner agencies do however bring the benefit of additional resource, whether in terms of direct financial support, staff time or other physical means such as premises, etc. Turnover of staff at schools, partner organisations and indeed with the road safety team too can cause issues with continuity of interventions and the consistency of approach. Parental involvement can be key to participants’ willingness to be part of the programme and the reinforcement of messages. Some teams offer programmes to directly engage the support of parents to avoid ‘interference’ of the message. Language, phraseology and use of media are hugely important when delivering to this target group.

4

All interventions need to be evidence led and all teams have access to good intelligence data with their partners. Effective use of this data can lead to SMART objectives for each intervention. There exists a wide range of evaluation. Surprisingly some interventions didn’t appear to be evaluated at all. Evaluation and monitoring should be integral to any intervention and needs to be an essential part of the planning process with a budget set aside at the outset. Independent evaluation of interventions is highly recommended. The thinking behind campaign development and production is changing with regard to Behavioural Change Theory (BCT) and teams are increasingly aware of this to deliver the message positively to the target audience. BCT needs to be considered from the outset when planning interventions. There are some resource intensive interventions that already exist within RSGB East and their use should be carefully planned and shared across the region with appropriate reimbursement for their development and use. Road Safety Officers (RSO)’s have a good track record in delivering high quality, well thought out interventions. Sharing of resources should continue where possible and cross-‐authority or regional wide campaigns should also be considered. There already exists private sector involvement in interventions and this should continue to be encouraged where possible either for sponsorship or an integral part of the delivery. Involvement with road safety can assist with corporate social responsibility and doesn’t necessarily require input at the time of the intervention but could be the use of corporate teams to assist with marketing or assisting with the public relations support of initiatives.

5

2. Background Hertfordshire County Council and Suffolk County Council have commissioned this paper on behalf of RSGB East. There currently exist a number of multiple projects across RSGB East involving young road users. Each local authority (LA) road safety team has interventions directed at their young driver/rider target audience. Some of these are delivered solely by the LA road safety team, some with or by partner agencies and others delivered across boundaries with neighbouring teams. RSGB East are conscious of the on-‐going need to review what they are delivering within their authorities, to seek new and better ways of delivering to this critical group and to avoid unnecessary duplication of resource. Each LA was requested to complete a questionnaire (Appendix 1) as fully and frankly as possible about their interventions to assist in illustrating a positive way forward throughout the region. This paper reviews the current interventions to the target audience within the RSGB East region based upon information provided by the teams. It also looks to comment upon what appears to be effective and what is worth pursuing wider with regional colleagues. The questionnaires were completed within each authority by those responsible for the delivery and it should be noted there are some omissions to the data requested.

6

3. Summary of interventions Every LA has a young road user casualty problem resulting in the need to deliver interventions to their young road user audience. There is a hugely diverse programme of interventions across RSGB East. This wide style of delivery format can assist in effectively getting the message to the target audience. There follows an incredibly brief overview of interventions (for the purposes of this paper) reported back by LA road safety teams in RSGB East. A full list of all interventions appears, as Appendix 2, but it should be noted that this survey only reports back on the original questionnaires sent to RSGB East LA’s during the summer of 2015. Towards the end of October 2015 the LA’s were requested to advise if they had commenced any additional interventions since they first completed the questionnaires. Appendix 3 illustrates the interventions by type and the authorities that deliver them. Bedford Borough Council (BBC) – IAM momentum Young driving assessments offered free to 17 – 26 year olds who live, work or attend full-‐time education in the BBC area. Paid for by BBC and delivered by IAM assessors. BBC – Xcellerate Day long event for up to 27 attendees pre 17 covering presentations, workshops and activities improving awareness and information to make them more aware of the responsibilities to themselves and others when in charge of a vehicle. Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) – MORE 16, MORE Drive Multi-‐agency separate half day workshops to pre-‐drivers and those 17 – 30 giving advice on maintenance, buying, modifications, reactions collision investigation etc. Also offers practical session ‘first drive’ for 16’s and ‘skid car’ for 17 – 30’s. Delivered with Luton Borough Council. CBC – OSCAR Modified vehicle to 17 – 25’s offering simulated drives (not always resulting in a crash) on a number of driving issues promoting discussion, etc. Cambridgeshire County Council (CBC) – Young driver event (Huntingdon racecourse) Multi-‐agency 2 hours ‘Fresher – style’ event for school/college students and individuals aged 16 – 19 to attend. Includes a 20-‐minute theatre in education (TIE) presentation then the freedom to visit individual exhibitors as deemed fit. Delivered via the wider CPRSP1.

1 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Road Safety Partnership

7

CCC – Drive2Arrive Package of 20/30 minutes classroom presentations to 6th form/college students delivered by Fire Service as a CPRSP intervention. CCC – Crash car Modified vehicle supplementing Drive2Arrive programme. Targets 16 -‐29’s with a simulated crash experience to promote discussion, explore peer pressure, etc. CCC – TIE Written as a ‘showcase’ performance by performing arts tutor and delivered by first year students to other 16 -‐19’s students. Essex County Council (ECC) -‐ Roadster Multi-‐agency interactive day (6 x 40 min sessions) for year 12 students delivered with partner agencies including role play to cover mobiles, seatbelts, drink/drugs, first aid, theory, traffic law, etc. Delivered as a ‘SERP’2 activity with Southend-‐on-‐Sea Borough and Thurrock Councils. ECC – Sandon young driver scheme Off-‐road event for 16 – 18’s pre drivers including an introductory 15 min RSO presentation on topics such as seatbelts, mobile phones (intelligence led) and a further 45 min session with an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI). Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) – Learn 2 Live Multi-‐agency event targeting sixth-‐form students. DVD presentation supported by speakers addressing hazards to passengers and drivers trying to influence behaviour change towards distractions and driving. HCC – Crash car simulator Produced to support Learn 2 Live plus simulated journey and collision to promote discussion, etc. HCC – First Car Targeting new drivers throughout the county and distributed at Test Centres. Variety of topics and issues covered relevant to new drivers. HCC – Herts Rider Formerly a printed magazine for riders but moving to digital, targeting all bike riders with relevant safety information offering the opportunity of quantitative on-‐line monitoring analysis. HCC – The Honest Truth (THT) Targeting young people learning to drive, this intervention enlists ADI’s to deliver relevant messages to young people learning to drive. Luton Borough Council (LBC) – MORE 16, MORE Drive Multi-‐agency separate half day workshops to pre-‐drivers and those 17 – 30 giving advice on maintenance, buying, modifications, reactions collision investigation etc. Also offers practical session ‘first drive’ for 16’s and ‘skid car’ for 17 – 30’s. Delivered with Central Bedfordshire Council.

2 Safer Essex Roads Partnership

8

Norfolk County Council (NCC) – PedSafe Classroom based initiative delivered to (interest group only) year 11 students, based on Bare Bones project covering legal issues, clothing/gear, budgeting, derestriction, attitudes and advantages/disadvantages to this mode of travel. NCC – Y-‐Di One-‐hour presentation one-‐to-‐one (or small groups) presentation to 17 – 25 Youth offenders complete with workbook covering risk, misuse of vehicles, etc. NCC – Tread Four 2-‐hour workshops covering distractions, vehicle maintenance, etc. followed by a skid avoidance session targeting 17 – 24’s during their first year of driving. NCC – Young driver education 50 – 60 minute presentation to class sized group 15 – 25’s (mainly 15 – 18) including video clips of collision reconstruction, consequences, collision avoidance and bereaved parents. Peterborough City Council (PCC) – Drive2Arrive Package of 20/30 minutes classroom presentations to 6th form/college students delivered by Fire Service as a CPRSP intervention. PCC – Wasted TIE for pre and new drivers/passengers about the legal and personal consequences of drug driving. Delivered as a CPRSP intervention and also performed in CBC as a joint purchase to bring cost efficiencies. PCC – Young Driver Forums Working with focus groups of young people to assist in developing road safety campaigns and initiatives and reviewing concepts prior to production. PCC – Young Driver Event (Huntingdon racecourse) Multi-‐agency 2 hours ‘Fresher – style’ event for school/college students and individuals aged 16 – 19 to attend. Includes a 20-‐minute theatre in education (TIE) presentation then the freedom to visit individual exhibitors as deemed fit. Delivered via the wider CPRSP (with participants bussed into event). PCC – Scooter day Half-‐day event for pre and novice riders. Input from police and dealers covering skills tests, info on gear, riding tips and the implications of derestricting vehicles. Potential for wider inclusion as a CPRSP intervention. PCC – Young driver education day Full day at school/college for Pre/New drivers and passengers, broken into groups of 20 for 50 minute workshops covering accident investigation, modified crash car, Fire Service (Too Young to Die DVD) and making a short road safety film with the potential for a maintenance session. Includes feedback on all films and discussion. Southend-‐on-‐Sea Borough Council (SBC) – Roadster Multi-‐agency interactive day (6 x 40 min sessions) for year 12 students delivered with partner agencies including role play to cover mobiles, seatbelts, drink/drugs, first aid, theory, traffic law, etc. Delivered as a ‘SERP’ activity with Essex County and Thurrock Councils.

9

SBC – Fresher events (university and college) One to one interaction, especially foreign students, to find out how they travel and give relevant advice and information and/or signpost to further advice. SBC – THT Targeting young people learning to drive, passengers and parents. The intervention recruits ADI’s to deliver relevant messages to young people learning to drive. Suffolk County Council (SCC) – College and upper school programme Presentations and discussions to year 9-‐plus students ranging from pedestrian and cycling responsibilities and looking out for others, passenger safety strategies, driving and riding awareness, planning, positive action, budget, gear and choosing the right vehicle. SCC – Crash car Modified vehicle targets 17 – 21’s with a simulated crash experience to promote discussion, e.g. mobile phones, explore peer pressure, etc. Loaned from CCC. SCC – Assemblies Targeted presentation to year groups on a theme that is relevant to the local school, e.g. pedestrian behaviour, anti-‐social driving, etc. SCC – Get in gear A two-‐hour class based session to 17 – 19 new drivers with the opportunity to discuss risk factors, coping strategies, etc. Followed by two further two-‐hour sessions (one to two weeks apart) in vehicles with self-‐analysis with an instructor who can help the participant to reflect on their skills and abilities. Developed and currently being evaluated by Buckinghamshire County Council also to be used by Milton Keynes Council. Thurrock Council (TC) – Young driver programme Interactive classroom presentation for groups of thirty students aged 15 – 18 including videos and group discussion on the issues faced by young drivers and passengers. It should be remembered that this list is ONLY the result of completed questionnaires from LA road safety teams and there are without doubt other interventions not reported upon these forms. For example, THT programme is currently operating throughout Bedfordshire, but not reported upon to this survey. A full list of the interventions reported by authorities is available in Appendix 2. Whilst there exists a large number of interventions across the region, many follow a similar style or format, e.g. classroom activity, mass event, post test training, etc. The activities are primarily influenced by data and resource (including staff, facilities & financial). There is a wide range of interventions from publicity campaigns, young driver day/events (including on and off road driver training), crash car simulators, scooter days through to educational programmes within schools/colleges.

10

Some of the interventions appear to be very similar in their content and delivery, but are adapted according to the local intelligence data. This would appear to bode well for the sharing of content within RSGB East to those authorities that are looking to develop similar programmes. Pre Local Government Review (LGR) structures appear to heavily influence how resources are pooled between authorities.

11

4. Issues with current interventions There are a number of weaknesses identified with delivery of interventions to the target group. A common theme was that of generating enough interest to participate in the interventions. Marketing communications with the target audience has changed in recent years and is moving from paid-‐for advertising and print media such as posters and flyers to digital, social media channels. Whilst engagement on social media can appear to be high, converting this into attendance at an event and the physical commitment this requires sometimes doesn’t materialise. Whilst social media is often regarded as ‘free’, to successfully engage with the target audience may require ‘paid for’ promotion via the individual networks of Facebook or twitter. Having said that, the opportunity to see the content promoting the message can be far more effective than print or radio promotion. This is because the profile of the target audience can be selected for individual promotional messages. To date, the vast majority of people signing up to social media accounts have kindly supplied their personal profile in terms of age, gender, etc. Individuals also flag up their interests by the content they ‘like’, ‘follow’, ‘favourite’, ‘share’, ‘re-‐tweet’ and ‘post’. All of this data therefore helps paid-‐for social media advertising to be much more likely to be seen by the intended recipients. Social media as a marketing tool can therefore be far from ‘free’ and often requires direct financial investment. It also needs the investment of time for sourcing and posting interesting, relevant content and the availability of personnel to ‘moderate’ comments and content posted by others to road safety social media channels. In terms of getting individuals to attend interventions, it should also be noted that some interventions were targeted to Youth Offending clients. There are occasions when staff resource is wasted when customers fail to attend the intervention. A number of interventions targeted within schools or sixth form colleges are also restricted by the demands of the timetable. Nearly all of the road safety teams delivering school programmes would ideally like to deliver these interventions over a series of weeks to reinforce road safety messages. The demands and practicalities of the timetable usually dictate that delivery is done during a dedicated day, or half a day. A good example of where an authority tries to overcome this is ECC where they offer a one hour presentation to year 12 and then try to persuade them into taking a full day programme when they ‘see the importance’ of the information given. Also of note is the challenge of coordinating the bookings of some school events and other larger-‐scale, fresher style events with partner organisations and agencies. Although advance planning of events can assist in reducing the issues surrounding this, the timetable of schools can dictate the dates and personnel in partnership organisations may be called away to other priority engagements or indeed leave the organisation.

12

Delivering continuous interventions in schools can also be challenging for LA’s in terms of finding or getting the appropriate road safety contact that is willing to act as a coordinator. As with any other partner organisation, individuals eventually move on giving the need to encourage support and commitment from key individuals within the school organisation. Obviously, this happens with the road safety personnel too! Clear teaching and intervention plans help to overcome these continuity issues. An interesting issue has also developed with the reliance of ADI’s as ‘volunteer’ partners in initiatives. One team in particular had received the good fortune of ADI’s offering their input for free, but in recent times have not enjoyed this as the driving schools have seen an upturn in business. This results in either the loss of the partner as a volunteer or an increase to the delivery budget as they become a ‘paid-‐for’ resource. Local authorities utilising THT in particular should note this as an issue for potentially reduced time allocation for the discussion of road safety message delivery by this method. Issues with partner organisations can also extend to the provision of other resources. An example given was surrounding the ‘planning conditions’ for the use of the premises offered for the intervention. It was noted that there are also issues in terms of interacting with parents on a number of initiatives. This can be in terms of trying to encourage participation but also the re-‐confirmation of the information and knowledge being delivered by the intervention. Some interventions are promoted to parents to encourage them to book their sons and daughters onto the programme. For example the CBC/LBC MORE programme requires parents to attend and undergo a specific programme to assist with post delivery reinforcement. This is a good example of catering for the specific needs of the parents if they are attending an intervention so that they don’t ‘interfere’ with the message at the time of delivery. The above approach can help to reduce the feeling of some attendees who may otherwise have felt ‘forced’ or ‘told’ they must attend an event. It should be noted that this could happen in some interventions held in school or college environments too. This ‘forced attendance’ is sometimes regarded as a barrier to quality engagement even before the intervention commences. There is also a clear need to ensure resources used for the interventions are kept up to date and fresh. Relevant, up to date information and data needs to be disseminated to the target audience. Whilst there is a temptation to use current phraseology, care needs to be taken on the tone and pitch (therefore the language used) to the target audience. Certain

13

phrases ‘date’ very quickly and it is easy to alienate the audience with them thinking ‘this isn’t relevant to me’. Printed materials with a repeat use may also need to be updated before re-‐print. On-‐line materials are arguably easier to update, particularly in terms of social media posts. When using video as part of interventions, care needs to be taken on scripting, terminology and particularly background music that can quickly pigeonhole a piece and then easily be disingenuous with the target audience. Within RSGB East, a few authorities have purchased crash, or simulator cars. The initial cost of providing these vehicles is relatively high, probably purchased with a specific grant or capital budget. One authority in particular mentioned the potential for costly repairs on such ‘physical equipment’. Therefore an on-‐going cost of maintenance for the project needs to be built in otherwise there could be a significant drain on already limited revenue budgets. Use and storage costs also need to be built into the annual programme of work to ensure that once the resource is purchased there is staff resource to promote, programme and deliver events around the LA area. An issue with regard to evaluation was also referred to when it is be completed by a partner organisation delivering the intervention. Whether this is effective evaluation is in question and certainly best practice would be to plan and budget the evaluation in advance of the intervention. As a final observation on issues with current interventions, one LA quoted the following: ‘As a partnership, particularly from the LA perspective, there is an identified risk that if we cease this (relatively) constructive delivery there is a community demand for ‘something to be done’ for young drivers and this demand will be fulfilled by individuals/organisations whose chose method, i.e. shock tactics, has a questionable evidence base, compared to the small group, peer discussion approach developed through this intervention’. This comment certainly underlines the need for interventions to be evidence-‐led, well researched and planned with consideration to how evaluation will be undertaken. Planning campaigns under behavioural change methodologies must also be considered with measurable outcomes, at least with an eye to the monitoring of the impact upon local/regional casualty data.

asked schools to assist (some do, most don’t) newspaper advertising, tweeting but we still have a considerable number of the initial assessments left

14

consistency – in Fire service delivery

students are “forced/told” they have to attend which puts up a barrier before you

even begin

repairs can be costly staff who have been in

colleges for years and won’t change

first issue with the scheme came with the planning permission for the site

main issue has been schools’ buy-‐in to the project

fail to attend when requested by Youth Offending staff so RSO/police time is wasted -‐ YOT staff have even been to collect and bring young people to sessions with no success

duplication of interventions is also an issue – partnership is working hard to address this

uniformed services are often seen as a quick fix by colleges/schools and will be given access to deliver a quick “shock” presentation

main problem is recruiting clients on to the course

15

5. Numbers of young people involved The numbers of people reached within the target audience is difficult to record, particularly with marketing interventions. However, the minimum audience reached by direct interventions across RSGB East is well in excess of 68,000.

30 per session / 12 sessions

to date we’ve had 79 students take part in the course – each classroom session has around 4 – 6 students on average

600 – 700 annually

120 each day currently 25 ADIs in Southend ‘signed up’, (100 plus in Essex)

over the 2 days

around 700 students

in this academic year over 8,000 young persons will

have received one of the YDE presentations 33,000

this is a new tool so we don’t have data

as yet

it has to date been delivered to in excess of 8,000 students – the

15/16 programme aims to deliver to 9,500 students

16

6. Costs (monetary and staff) The cost of road traffic collisions is well documented by the Department for Transport (DfT) and updated on an annual basis in the annual ‘Reported Road Casualties Great Britain’ report. The average value of prevention per reported fatal casualty (2013) is £1,742,988 and per fatal collision £1,953,783. LA budgets are under constant pressure and in recent years have suffered reductions as part of central governments austerity programme. Service delivery is therefore under scrutiny and many road safety teams have been or are under review.

Partner agencies are also facing the same pressures with funding. The changes to public health from the National Health Service to local government is ‘one of the most significant extensions of local government powers and duties in a generation. It represents a unique opportunity to change the focus from treating sickness to actively promoting health and wellbeing’ according to the Local Government Association. Clearly, this brings opportunities as well as threats to funding and road safety professionals need to fully engage with health service professionals to promote their issues.

Colleagues within the police service are also undergoing a period of significant change. There has also been significant re-‐structuring to the police services within RSGB East that inevitably has an impact upon road safety service delivery and again engagement with partner professionals is key to securing support in terms of resource. There is also a large disparity with diversionary funding through enforcement interventions within the region. Having noted the above, identifiable, or recorded (for the purposes of this exercise) budgetary expenditure for interventions throughout RSGB East is a minimum of £153,000. In reality the figure will be far in excess of this amount as it does not include staff time or non-‐specific incidental costs of providing the services3. There are other ‘hidden’ costs in terms of staff resource from partner organisations, venue provision and other goodwill which may be as little as refreshment provision. Venue hire charges are also often hidden or supplied as a contributory factor from the partner organisations. In terms of promotion of events, some of this is included in the physical budget for the intervention, but sometimes it is ‘free’ from charge (particularly some of the digital/social media), but there is still an inherent staff cost in terms of time resource.

3 small print runs, development and updating resources, mileage, etc

17

7. Involvement of other public and private sector partners Many of the interventions carried out across RSGB East are done so by directly by RSO’s. It is also encouraging to see a number of interventions are delivered either jointly or on behalf of RSO’s by ADI’s, police officers, fire personnel, trading standards, collision investigation officers and the ambulance service (with Essex bringing in some external ‘brought in’ presenters). Some voluntary/charities are also involved, such as the Road Victims Trust, Global Action Plan, DrinkSense and Magpas. There are also private organisations playing their part in delivering the interventions, such as Alconbury Driver Centre, Driving Schools and Centres, Kwik Fit, Millbrook, St John’s Ambulance, Skanska, TIE companies and Young Marmalade. As previously noted there is a sense that the use of partners in interventions needs to be carefully planned. This is to ensure that delivery is ‘on message’ from the outset.

very little amount

of staff time approx. £10k pa which includes an element of staff time but

probably not all costs

costs approx. £150 – 200 per deployment – development of the resource cost £32k

cost per event varies – if it is in college: up to £600 if 3 presenters

are bought in although it can run for free

staff resource has not been quantified – approximately £24,500 for all venues,

materials and external staff for the 15/16 programme

£6,750 for first issue, plus £3,250 for launch

marketing

no formal budget but costs involved are RSO time and design/printing costs for the relevant booklets and feedback sheets

18

8. Evaluation and monitoring methodologies Casualty statistics in the target age group are recorded and monitored on an annual basis by LA’s. There is a wide range of monitoring and evaluation for interventions across RSGB East. It must be noted that some interventions didn’t appear to be evaluated at all. The range of monitoring and evaluation encompasses the simple notation of numbers engaged, ‘happy forms’, the monitoring of casualty statistics, current evaluation underway and available separately through to independent evaluation from academic establishments that will be published on the Road Safety Observatory. It is noted that some interventions, e.g. First Car have been evaluated elsewhere. Having said that, there is a clear recognition of the need to independently evaluate interventions and a move towards this by authorities. There are also some interesting ways to note how road safety teams are monitoring. ECC Roadster issues a USB freebie that has an embedded direct link to the Roadster website. This monitors the website analytics (social media was also monitored for a while) for individual users, time spent on the site, shares, referrals, etc. There is also monitoring of the site content to see what is popular and brings increased on-‐line traffic. HCC Learn 2 Live are exploring other follow–on activities via BCT in addition to using social media to encourage feedback and are looking at independent evaluation in the future.

‘would like to do post 1 year, 2 year follow up’

evaluation on the usefulness of each exhibit – great feedback

for (potential) sponsors

breakdown of numbers attended and able to predict patterns, evaluation in place covering experience and opinions of road safety before and after the

event available separately

19

a move to digital e-‐magazine will assist with on-‐line

analytics

in isolation will not have a long-‐term effect on reducing KSI’s, rather it is just the first

engagement tool

fire service complete evaluation forms – no apparent evidence of effectiveness regarding casualty reduction

at the end of the session, participants are asked to complete a feedback sheet detailing changes in attitude – short term behavioural changes are commented on by YOT case workers – long term changes can only be noticed by analysis of STATS 19 data and this is not possible

various evaluations after events and follow up evaluations – casualty data as well as

information received from different partner agencies

no current plans apart from casualty data

20

9. Opportunities to pool resources across the Region There is a clear willingness among the majority of RSGB East to work together on joint initiatives. It can be seen in the Summary of interventions chapter that there are already LA’s working in partnership. These cross-‐authority partnerships appear to be strongest in areas where, prior to LGR wider ‘county’ structures existed and the joint working has continued either through ‘safety partnerships’ or a willingness to work with direct neighbours. The re-‐structuring of police forces within the RSGB East region, e.g. Beds/Cambs/Herts also brings opportunities to work across a wider area within the region. Clearly partnership working would have to be based on available budget and staff resource and the assumption of continued issues with the young driver/rider target audience. There was also a note to express that joint working would also need to be dependant on national research into young driver interventions. Some of the resources are costly to set up, e.g. crash/simulator cars but are available for other LA’s to ‘hire’ therefore minimising outlay and duplication of resource within the region. RSGB East has a history of working on joint campaigns; in the 1990’s joint speed campaigns were produced and financial resource contribution was dependant upon whether the LA was a unitary or shire organisation. If such joint working were to occur again, critical success factors would need to be agreed in advance of any joint intervention. Those factors should include good planning, with long lead in times being critical. The willingness to pool resources (perhaps dependant upon number of population within the target audience of the participating LA) will also play a large part. An understanding of which organisation is responsible for each individual part of the intervention and agreeing outcomes and measures of success prior to commencement would also be necessary. There are a number of authorities noting the need for interventions being aligned to BCT. Evaluation of interventions also clearly needs to be an integral part of the planning process.

21

10. Future plans to target this age group The target audience continues to be an issue with RSGB East and as such LA’s will need to persevere in targeting this group. Future interventions will depend upon individual budgets and/or the opportunity to pool resources as already discussed. Some LA’s are either currently reviewing there interventions or will be doing so as part of their annual planning process. It is of note that two specific interventions already occurring within RSGB East, fresher style events and crash/simulator cars are being looked at by authorities that are not currently running these activities. Other plans include introducing THT, TIE, and amending existing interventions such as Xcellerate and Learn 2 Live plus.

BCT in mind

aim to introduce Learn 2 Live plus

new presentation covering the FatalFour

THT

in the process of analysing the effectiveness of the driving

simulators

depend on national research from young driver groups and budget available introducing in 2016 TIE

program aimed at yr 11s

Considering a large event where students are brought to a central location

22

11. Summary and recommendations There are a number of interventions delivered to young drivers and riders across the RSGB East region of a similar nature but all meeting the needs of the target audience. RSO’s have a good track record of delivering high quality, well thought out interventions and sharing best practice with fellow professionals, particularly via RSGB, at regional and national meetings, the annual conference and it’s newsfeed. Resources available to some road safety teams continue to be under scrutiny and pressure to deliver best value to the local community and minimise the number of road users causing or involved in road traffic collisions remains high. This has been compounded by austerity measures in recent years that have seen budgets cut and teams re-‐organised with the reduction in staff numbers as a result. The austerity programme and re-‐organisation has not been restricted to LA’s. Police forces are facing similar demands with budgets and scrutiny. The way in which the health service is funding has changed and is now within the LA framework. Road safety delivery continues to adapt to change as it has done previously through LGR and the forming of safety camera partnerships. Partnership working has evolved with historical strategic partners in the public sector. This continues with new partners in the private sector but opportunities still need to be exploited with those organisations with a mutual interest in road safety target audiences. Fresh thinking is emerging also on better ways to engage with the target audience. New technologies and digital media have emerged that offer different ways to connect with road users, particularly in the young driver and rider market. The use of digital media, if used correctly can assist with monitoring campaigns and therefore an element of digital should be considered in future interventions to this target audience. Interventions need to be effectively monitored to demonstrate their effectiveness. The monitoring needs to be SMART and should include casualty data as an absolute minimum. The objectives of the campaign need to be set at the outset of the intervention to ensure that they can be demonstrated during delivery if it is to be long term and certainly afterwards if it is a shorter-‐term programme. The thinking behind campaign development and production is also changing with regard to the theories behind BCT and road safety teams are aware of this together with the need to capitalise on ensuring that interventions make best use of these techniques. Indeed RSGB East is hosting a road safety practitioner course within the region during September 2015 to how these theories can be best applied to road safety interventions.

23

Existing interventions can be measured against a number of BCT and can be used in amending the delivery of such initiatives. When developing new interventions BCT should be used to ensure they are effective with the target audience. Evaluation of interventions is critical and, as with monitoring needs to be considered at the outset. It should be seen as an integral part of the intervention. There should be a realistic budget set aside. To ensure objectivity and credibility in measuring outcomes evaluation should be conducted by an independent body outside of the delivery organisation(s). It is certainly worth establishing links with local colleges and universities to assist with evaluation. There is wide interest in two particular styles of intervention currently occurring within RSGB East; mass action events and crash/simulator cars. The interventions must ensure they meet the above requirements however (in terms of monitoring, BCT and evaluation) before they are considered for wider RSGB East delivery. The mass event interventions already operating within RSGB East could potentially expand to include young drivers and riders from other local authority areas. Some currently operate in fixed locations, e.g. CBC/LBC MORE at Millbrook. This event may only be suitable to neighbouring LA’s because the attendees would need to travel independently. Other LA’s also have fixed venues for their mass event interventions, but a number of these either bus students into a location or hold them at individual schools/colleges on a smaller scale. As with many of the smaller scale school/college interventions there were concerns in terms of attracting buy in and subsequently the numbers of students wanting to be engaged of their own volition. Improved public relations and marketing for these and indeed all interventions needs to occur. Whilst a full-‐scale marketing plan is probably unnecessary, as with any good project plan this needs to be considered at the outset. It was mentioned on a number of occasions that take up rates for initiatives were not as initially hoped for and anticipated. For example BBC has experienced difficulty in offering 40 FREE IAM assessments to eligible young drivers. PCC also mentioned working with focus groups of young people to assist in developing road safety campaigns and initiatives and reviewing concepts prior to production. As stated above, establishing links with the local college or universities may assist in the area of campaign development, planning, public relations and marketing. There is currently a Safe Drive, Stay Alive National Forum (hosted by First Car) that is no doubt looking at the similarities of these events and how they could best be operated on a similar format, covering the caveats of monitoring, BCT and

24

evaluation mentioned above. Otherwise it is certainly worth RSGB East discussing amongst itself how this could be taken forward within the region. Branding of these events needs to be considered if these events were opened up across RSGB East. Crash/simulator cars have already been purchased by a number of authorities within RSGB East. Other LA’s have either already paid for the resource to attend their area or are considering purchasing their own. Subject to evaluation, to optimise these resources regionally, RSGB East should consider the sharing of these across the region. The costs of these resources are significant in terms of initial outlay and potential maintenance. There should be financial reimbursement to the originating LA every time they are used via an agreed, realistic charging structure. Interventions such as THT should also be subject to effective monitoring, BCT and evaluation factors if they are implemented across the region. Indeed, a number of LA’s within RSGB East seem to be considering where next with the monitoring, BCT and evaluation of existing interventions. This is strongly recommended as a formal review within each authority as a measure of effectiveness. A number of interventions have mentioned the use and support of private sector partners. It is clear that if interventions were carried out RSGB East wide that sponsorship opportunities exist to assist in the purchase of resources, their delivery and promotion. Private sector organisations would need a clear project proposal and plan to understand how initiatives could be a part of their corporate social responsibility. Certainly the public relations and marketing of interventions could be boosted significantly by the use of corporate teams dedicated to these roles within private sector organisations.

25

Appendix 1: Practitioner questionnaire RSGB EAST practitioners’ questionnaire into young driver and rider

interventions At our recent meeting, we identified a number of initiatives currently being carried out around the region targeting 16 -‐ 21 year old road users. During the meeting, we (RSGB EAST) discussed carrying out a study into the work of road safety teams across the region directed at young drivers and riders. This questionnaire is being sent to all road safety teams across the region to identify current road safety interventions directed at 16 to 21 year old drivers and riders. The interventions (see below) include education, training and publicity initiatives and activities conducted directly by yourselves, in partnership with others or on your behalf. We would expect your interventions to be based upon existing published road safety research, (http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/KeyFacts/drivers/young, http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/KeyFacts/riders/motorcyclists, etc.). The information gathered is for RSGB EAST use only to be shared and fed back at the September meeting. Please complete the following questionnaire as fully & frankly as possible in order that we can share information and knowledge as widely as possible and report back meaningful results to colleagues throughout the region. We would appreciate a timely turnaround and would ask you to complete the questionnaire no later than 10 JULY 2015. To assist, please tick each intervention you have delivered in your authority and complete the questionnaire for each one :-‐ Type of Intervention Used in my authority Mass events Classroom activities Forums Crash cars College presentations Assemblies ADI campaign Post test training interventions (Pass Plus) DVDS Cruiser events First Car magazine Other – please state QUESTIONS 1 – 15 APPLY TO THE INTERVENTION, THEREFORE PLEASE COMPLETE A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EACH YOUNG DRIVER/RIDER INTERVENTION YOU PROVIDE.

26

Questions 16 onwards are generic about your individual authority and your future intentions. 1. What is your intervention (eg ADI campaign, college presentations, etc)?

2. Please describe your intervention including objectives, methodology and outcomes.

3. Who is the target audience, please be as specific as possible and advise how the intervention addresses your local casualty problem (eg 16 year old moped riders)?

4. How many road users are engaged?

5. Who delivers the programme? (eg, RSO’s, Health Professionals, external organisation/agency, etc)?

27

6. Is this funded solely by your own authority or are there contributory funds from partners (please state)?

7. Is this initiative delivered solely within your LA area or do you work in partnership with neighbouring authorities (and if so please list all)?

8. What is the scope for pooling resources for this intervention with other LA’s in the region with similar target group dynamics?

9. What is the overall budget for your intervention within your LA in terms of:-‐

a) staff resource? b) physical materials & other marketing promotions?

10. Have you worked out the cost per head of population within your authority area (if so please quote)?

28

11. In terms of this activity, can you advise of any pitfalls along the way that stalled the delivery (this is valuable information to share with regional colleagues to avoid potential future waste of resources)? This may be in terms of cost barriers, difficulties in reaching the target audience or ‘partnership’ issues, etc?

12. What did you do or what will you do differently to overcome this?

13. How are you monitoring and evaluating the impact of your intervention (eg, numbers engaged, casualty reduction, etc)?

14. Is this published (eg Road Safety Observatory, please give links where possible or advise if this can be requested separately)?

15. If you have not completed any evaluation and monitoring to date, what are your aims with regard to this?

29

16. How do you measure your overall effectiveness in delivering road safety interventions?

17. What future plans do you have to target this age group (whilst we appreciate this might be sensitive info, please outline as much as you can at this stage)?

18. Would you be prepared to work with other RSGB EAST colleagues on interventions with a mutual target audience in mind (please list)?

19. Please advise us of anything else you wish to raise or comment upon with regard to this target audience?

Finally, please enter your contact details in case we need to come back to you with specific queries to any of your above interventions. NAME AUTHORITY EMAIL

30

PHONE Many thanks for taking the time to complete this survey. We intend to compile the results and present back to you at the next RSGB EAST meeting, 4 September, Norwich.

31

Appendix 2: Summary of Interventions by LA Authority Intervention Target Bedford Borough Momentum Drivers 17 -‐ 26 Xcellerate under 17’s Central Beds OSCAR safety car 16 + also see Luton’s MORE 16 & MORE Drive 16 – 30 Cambridgeshire Crash car 16 – 19 Drive 2 arrive 16 – 18 Theatre in ed 16 – 19 YDE Huntingdon 16 – 19 Essex Cruiser events 17 + First Car 17 + Roadster (plus website) Year 12 students Sandon young drivers 16 – 18 THT * 17 + TIE * 16 – 18 Hertfordshire First Car 17 + Herts Rider 16 + Learn 2 Live 16 – 18 Simulator Crash Car 16 – 18 THT 17 + Luton MORE 16 & MORE Drive 16 – 30 Norfolk ‘Pedsafe 16 (p2w) THT * 17 + Tread 17 – 24 Y-‐Di 15 – 25 (Youth Offenders) Young driver education 15 – 18 Peterborough Crash car * 16 + Drive to arrive 17 – 25 Freshers Fayre * 18 + Forums 16 + Scooter day 16 Theatre in ed 16 – 25 Young driver ed day 15 – 25 YDE Huntingdon 16 – 19 Southend on sea Freshers 16 – 20 Roadster 16 – 17 THT 17 + Suffolk Assemblies 16 – 18 Crashed car at event 17 – 21 Get in gear 17 – 19 School & college programme 16 – 21 Thurrock Freshers 16 – 20 Roadster 16 – 17 Young driver classroom 15 – 18

32

Appendix 3: Summary of Interventions by type Intervention type Local Authority ADI campaign Essex (THT)

Hertfordshire (THT) Peterborough (planned September 2015 onwards) Southend-‐on-‐Sea (THT)

Assemblies Suffolk Classroom activities Cambridgeshire (Drive 2 Arrive)

Essex (Roadster) Norfolk (PedSafe, Tread, Y-‐Di, young driver education) Peterborough (young driver education day) Southend-‐on-‐Sea (Roadster) Suffolk (upper school classroom deliveries) Thurrock (young driver classroom)

College presentations Essex Suffolk Peterborough (Drive 2 Arrive) Southend-‐on-‐Sea (Freshers fayre)

Crash cars Cambridgeshire (crash car) Central Bedfordshire (OSCAR safety car) Hertfordshire (simulator crash car) Peterborough (crash car) Suffolk (crash car)

Cruiser events Essex Peterborough (currently investigating with Fire Service)

DVDS Essex (Driving with Grace, Roadster) Peterborough (as part of wider activities)

First Car magazine Essex Hertfordshire

Forums Peterborough Mass events Bedford Borough (Momentum, Xcellerate)

Cambridgeshire (young driver event, Huntingdon) Central Bedfordshire (MORE 16, MORE Drive) Essex (Freshers fairs, Sandon young drivers scheme) Hertfordshire (Learn 2 Live) Luton (MORE 16, MORE Drive) Peterbough (young driver day – Huntingdon, ‘Scooter’ Day – Regional College)

Post test training Suffolk (Get in Gear) TIE Cambridgeshire (development and delivery of TIE)

Essex Peterborough

Other Cambridgeshire (Focus groups – campaign development) Essex (USB sticks to promote Roadster and website) Hertfordshire (Hertfordshire Rider)

33

Produced for RSGB East by: David Frost, MSc. David Frost PR & Marketing [email protected] 07958 575 625 This document is available on-‐line at http://ow.ly/RLJVC until 31 December 2016

RSGB East young driver rider intervention survey 2015

Documents

Transcript of RSGB East young driver rider intervention survey 2015