Safe Routes to School Perspective Jeanie Ward-Waller CA Advocacy Organizer

September 11, 2014

Karen Higgins/UC Davis

About the National Partnership

We are a nonprofit organization and network of partners nationwide that advance safe walking and bicycling to and from schools, and in daily life, to improve the health and well-being of America's children and to foster the creation of livable, sustainable communities.

Why maintain SRTS funding?

1. Children more at risk on CA roads

fatality/serious injury rate = 27% vs 23% ages 5-15 all ages

2. Prevent childhood obesity and chronic disease

Severe public health risks associated with early inactivity – important build healthy lifestyles at early age

3. Unique community support of school-based projects

Consolidation of Programs

1. Loss of dedicated funding for SRTS 2. Loss of identity of Safe Routes to School Program 3. Loss of institutional architecture of the SRTS/SR2S

programs and Technical Assistance Resource Center (TARC)

Funding for SRTS

2011 & 2012 ATP

SR2S (State)

SRTS (Federal) SRTS-only $21M

$24M

$24M (min)

Project eligibilities

• Continue eligibilities from old SRTS programs • Maintain non-infrastructure eligibility (concern about

competitiveness against infrastructure projects) • Include planning for under-resourced communities

Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)

Priority for neediest communities to address: …higher walk/bike to school mode share …higher safety risk than statewide average

SRTS/SR2S used priority scoring criteria • “Low-income schools” = 75% of school students

eligible for free/reduced price meals • Up to 10% of program funds could fund “safe

routes to bus stops” for rural access

In LA County…

39% of

students walk/bike/transit to school vs

31% statewide

38% of

fatalities and serious injuries are on foot/bike

vs 23% statewide

Guidelines

• Require strong public participation especially:

…by disadvantaged residents for DAC projects

…by school community for school projects

• Eligibility for public health departments & school districts

• Exemption from local matching fund requirements for SRTS projects and disadvantaged communities

• Involvement of multidisciplinary committee in development of program and application review

• Standards for data collection, reporting, transparency

Cycle 1 Result

Statewide & Small Urban/Rural projects awarded Aug 2014

$221M (60% of total ATP) $119M = 94 projects all/partially fund SRTS

$23M = 53 projects include SRTS non-infrastructure program components

$189M = 110 projects provide a “benefit” to disadvantaged communities

$221M + $206M in matching funds = $426M total for walking and bicycling projects statewide

Working in a Coalition

Advantages • Internal coordination allowed for united asks, collective

representation of individual interests • Could shift workload and leadership to prevent burnout • Combined networks to leverage tremendous public support

Challenges • Delineating collective “bottom-line” asks • Hanging together despite external attempts to divide us • Maintaining momentum over the long haul

• Continuing to grow the overall ATP pie

• Improving the effectiveness of the program for future cycles

• Ensuring ATP Cycle I funds are effectively implemented

• Improving outreach to disadvantaged communities

• Innovative approaches to leveraging ATP funds to achieve more with current funds

• Collaborating on other grant programs – new sustainable communities and transit programs through Cap-and-Trade

What’s next for our coalition?

Thanks!

Jeanie Ward-Waller

California Advocacy Organizer

jeanie@saferoutespartnership.org

503-313-6400

Safe Routes to School National Partnership

www.saferoutescalifornia.org

www.saferoutespartnership.org

Questions?