Community Transport Options Appraisal Task Note: Scoping Report Stoke City Council 10191C
November 2015 FINAL
Quality Assurance
Document Management
Document Title Task Note: Scoping Report Name of File Document1 Last Revision Saved On 30/11/2015 12:05:00 Version 1 Prepared by JA / ND / RT Checked by AG Approved by AG Issue Date 30/11/2015
Copyright
The contents of this document are © copyright The TAS Partnership Limited, with the exceptions set out below. Reproduction in any form, in part or in whole, is expressly forbidden without the written consent of a Director of The TAS Partnership Limited.
Cartography derived from Ordnance Survey mapping is reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of HMSO under licence number WL6576 and is © Crown Copyright – all rights reserved.
Other Crown Copyright material, including census data and mapping, policy guidance and official reports, is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under licence number C02W0002869.
The TAS Partnership Limited retains all right, title and interest, including copyright, in or to any of its trademarks, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how including or arising out of this document, or used in connection with the preparation of this document. No licence under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
The TAS Partnership Limited regards the daily and hourly rates that are charged to clients, and the terms of engagement under which any projects are undertaken, as trade secrets, and therefore exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The TAS Partnership Limited often uses commercially or personally sensitive data provided under confidentiality agreements by third parties to inform projects, and disclosure of this information could constitute an actionable breach of confidence. This detailed content is therefore likely to be exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Consequently, The TAS Partnership Limited will expect to be consulted before any content of this document is released under a Freedom of Information request.
Guildhall House 59-61 Guildhall Street Preston PR1 3NU Telephone: 01772 204988 Fax: 01772 562070
[email protected] www.tas.uk.net
Contents
Executive Summary ...... 5
1 Introduction and Objectives ...... 7 1.1 Introduction ...... 7 1.2 Objectives ...... 7 1.3 Our Approach ...... 8 1.4 Task Note Structure ...... 9
2 Baseline and Background ...... 11 2.1 What is ‘Community Transport’? ...... 11 2.2 Current Transport in Stoke-on-Trent ...... 12 2.3 Community Transport in North Staffordshire ...... 13
3 Online Survey ...... 15 3.1 Introduction ...... 15 3.2 Responses ...... 15 3.3 Conclusion ...... 18
4 Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ...... 19 4.1 Workshop Event ...... 19 4.2 Stakeholder Feedback ...... 22
5 Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ...... 27 5.1 Estimating Demand ...... 27
6 Service Options Appraisal ...... 35 6.1 The Need for CT Services ...... 35 6.2 Options ...... 35
7 General Issues for CT Development ...... 53 7.2 Funding Voluntary Sector CT Services ...... 53 7.3 Quality Standards ...... 55 7.4 Marketing & Branding ...... 57 7.5 Volunteering ...... 58 7.6 Monitoring & Evaluation ...... 59
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Contents▪ 3
7.7 Digital Media & New Technologies ...... 61 7.8 Total Transport ...... 61 7.9 State Aid & Procurement of CT ...... 62 7.10 Social Value Act ...... 65 7.11 Service Design ...... 65 7.12 General Comment ...... 66
8 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 67 8.1 Conclusions ...... 67 8.2 The Role of Stoke City Council ...... 67 8.3 Beneficiaries – Young People ...... 68 8.4 Recommendations ...... 69
Appendix A: Power Point Presentation from Workshop on 10th November 201571
Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ...... 81
Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ...... 91
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Contents▪ 4
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 Stoke-on-Trent City Council has commissioned The TAS Partnership Limited to produce a scoping report on the potential for Community Transport (CT) services for a range of identified beneficiaries (essentially, members of the community at risk of exclusion). The methodology for the scoping report includes stakeholder consultations, an online survey and a workshop event.
2. Baseline & Background
2.1 There are no current CT services in Stoke. Mobility impaired residents who do not have access to private transport use the bus network (which is accessible, but not always suitable for the more severely disabled passenger) and taxis (which are accessible, but have a number of quality issues). There are a number of CT services across North Staffordshire – of most significance to Stoke are the services based in nearby Newcastle-under-Lyme.
3. Online Survey
3.1 Over 100 responses were received from organisations in Stoke who were asked a range of questions around how a CT service might benefit their activities, and the diverse transport needs of individuals. There was a clear majority of groups who were very interested in a CT service of some kind for Stoke.
4. Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement
th 4.1 A workshop event was held on 10 November and attended by 20 persons, and useful feedback was gained. An additional number of meetings and interviews were held and the various views on the viability and benefits of a CT service are given.
5. Demand Estimates
5.1 Using the TAS Partnership’s Censyble system, this provides a ward by ward prediction of demand for a door-to-door accessible transport system, indicating that around 4,500 residents of Stoke would be eligible to use a Dial- a-Ride type service on the basis of mobility impairment.
6. Service Options Appraisal
6.1 Taking into account the needs of the community as indicated from the consultations, and the practicality of implementation (and especially the funding position), we have outlined a range of service interventions that are
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 5
considered in terms of cost, viability, benefits, drawbacks, sustainability and, where possible, the identification of partners.
7. General Issues for CT Development
7.1 This section considers a wide range of key issues that should be taken into consideration when planning or specifying a CT service including funding, quality standards, marketing, volunteering, monitoring, technology, Total Transport, State Aid, Social Value, service design.
8. Conclusions & Recommendations
8.1 Our conclusions are that demand for a service of some kind in Stoke is significant, that the role of Stoke-on-Trent City Council should be defined and a working group be formed to progress any initiative. We recommend that
the existing Door2Door service in Newcastle is extended to cover Stoke
volunteering opportunities around transport are enhanced
a taxi ‘gold standard’ is investigated, and
a database of minibus provision is compiled as a preliminary to forming a brokerage.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Executive Summary ▪ 6
1Introduction and Objectives 1
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Stoke-on-Trent City Council (SOTCC) has engaged The TAS Partnership Limited to provide a scoping of options for establishing new Community Transport (CT) services for the city. There are currently no CT services in Stoke, and the authority is interested in investigating a range of transport options that would serve the needs of the following identified beneficiaries:
Older people
People with limited mobility
Young people in the 16-18 age category for whom transport costs are a problem
People of reduced economic means
Adults on social care packages.
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 The objective of the project is to provide SOTCC with a range of CT delivery options which would directly address the specific needs of the beneficiaries noted above, and which are practical and viable. It is understood that Stoke City has no identified budget at this stage for any new service initiative, and any solutions need to focus on using existing resources or community assets.
1.2.2 SOTCC has identified four key components that need to remain fundamental to any options being considered:
a) a high level of customer care
b) accessibility, and meeting a diversity of individual needs
c) affordability, both for the end user and the commissioner, and
d) sustainability, operationally and financially.
1.2.3 Whilst a), b) and c) are usually generic to all CT services in the UK, sustainability has proved more challenging. In recent years, many authorities have reduced or withdrawn funding support for CT, and many CT operators have been forced to reconfigure their approach, sometimes requiring radical changes to their business model. A number of CTs have ceased trading altogether. In this context, the options here presented have been developed with cost-efficiency in mind. More expensive interventions are noted by way of illustration, however.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 7
1.3 Our Approach
1.3.1 It has been acknowledged that the budget available for this project has allowed for a limited level of engagement, and has been less comprehensive than might otherwise have been the case. Nonetheless, our methodology has enabled us to fulfil the brief and work up a range of options for SOTCC based on:
our direct engagement with the Stoke community (via local organisations and stakeholders) and
our extensive experience of CT operations elsewhere in the UK and other local authorities who are grappling with similar challenges to SOTCC.
1.3.2 The methodology we have employed is as follows:
a) Inception conference call and meeting with SOTCC;
b) Desk-based research and background mapping;
c) Face to face interviews with a limited number of stakeholders;
d) Telephone interviews with a wider number of stakeholders;
e) Email correspondence with stakeholders;
f) On-line survey of local organisations;
g) Workshop of stakeholders and service beneficiaries;
h) Preparation of predicted demand for door-to-door accessible transport in Stoke
i) Scoping report which takes full account of the findings of a) to h) above and which outlines potential service interventions in term of:
Resources required (staff time, budget)
Impact on beneficiaries
Sustainability – long term viability
Practicality of implementation
Stakeholders and partners.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Introduction and Objectives ▪ 8
1.4 Task Note Structure
1.4.1 This report includes the following sections:
Executive Summary
1: Introduction and Objectives
2: Baseline and Background
3: Online Survey
4: Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement
5: Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services
6: Service Options Appraisal
7: General Issues for CT Development
8: Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendix A: Power Point presentation from the Workshop
Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback
Appendix C: General CT Development Process
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ ▪ 9
2Baseline and Background 2
2.1 What is ‘Community Transport’?
2.1.1 Community transport can mean different things to different people, and is subject to considerable variation of definition dependent on location, specific localised need, availability of funds and a range of other social, cultural and economic factors.
2.1.2 The UK CT sector is essentially a voluntary sector passenger transport service provider for marginalised members of the community, with emphasis on door- to-door and accessible travel solutions for disabled and older persons. The CT sector is particularly diverse in terms of the size, outlook, objectives and resources, and is traditionally driven by local needs. There is no strategically- planned national CT coverage on a geographical basis in the UK, or even an equitable match of resource against demand. The vast majority of CT work is focussed on practical delivery, and there is limited engagement at strategic level.
2.1.3 Although the definition of what is CT varies from area to area, there are a number of generic factors that are usually common to all CT projects. CT can be said to be a transport or mobility service that is:
derived from local needs and often planned (and sometimes implemented) with direct community involvement;
operated not for profit (usually charities), and
offering services not to the general public, but to qualifying members who have a specific need that is not being met by conventional services.
2.1.4 Much CT delivery is concerned with passenger transport, but also includes furniture recycling, goods transit, provision of mobility equipment, Shopmobility, training, car sharing, wheels to work, and other unconventional modes. More typically CT delivery may encompass the following models:
Door to door accessible services (dial-a-ride / ring and ride / dial-a-bus) using minibuses or cars;
Volunteer car services;
Minibus hire;
Community buses, providing routed services for communities that are not viable for commercial buses.
2.1.5 The above are aimed at individuals with a mobility disadvantage (disabled people, elderly people, those living in remote areas) and non-profit
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Baseline and Background ▪ 11
organisations. CT operators are able to use the s19 / s22 permit system which allows charges to be made to users without use of a full PSV Operator’s Licence.
2.1.6 It should be noted that despite the common operational criteria and charitable structures of the majority of CT providers, this should not imply that there is a consistency of customer service or quality standard that can be assured. Although there have been recent moves by the Community Transport Association to introduce a quality mark for CT, its impact has been limited.
2.1.7 As CT is essentially a local response to need, the characteristics of service provision tend to be determined by what is required by the target beneficiaries. SOTCC has already outlined these (see 1.1.1 above). Our approach in undertaking this study has been to primarily address the beneficiaries’ needs and explore a range of interventions that will improve the local travel experience for these members of the community. So ‘CT’ is defined with some degree of flexibility, and is not constrained by the examples of service design mentioned above.
2.2 Current Transport in Stoke-on-Trent
2.2.1 SOTCC does not at present commission or support any community transport service, although it does offer a Shopmobility facility. The Communibus Dial-a- Ride service ceased in 2009, and its replacement by Scraggs Taxis operated until 2011. These services, for a number of reasons, failed to achieve the performance levels or cost-efficiency expected, and SOTCC withdrew funding for this kind of door-to-door accessible transport service. The under- performance of Communibus does not, in our view, provide any evidence that there is low or minimal demand for such a service.
2.2.2 Aside from those with access to private transport (car owner /drivers, or those of carers, family or friends) the available transport options for residents with a specific mobility disadvantage in Stoke are as follows:
Bus Network – vast majority of vehicles are accessible, and First drivers have undergone recent customer service training that includes disability awareness. The bus network meets the needs of individuals with low to moderate mobility restrictions, particularly older people (including those who might previously have used a car). Although accessible, wheelchair users have no guarantee that they will be accommodated – there is one wheelchair space per vehicle which is also made available to those with pushchairs and buggies. (Recent legal hearings have concluded that wheelchair users could not claim any presiding right to that space). There is also the problem that the bus can only carry one wheelchair user at once. For many mobility impaired residents, the ability to get to and from the bus stop is either difficult or not possible.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Baseline and Background ▪ 12
Taxis – these form the primary means of travel for those who cannot use the bus network. Taxis and PH vehicles are relatively plentiful in Stoke compared with taxi provision elsewhere, although fully accessible vehicles are less numerous. According to returns made by SOTCC to DfT in 2015, there are:
188 Hackneys, of which 102 (54%) are accessible, and
1,213 Private Hire, of which 100 (8.2%) are accessible.
However, many users with mobility impairments (especially wheelchair users) are reportedly less happy about the cost and quality of taxi provision.
2.2.3 Beyond these, Stoke residents with a mobility impairment would qualify for transport to access day care and education (provided by Stoke City Council) and health care (Non-Emergency Patient Transport Service), albeit subject to different eligibility criteria.
2.3 Community Transport in North Staffordshire
2.3.1 The nearest CT operations to Stoke are based in Newcastle-under-Lyme:
Loggerheads & Ashley Voluntary Car Scheme, serving the Loggerheads and Ashley areas.
Madeley & District Community & Voluntary Transport, serving Madeley area, Maer, Keele, Betley, Hill Chorlton, Onneley, Chapel Chorlton, Woore, Baldwins Gate, Whitmore, Loggerheads and Ashley.
Door2Door Transport Scheme, hosted by Voluntary Action Stoke-on-Trent, which covers the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme
Newcastle Community Transport Minibus Scheme, a group transport service for Newcastle and surrounding areas (including the Stoke-on-Trent area of Penkhull)
2.3.2 Other North Staffordshire CT operations include:
Ashbourne Community Transport Scheme, serving Alton and surrounding villages with shopping trips into Ashbourne
Colwich and Haywoods Voluntary Car Scheme, serving Colwich, Great Haywood, Little Haywood, Moreton, Coley, Bishton area.
Denstone Voluntary Car Scheme, serving Denstone
Fulford Parish Voluntary Car Scheme, serving residents of Fulford Parish.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Baseline and Background ▪ 13
Moorlands Community Minibus and Waterhouses Car Share, serving Calton, Grindon, Cauldon, Cauldon Lowe, Waterhouses, Stanton, Whiston, Oakamoor, Alton, Ipstones, Bradnop and Foxt.
Support Staffordshire, serving Staffordshire Moorlands including Biddulph and Cheadle.
2.3.3 The centres of operation of these services are indicated spatially below in Figure A. Located east and west of Stoke City (shaded area B), the majority of these services are small operations with little potential to extent their services into Stoke. The exception, however, are the Newcastle services, whose close proximity to Stoke would suggest the potential for a joint service covering both towns.
Figure A: Location of Community Transport Schemes in North Staffordshire
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ ▪ 14
3Online Survey 3
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 While there is a lack of community transport in Stoke, there is plenty of evidence of a healthy voluntary sector more generally.
3.1.2 In order to assess the need and demand for community transport in Stoke, and in addition to assist in recruiting for the workshop, an online survey was produced and its details were widely circulated. 144 responses were received, which is a good response rate. Most of these responses were generated through emails sent out locally in Stoke and this effort was supplemented by TAS staff contacting organisations directly and encouraging them to respond. The survey was ‘live’ for approximately four weeks up to the start of November 2015.
3.2 Responses
3.2.1 As shown in Figure B below, almost three quarters of respondents stated that the people they represented experienced difficulty using a conventional bus service. Answers to a subsequent question (see Figure C below) showed that while there were a variety of reasons given for conventional bus services not being suitable, distance to bus stop and the need for extra support or care were the most popular with over 50% of respondents citing each of these reasons.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Online Survey ▪ 15
Figure B: Do any of the people you represent have difficulty using conventional bus services?
No - 26%
Yes - 74%
Figure C: Why do the people you represent have difficulty using buses?
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Online Survey ▪ 16
3.2.2 Moving on from questions about the difficulties experienced to possible solutions, the questionnaire asked about what types of community transport would be most useful. A wide range of reasons were stated, with a group of four each being selected by at least 25% of respondents. These four were:
Bus buddies;
Accessible Coach Hire;
Social car scheme and;
Community bus
3.2.3 The most popular choice was a community bus which was selected by over 40% of respondents.
3.2.4 A specific question was asked about the potential benefit of a dial-a-ride service (see Figure E below). Over 80% of respondents indicated that the people they represented could benefit from a dial-a-ride service. This is a large percentage of respondents and suggests a strong need for this service.
Figure D: Which CT services do you consider would be particularly useful to your organisation or your members in Stoke?
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Online Survey ▪ 17
Figure E: Do you think the people you represent could benefit from a Dial-a-Ride type of service?
No - 16%
Yes - 84%
3.3 Conclusion
3.3.1 The responses to the questionnaire, combined with our knowledge about community transport provision and usage elsewhere, strongly suggest both a need and demand for CT in Stoke. We would in particular highlight the encouraging response rate to the questionnaire which we believe indicates a reflection of a high level of interest in the potential for community transport service of some type in Stoke.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ ▪ 18
4Workshop Event & Stakeholder 4 Engagement
4.1 Workshop Event
th 4.1.1 The Community Transport Consultation Workshop was held on Tuesday 10 November 2015 at the Civic Centre, Stoke-on-Trent. The event was introduced by Brian Edwards (Passenger Transport Manager, SOTCC) and facilitated by John Atkins and Nick Dangerfield (TAS Partnership). Proceedings of the event are given below, organised thematically rather than chronologically. The discussions in the workshop are noted verbatim and not ascribed to any specific individuals (notes taken did not specify the speakers). A Powerpoint presentation was also circulated and is included as Appendix A.
4.1.2 Background:
Currently there is no Stoke Dial-a-Ride or CT organisation. Red Cross, RVS and Age UK do not offer car schemes in Stoke. The lack of a good accessible transport service means some people cannot get out at all. Stoke is working towards becoming an Age-Friendly city. This workshop is part of a process to collect views and then report to decision makers (councillors).
There is an ageing population combined with significant reductions in state funding affecting transport services (e.g. reductions in the number of supported bus services). An ageing population creates demands and possible solutions – demands because people are living longer and possible solutions as there are many younger retirees in better health who could become volunteers.
4.1.3 Local CT:
Newcastle car scheme is funded by Staffordshire County Council – costs £15k. Funding has been cut and (paid) co-coordinator’s hours reduced as a result. Currently constrained to Newcastle area – but could be expanded to Stoke.
The scheme offers door-to-door transport for a variety of purposes including shopping and evenings out. Drivers are volunteers who receive expenses related to the mileage they travel.
Volunteer Brian loves the job and can’t get enough work – joined up support service for passengers, staying with them during trip.
Charge average of £4 per trip – this is felt to be reasonable. Brian Alcock: “better is more important than cheaper”
Can use minibus for those passengers who do need to travel in a wheelchair
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 19
Subject of CT does come up a various meetings and it is timely that the Council are investigating this further
4.1.4 Taxis:
Taxis overcharge disabled passengers – this causes great problems as disabled people generally have limited means. While some drivers are difficult and even abusive, others were described as being brilliant.
Accessible taxis are not available during the school run period due to them being contracted to the authority
Bus and taxis - We are prepared to pay fares over the odds to ensure an appropriate service
Some taxi firms who have offered accessible vehicles in the past no longer do so (Scraggs) presumably so that it makes their life easier. Some taxi firms only offer their accessible vehicles (or will only allow the use of ramps, where fitted) for contract work, therefore the public do not benefit from them.
Further information is needed on the differences between Hackney and Private Hire – public is not clear on the differential charging approach. Council website will explain – also tell you where to complain
Hackneys can accept advance bookings but not all choose to do so – some are single driver operations with no base
PH should be asked to quote cost in advance of travel to create an audit trail.
City Central Taxis [mentioned but no detail noted]
Have been told Z cars have ramps
Discussion about the introduction of a Gold Standard for taxis (there is such a scheme in Bristol, for example) – how would this operate? How would standards be checked?
4.1.5 Bus:
Bus network – there were geographic inequalities – many buses serve Keele University while routes elsewhere are being cut back. Explanation as to who would be responsible for planning the bus network – private operators (commercially viable routes) + option for the Council to subsidise “socially necessary” routes.
Can school buses not be put to community use?
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 20
Some drivers do not wait for disabled passengers to sit down before moving away. Someone was injured as a result of this.
Some drivers are very good with disabled people
Inequality of bus passes – 09.30 start time for use of concessionary fares.
Question about why some buses which go to the bus station do not stop at the shops. Stated that there has been confusion caused by changes to bus route and timetable changes.
4.1.6 CT Consultation:
Will the consultation end in a new service being launched?
Will the survey findings be circulated?
Will the consultation findings be raise at full council?
There are many individuals with a very great level of need
Is there an ability for users to pay a premium fare? Use of donations and membership fees to boost income of providers
Debate around Personal health budget and who receives financial support for mobility / disability
Use of joint commissioning to generate capacity
Shared resources should be investigated
Can Stoke and Newcastle councils work together?
4.1.7 Next Steps:
Notes from the workshop, including the full power point, will be circulated to all attendees.
TAS to use workshop findings in scoping report
It is up to SOTCC to decide how to circulate the report findings, and how this is progressed at member level.
It would be useful for SOTCC to maintain the list of workshop attendees for any future consultation.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 21
Table 1: Attendance List
Name Organisation Brian Alcock Door 2 Door Margaret Dobell Door 2 Door Co-ordination J Taylor Resident D Drinkley Disability Solutions Mark Roberts Stoke Worth Big Local SHA Alison Lawson Revival Hospital Discharge Team Pam Bryan STAND Brian Turnock STAND Cllr Joan Bell City Council Ann Johnson SOTCC Hazel McPherson Resident Manager Sharon Sharpe SOTCC – commissioning Kevin Hawkins SOTCC – Local Matters Emma Ford North Staffs User Group Gail Harvey Royal Voluntary Service Cheryl Tharp SOTCC Michelle Cooper STAND Sarah Watson New Vic / Borderlines Andy Day North Staffs Pensioners’ Con.
4.2 Stakeholder Feedback
4.2.1 In addition to the workshop event and survey, a number of interviews have been conducted (both face to face and by telephone) and feedback received, and this process has aimed to capture a diversity of opinion from stakeholder organisations who represent or support individuals who would potentially benefit from a CT service. The full text of the feedback is provided as Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback. Table 2 below presents a summary of the key points made by each stakeholder.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 22
Table 2: Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Organisation / Comments Respondent Action for Blind Organisation provide practical and emotional advice and support in area People to people who are blind or partially sighted, and their friends and family Suzanne Roberts Independent use of public transport is a major issue for many clients and many people are isolated as they cannot travel independently Support is provided to enable clients to start to use bus services but not all can do this Some people with sight loss have additional mobility impairments Lack of appropriate transport options prevents some people from being able to attend the Action for Blind People centre in Hanley (and elsewhere in Staffordshire) Age UK North Age UK offers a range of services for older people in North Staffs Staffs (information & advice, social rehabilitation, hospital discharge service, Peter Bullock shop and clean service, befriending service, Ageing Well Programme, (Chief Executive) social activities programme, Fifty and Counting Team, EngAGE 50+ Forum) Stoke has higher than average older population and there are considerable levels of deprivation Recent Age UK survey and Older People’s forum have emphasised transport problems, and role of transport in addressing loneliness / exclusion in older community Majority of older people rely on bus network but have been confused by route changes and increasingly digital-only timetables Age UK North Staffs does not provide any transport (either for general needs or for its own activities) Volunteer ‘travel buddy’ project would keep older people using bus / taxi network for longer – providing assistance on vehicles and at the bus station Active Travel solutions (cycling) should aim to involve Older People Any CT solutions should be asset-based (volunteering and sharing of resources) to ensure sustainability Door2Door Door2Door is a voluntary car scheme operated in Newcastle-under-Lyme (hosted by VAST and supported by Staffordshire County Council (£10k) - Voluntary Call centre operated by Co-ordinator and has 15 volunteers Action Stoke- 450+ users and 5,000 trips pa on-Trent) Door2Door could be easily extended into Stoke and volunteers in Stoke Margaret Dobell could be recruited (Co-ordinator) Operating exclusively in Newcastle or Stoke is not desirable – need for a cross-boundary approach
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 23
Organisation / Comments Respondent Green Door GD has Big Lottery funding to encourage people, particularly older and Mark McIntosh disabled people, to make more use of the green spaces through range of cost-free or low-cost activities Based at Green Door Hub Building and Accessible Cycle Hire Facility at Westport Lake Volunteer buddying is provided Intrinsic need for people to get to locations and activities, so very transport dependent – taxis are used but too expensive Big GD events would need accessible minibuses or coaches Westport Lake and Rudyard Lake have proved less accessible to people travelling from south of Stoke centre GD has no plans to include transport provision itself so would greatly value an external CT provider Healthwatch Healthwatch is an enabling and empowering service for NHS patients Stoke-on-Trent which seeks to shape services Val Lewis Transport issues have included hospital parking problems (recent survey) (Manager) Lack of CT is a big loss to Stoke, some use of the Door2Door service extending goodwill into Stoke in occasion – Door2Door is capable of expanding into Stoke Dependency on taxis – however a few taxi providers offer high levels of customer care There is potential to obtain financial support / donations for CT from Chamber of Commerce / Local enterprise Partnership / local business as Corporate Social responsibility – could get an accessible car for car scheme Shopping habits are complex and reflect ‘six towns’ mentality – not so easily configured in CT schedules Any new CT provision should align with Pan-Staffordshire Health Economy concept, and not be constrained to Stoke city only Centralising of district nursing and clinics by Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Partnership NHS Trust (SSOTP) has created transport difficulties – SSOTP have reimbursed some taxi fares Any hospital transport service needs to be fully joined up – driver staying with patient on site, or there needs to be a parallel volunteering ‘meet and greet’ service at hospitals CT development might benefit from recent other initiatives: o My Care My Way - which aims to ensure that "a patient’s journey is supported from the point of acute (hospital) admission to discharge home…” o Healthy Towns - Stoke has been involved with a bid, context of domiciliary care crisis and increasing demand o Building Better Opportunities Fund (Big Lottery) / European Social Fund - a £25m package to developing collaborative working partnerships between voluntary sector groups Carers should be better able to provide advice about transport to clients – private sector carers, however, are often outside of the loop
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 24
Organisation / Comments Respondent Live At Home Offers services and support to help older people lead independent, active Scheme (Stoke and fulfilled lives, and to live securely North) Very interested in any CT initiative Liz Daley Project involves over 100 older people and transport is a continuing problem Primary need is to get people to weekly activity groups, and lack of transport options limits how many people can be supported A few volunteers provide transport for members North Organisation promotes the welfare and interests of pensioners, as a way Staffordshire of securing dignity, respect and financial security in retirement Pensioners Convention is proactive in promoting public transport and campaigning Convention to improve buses in Stoke Andy Day (Co- Group went to study network in Nottingham and concluded that Stoke ordinator) bus network left much to be desired Working group in dialogue with SOTCC around transport issues Very keen to see a CT service for Stoke revived PHAB Social group for wheelchair users or those with significant mobility Freewheelers restrictions – local meetings plus excursions (e.g. Alton Towers) Gillian Cooper Event in the past had around 45 members and Communibus was used – (Co-ordinator) group was badly affected by Communibus closure, subsequent Scraggs taxis offered poorer service Members who do not have personal transport use taxis but the cost is prohibitive – one members pays £18 for a shortish single way trip Activities of the group are very compromised by the lack of a reliable transport service Stoke-on-Trent STAND involves disabled people use their expertise in their disability to Area Network help to make life better for all disabled people – they provide for Disability campaigning and access advice to improve the local environment for all (STAND) disabled people Pam Bryan Disabled people are at mercy of taxis - some Private Hire operators are disreputable and have overcharged, although some are good Any initiative to improve taxi quality standards would be welcomed A CT service is much-needed and would make a significant difference to disabled residents Voluntary sector provision is felt to be best for a specialist transport service Some disabled people have been inconvenienced by buses leaving from wrong stands at the bus station, however few people with disabilities cannot get to bus stops Whilst older people venture out less often, younger disabled people have a real struggle, especially with late night travel
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Workshop Event & Stakeholder Engagement ▪ 25
Organisation / Comments Respondent Stoke-on-Trent Geographic nature of Stoke and ‘six towns’ mentality presents challenges City Council for bus network- no obvious ‘hub and spokes’ configuration Lesley Smith Previous Communibus service did not serve the community well so its (Access Officer / closure did not have a great impact – mobility impaired residents reply Green Door on buses, taxis, friends / family) Project Manager Bus network is accessible in theory (is used by wheelchair users) but capacity problems (pushchairs etc) and driver attitudes can be unsympathetic Increasing number of large / heavy wheelchairs that cannot be accommodated on buses Large number of accessible taxis – these are well used BUT reports of Private Hire drivers overcharging / fares inconsistency Taxis will be important part of any future service but need higher quality standards and better marketing Large numbers of blue badge holders in Stoke – these will increase, low incentive to switch mode Stoke has well developed voluntary sector network – this should be useful for any CT service development Stoke-on-Trent Wheelchair and scooter loan service, operated by SOTCC Shopmobility Serves Hanley City centre from Birch Terrace Car Park (near to bus Nikki Rowley station) Most users arrive by car or Private Hire, though CT served Shopmobility in the past Cost of Private Hire is expensive for users, therefore any more cost- effective service would be beneficial Voluntary Provides liaison between CCGs and voluntary sector providers Action Stoke- NEPTS in Stoke is provided by NSL under contract to University Hospitals on-Trent (VAST) of North Midlands (UHNM). There is no volunteer car scheme attached to Lorien Barber this. (Strategic Some transport is provided by the Red Cross as part of the Home from Liaison Manager Hospital scheme – LB says this is mostly a transport function. Health) A problem with buses and taxis is that many people need help with luggage, getting to the door and struggle if just dropped off. Access to hospital sites by bus is generally good but some patients need two journeys On site parking and need for assistance is a problem for some people. Health centres are not so easily reached – some patients would have a difficult or convoluted journey. Health sector should be engaged with over any new CT planning Dave Sanzeri, Senior Commissioning Manager at Clinical Commissioning Group - NHS Stoke on Trent was a useful starting point, as he appreciates the holistic value of transport. Also, PALS good contact point.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ ▪ 26
5Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible 5 Transport Services
5.1 Estimating Demand
5.1.1 There is no definitive system that can be used to ascertain the numbers of residents who are in need of a specialist door-to-door accessible transport service. It is possible, however, to identify those individuals whose mobility impairment would be sufficient to render them eligible to use a typical Dial-a- Ride service. What is more difficult is to accurately predict:
a) how many of the identified individuals would chose or opt to use a CT service (some may have alternate transport arrangements, others may have very limited travel needs), and
b) how many trips would be required to serve the needs of those who would need the CT service.
5.1.2 Additionally estimating the demand for a range of service enhancements or additional services needed by disabled people is very challenging because of the wide variation in personal, environmental and mobility circumstances. However, undertaking the analysis is necessary in order to help allocate scarce resources to give the best positive impact. The 2011 Census statistics provide the starting point for each area under consideration.
5.1.3 TAS has developed, as part of its CENSYBLE system, a model to predict demand for a CT-based door to door service, based on the 1996 DSS survey on Disability in Great Britain and calibrated by reference to successful services in the UK and abroad. The model estimates the numbers of Stoke-on-Trent residents (by census middle-layer super output area) who would be eligible for a 'targeted' service on the basis of their restricted mobility. Having a geographical picture helps future service marketing, and any initiatives to provide equitable coverage. (The methodology involved is available in a separate document if required.)
5.1.4 Table 3 below provides a ward by ward breakdown of predicted demand in Stoke, which averages 1.8% of the total population. This indicates that 4,523 individuals have a mobility restriction that is sufficient for eligibility for a Dial- a-Ride service.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 27
Table 3: Estimated Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Demand in Stoke-on-Trent
Ward Population Demand Great Chell and Packmoor 9,997 191 Hanford and Trentham 11,836 257 Hanley Park and Shelton 6,467 91 Springfields and Trent Vale 6,816 114 Blurton West and Newstead 6,304 104 Burslem Central 6,206 102 Bentilee and Ubberley 10,779 191 Baddeley, Milton and Norton 17,250 362 Meir Park 4,941 91 Boothen and Oak Hill 5,744 94 Fenton East 6,269 106 Penkhull and Stoke 6,518 122 Meir South 5,791 96 Blurton East 5,203 110 Hollybush and Longton West 5,878 122 Dresden and Florence 5,089 92 Lightwood North and Normacot 5,196 77 Broadway and Longton East 5,261 97 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant 5,801 102 Sandford Hill 6,378 109 Meir Hay 4,756 75 Meir North 5,763 106 Weston Coyney 5,073 119 Hartshill and Basford 6,650 113 Sneyd Green 5,342 103 Abbey Hulton and Townsend 9,918 188 Etruria and Hanley 6,719 105 Ford Green and Smallthorne 5,827 106 Moorcroft 5,406 87 Tunstall 6,232 100 Burslem Park 5,108 93
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 28
Ward Population Demand Little Chell and Stanfield 6,410 110 Bradeley and Chell Heath 5,751 101 Goldenhill and Sandyford 5,533 100 Joiner's Square 4,998 91 Eaton Park 4,476 100 Birches Head and Central Forest Park 11,322 196 TOTAL 249,088 4,523
5.1.5 It is useful to provide an illustration of how a large scale, well-funded service might be configured. Table 4 below provides a breakdown of the performance statistics from 2014 / 2015 of the nearest Ring & Ride services to Stoke (West Midlands & Greater Manchester), and uses the average of the two (based on district level of delivery) to provide illustrative data based on the Stoke populations level. It should be noted that the average West Midlands district is better resourced than its Greater Manchester counterpart, and although Stoke’s population is fewer, its illustrative Ring & Ride offers a higher delivery level than in Manchester due to the averaging.
Table 4: Illustration of a Ring & Ride Type Service in Stoke-on-Trent
West Midlands Greater Stoke-on-Trent (District Manchester Average) (District Average) Population 380,630 268,250 249,088 Users 3,420 (0.9%) 3,619 (1.3%) 2,740 Single Trips 184,000 85,000 95,000 Vehicles 19 8 13 Cost £1.5m £643,000 £746,700 Cost Per Trip £8.15 £7.56 £7.86 Return Trips Per User 1 per fortnight 1 per month 1 per three weeks
5.1.6 In terms of resourcing a door-to-door accessible transport service, £746,700 is clearly a sum beyond any non-Metropolitan council area (with the singular exception of Milton Keynes). The authorities that are commissioning minibus based services tend to offer support levels that are typically between £50,000- £150,000 pa, and delivery (via a three or four vehicle service) might reach 30,000 trips. It could be argued that the more a commissioner is able to pay, the more service the public gets, but any analysis of Dial-a-ride performance statistics proves this to be false. There are often exceptions where a low funded service offers excellent value for money, often by using volunteers and energetic marketing techniques.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 29
5.1.7 Figures F-H below indicate the hotspots of demand, with the darkest red areas representing 150+ residents in one location. The mapping and ward breakdown indicates that the areas of greatest demand are:
Baddeley, Milton and Norton
Hanford and Trentham
Birches Head and Central Forest
Great Chell and Packmoor
Abbey Hulton and Townsend
5.1.8 These areas would form the focus for any marketing or concentration of resources for any CT service launch in Stoke-on-Trent.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 30
Figure F: Predicted Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Demand in Stoke-on-Trent (North)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 31
Figure G: Predicted Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Demand in Stoke-on-Trent (Central)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 32
Figure H: Predicted Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Demand in Stoke-on-Trent (South)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Demand for Door-to-Door Accessible Transport Services ▪ 33
6Service Options Appraisal 6
6.1 The Need for CT Services
6.1.1 There is no definitive method of gauging the need for a CT service nor an equivalent planning tool of Accession (software used by local authorities for mainstream bus network), that will indicate what, where and how much CT is needed. In times of greater financial resources, authorities have had more leeway for trial and error, and have been able to fund pilots before fine tuning a service that has assimilated some notion of demand levels through actual take-up. Our approach during this consultation has indicated that there is undoubtedly a significant level of demand for a CT service of some kind – and in the absence of anything else, even a relatively small scale operation would make a difference.
6.1.2 For this to happen, there are three key issues that will need to be resolved:
a) What kind of service should be offered?
b) What resources can be identified?
c) Who will take responsibility for
developing / commissioning the service and / or
operating / managing the service
6.1.3 The process by which services are introduced to address specific needs can follow a number of paths – we have provided some general comment on these as Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process.
6.2 Options
6.2.1 Throughout the consultation process a number of different options have emerged as being potentially viable and these are detailed below in 6.2.3. These are by no means the only options that might be available to SOTCC, and nor is each option mutually exclusive of the remainder – in likelihood, SOTCC would progress a number of these in conjunction. Although there is inevitably some variation in the resourcing implications, the options have been selected with cost effectiveness and sustainability in mind, apart from a) which is included largely for illustrative purposes.
6.2.2 Whilst the implementation / operation of some options might naturally fall to a particular agency (e.g. option e) would largely involve SOTCC’s taxi licensing section), in no instance would we envisage a delivery body being newly created. The options could be developed and delivered within the remit of a
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 35
number of stakeholder bodies using existing infrastructure. In some cases, however, additional capacity might need to be resourced.
6.2.3 There are also a number of over-arching factors that would apply to a greater or lesser extant to all the options presented - quality standards and marketing / branding etc. These are considered in section 7.1 below.
a) Door-to-Door Accessible Minibus - with dedicated call centre. This could range between high-profile multiple vehicle ‘Ring & Ride’-type down to a single vehicle operation. As the demand prediction outlined in 5 above indicates, were SOTCC to launch a service on a par with the Ring & Ride services in Greater Manchester and West Midlands, this would require 10 vehicles at a cost of £750k pa. Scaling this down to a one or two vehicle service would require an investment of circa £50k and the subsidy per trip may remain high. There could be some savings, however, if volunteer drivers are used, though these may be less easy to recruit than for a car scheme. However, we are mindful that SOTCC has commissioned this kind of approach in the past with Communibus and Scraggs Taxis and these services did not ultimately justify the cost or serve a significant number of users. Services of this kind are generally provided by voluntary sector operators with Council support, though there are examples of in-house delivery by authorities (Lancaster Dial-a-Bus) and private sector companies. It would be feasible, therefore, for SOTCC to provide some service delivery for individuals on the back of its home to school / day care transport at marginal cost out of peak times. (Examples elsewhere: Shrewsbury Dial-a-Ride, Central Leicestershire Dial a Ride, Ashbourne Community Transport, Erewash Community Transport Limited, Little Green Bus, Lancashire – an example of a minibus service with volunteer drivers)
b) Voluntary Car Scheme – this would form a low-cost option compared to a) above, with the advantage that standing costs are minimised. This could be launched as a dedicated project for Stoke or an enhancement of an existing operation. The Door2Door service offered by Voluntary Action Stoke-on-Trent (VAST) in Newcastle is pre-eminently suited to be expanded into Stoke, and the organisation has expressed its interest in such a move. The business model used by Door2Door is for all mileage incurred to be covered by fares, and a support grant to cover overheads (employment of a co-ordinator to run a call centre), which at the current level of operation means that a subsidy of £2 per trip is in place. There would be the potential for integration with further existing operations. (Examples elsewhere: Ripon and Rural Voluntary Car Driving Scheme, Lichfield & District Voluntary Car Scheme, Warwickshire Voluntary Transport, Ashford & Tenterden Community Car Scheme)
c) Development of Volunteering Infrastructure – this would be an indirect approach highlighting volunteering with transport focus which in turn would feed a number of transport projects. The purpose would be to:
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 36
Market opportunities for voluntary drivers (and passenger assistants) and co-ordinate publicity / recruitment campaigns with a branded theme such as “Drive North Staffs” or “Calling All Drivers” – this could also incorporate ‘Meet and Greet’ volunteers at healthcare sites;
Co-ordinate existing volunteer recruitment across multiple agencies that utilise drivers – this could encompass the wider North Staffordshire area;
Establish a common induction and training standard, including a badging system, DBS, MiDAS, Safeguarding etc;
Create a common driver pool that all agencies could draw from (both volunteers with their own cars and those qualified to drive minibuses).
This approach would require a multi-agency partnership and close liaison with Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Consortium of Infrastructure Organisations (SCIO) / Communities Together who manage Stoke-on- Trent’s Volunteer Centre and VAST - its aim would be to eliminate overlap and duplication and not impose an additional tier. Given the potential for this to cover a wider area, it would be possible to garner resources and support from a number of agencies (e.g. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, Staffordshire County Council, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, West Midlands Ambulance Service). d) Travel Buddies / Improved Information on Bus Network – this approach would be in recognition that the bus network could be more user-friendly to passengers, especially older people, targeting those who:
are no longer confident in using buses
have recently been required to give up driving
have been confused by timetable and route changes
feel that they need additional help with shopping etc
This enhancement of bus network marketing and support would aim to increase accessibility for older bus users. The project could signpost users, assist with travel planning, interpret timetables, offer one to one assistance on vehicles and orientation at bus station, using volunteers. There is also an economic advantage for the older passenger in maintaining the use of their concessionary pass. This approach is of particular interest to North Staffordshire Age UK, who feel that it would create quite viable volunteering opportunities.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 37 e) Taxi Gold Standard – a number of authorities have instigated a ‘Gold Standard’ for their taxi sector. A notable example is Bristol City Council (http://news.bristol.gov.uk/bristol-taxi-drivers-go-for-gold). This is a kitemark for those taxis which have attained a higher quality standard (full accessibility), and drivers having undergone additional training with an emphasis on customer care and disability awareness. Drivers and proprietors who have met the Gold Standard would then be able to exclusively benefit from the custom of those passengers with a mobility impairment. The Gold Standard would also be able to ensure that a fair and consistent charging policy is maintained. This approach could also take the form of a Quality Partnership. (Examples elsewhere: Bristol City Council, Aberdeen City Council, Oldham Council) f) Taxicard – as an alternative to any direct support of service provision, some authorities have introduced a Taxicard to provide a demand-side resource for qualifying individuals. The card would be issued to eligible individuals (typically those unable to access the bus network) and entitle them to free or subsidised travel using approved / participating taxi providers. Most Taxicard schemes ration the resource to a set number of trips per year (or to a financial ceiling), and the viability of a Taxicard scheme depends on a sufficient quantity and quality of providers. (Examples elsewhere: Falkirk Council, London Boroughs, Cambridge City Council, Sunderland City Council, Ryedale District Council) g) Information Hub – it could be argued that lack of information around existing accessible transport options is a barrier that impedes local travel. The Hub concept creates a visible and higher profile source of transport information with the ability to provide information to passengers across a multitude of modes and providers. The key tool would generally be a database or online mapping of local transport network. The need for clear information may be more acute for certain users (see option d) above). For this service to be viable it would need to be located within an existing location and hosted by an organisation with a developed social network in Stoke, as well as the ability to involve volunteers in the provision of information. The Hub function could also hold a database of minibuses that were available for community use. It could be hosted within the Local Matters teams or Shopmobility, for example. (Examples elsewhere: Hubs in eight locations in the Yorkshire Dales, formerly part of the Dales Integrated Transport Alliance (DITA), http://dalesconnect.net/your-dales- hubs/)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 38 h) Travel Response Centre – this is a much more developed version of the Hub outlined above, but in addition to information provision, this facility would enable passengers to make bookings and involve integrated scheduling software. As a ‘one stop shop’ or brokerage, any travel response centre needs to be a multi partnership approach, including day care and health transport, and with a clear methodology for managing different eligibility criteria. This approach is being pursued by a number of the DfT Total Transport pilots. (Examples elsewhere: Durham Travel Response Centre, Norfolk County Council). i) In-House Delivery – as mentioned in a) above, some authorities have integrated their adult care / education transport with some form of public / CT offer. This generally means utilising downtime in the middle of day, where drivers and vehicles are not otherwise required. The viability of using an in-house fleet and drivers for some form of CT is dependent on fleet capacity (is the off-peak / downtime sufficient?) and staff arrangements (are there split shifts?). Whilst SOTCC has a small fleet of vehicles and driving staff, including volunteers, there is probably little scope to offer an external service at present. This would require a more detailed examination of fleet activities. An additional requirement of a bookings centre would also need to be factored in. Alternatively, some authorities have opted to offer a dedicated Dial-a-Ride service using in- house fleet and drivers. (Examples elsewhere: Oxfordshire County Council, Lancashire County Council). j) Smart Commissioning – the commissioning function, be it for adult day care, SEN or NEPTS, can be a useful tool in creating additional capacity and gaining added value at marginal cost. However, it should be specified with some care to ensure it remains cost effective. This would need to be considered at the next round of tender requests. The peak provision regarding the statutory requirements is 0800-0900 and 1500-1630, which leaves seven hours that might be used to offer a CT service (0900-1500 + 1630-1730). The risk, however, is that external providers would bid for the additional hours at standard rates, thus requiring considerable additional budget by SOTCC. k) Minibus Brokerage - whilst brokerages are an intermediary means of connecting supply with demand, there are various levels at which they can function. The first level would simply form an information depository in the form of contact exchanges (between those with minibuses available, and those who require one), as in g) above. A more fully functioning brokerage would process bookings and manage vehicle operations, as in h) above, also providing volunteers where required.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 39
Table 5: Delivery Options Appraisal
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners a) Door-to- Highly visible and Requires direct Normally 6-12 Due to high Door2Door / Schemes Door potential to deliver financial support requires at months. costs will VAST – typically Accessible bespoke journey / subsidy. least one require both however, this struggle to Minibus options to those Less ability to accessible mini- relatively high scheme is not make Service most in need. utilise volunteers bus plus a co- initial and experienced in provision for Ability to offer full than car scheme. ordinator’s post ongoing minibus vehicle = £75k. funding. operations. replacement. access for Subsidy required wheelchair users. on a ‘per trip’ To offer a Very unlikely One of the Sustainability Vehicles can be basis likely to be similar level of anything like larger CT can be used by voluntary high. service to that £0.75m operators from improved if available in available. elsewhere users make a sector groups No local delivery Greater (West Midlands significant during evenings body in Manchester / Special Needs contribution and weekends. voluntary sector West Midlands Transport / to costs but Volunteer drivers with experience would cost Hackney CT) need for trip could be used. in door-to-door £0.75 million could be subsidy minibus per year. interested if cannot be operations. contract is eliminated
large enough. Any scheme will require ongoing support to survive.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 41
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners b) Voluntary Offers good Value Dependent on Costs can be Scheme Voluntary Car Door2Door / As long as Car Scheme for Money. levels of projected from could start Schemes VAST – building relatively Builds social capital volunteer input. existing rolling out generally offer on existing modest co- and community Vehicles not Door2Door within 6 good VFM. project ordination resilience. wheelchair scheme = circa months. Potential infrastructure. costs and £2 per trip, volunteers Creates accessible. volunteer Volunteer however. can be found volunteering Cost per mile to resource in Centre. good opportunities. passenger is 45p Costs are for Stoke. co-ordinator – sustainability Ability to expand per mile – this an extension of outlook. capacity may make co-ordinator’s Possible to (volunteers) to longer journeys hours would recoup all match demand. expensive. increase vehicle cost
With right charging capacity to from user. structure, can cover develop service Possible to all vehicle costs via in Stoke. shift co- fares. ordination function to volunteers.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 42
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners c) Invest in Ability to achieve No direct Volunteer Project Will require a VAST. Although volunteering consistent quality. delivery impact. numbers could length one panel of Volunteer initial strategy Infrastructure Increase number of Risk that not all be boosted by year but partners to Centre. development on-off impact is agree will be one volunteer drivers volunteer- Other agencies investment of likely to common off, some and assistants involving who recruit £10k for one continue strategy and funding for Co-ordinate how agencies would volunteer year – this sum beyond this. progress this. promotion volunteers are be interested in drivers. could be and marketing deployed (i.e. collaboration. Only likely to variable. might need across a number of Difficult to yield value in However, ongoing providers) equate level of conjunction additional with other support of Co-ordinate / investment with ongoing options that around £5k combine a number direct outputs – support of £5k require pa. of separate will need to might be volunteer recruitment and ensure that required. input. marketing benefits are resources. tangible. Could draw on extant community development funds.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 43
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners d) Travel Potential to partner Relies heavily on Training costs Volunteers Parameters of First Potteries Some people buddies / bus companies. the ability to for volunteers. will need this service North will need Improved Bus Potential to attract suitable DBS volunteer training. 6-9 and eligibility Staffordshire ongoing Information promote more volunteers. checks. months to of Age UK support (with Provision set up. beneficiaries associated on- independent travel. Requires bus Travel costs / Volunteer will be careful going costs), Environmental company support expenses for Centre – buddies would definition. others may benefits – could volunteers. North Staffs need free bus Need to become reduce car Pensioners pass. identify a independent journeys. Convention delivery (confidence Enables continuing Likely moderate partner – building). use of numbers of could be Age This is concessionary pass beneficiaries. UK or VAST. unlikely to be for users (not Not suitable for a service for necessarily a those whose which a benefit for the mobility / charge can be authority). sensory made, impairment Creates therefore renders bus volunteering unlikely to travel too opportunities. become cost- difficult. zero.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 44
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners e) Taxi Gold Offers reassurance Requires co- Training per 12 months. Only viable if SOTCC Taxi Training will Standard around taxi quality operation from driver could a reasonable Licensing need for mobility taxi industry. cost around number of National Private refreshing and impaired persons. Training costs £500. taxis Hire upgrading Promotes higher need to be participate. Association over time. standards in taxi covered – could Need to offer (Stoke Branch) Participation industry. be passed onto phased Stoke-on-Trent in training Evidences SOTCC’s industry but training Hackney could be effort to improve would limit take- options over a Carriage made local services. up. period of Association conditional to time. licence grants. Benefits and Will not provide approaches from coverage for all Need for elsewhere are Stoke taxis – training to be readily available. user may still be accessible and at risk from affordable. Also of benefit to some drivers. social care and Need to education transport demonstrate procurement tangible sections of SOTCC. benefits for participation. Opportunity to launch PR campaign and create quality brand.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 45
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners f) Taxicard Targeted support – Requires back- Per journey 18 months Relatively Taxi Sector Requires on- universal because office to subsidy. If 500 to roll out easy to SOTCC Taxi going revenue taxis are administer. people are implement Licensing support. everywhere. Requires eligible then at but requires Ability to control eligibility criteria £200 per head admin and any concession – limited to most = £100k pa, processing (e.g. £200 per head needy cases. assuming arrangements people take up pa). Less effective if the full Empowers the there is no allocation. individuals to use quality standard the credit how they in taxi industry. wish (they can Needs significant choose the operator budget to be and journey effective. themselves). Requires participation of taxi firms – some may prefer to opt out rather than apply for rebated fares.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 46
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners g) Information Creates a central Can only Set up cost 6-12 Need to Local Matters Requires Hub(s) ‘one stop shop’ for signpost to circa £5k with months. identify host team some on- information and existing services ongoing body + Shopmobility going revenue advice on – will not create hosting costs of satellites (if support, VAST accessible additional £5k. appropriate). though should transport. capacity. be able to Provides clarity and System needs to take user-friendly be accurate and advantage of approach. up to date. existing location and Can be hosted in Will need an personnel. pre-existing initial set up. locations using a Could be common database. duplicating Ability to hold existing services travel information / cause across a range of confusion for providers. user. Will assist in improving access to current existing transport network. Would offer a personalised service to those with specific needs. Can involve volunteers.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 47
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners h) Travel A development of Not viable £30k set up + 12 months. Need to Local Matters Requires on- Response g) above with without a range £10k pa identify host team going revenue Centre – benefit of offering a of bookable ongoing. body. Shopmobility support, integrated centralised services being though should VAST software bookings facility. available (less be able to Significant benefit relevant to Stoke take and ease brought at this time). advantage of to end user. Requires existing location but Will be joined-up considerable personnel integrated facility. joint-working arrangements. capacity will be needed. Requires a software system
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 48
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners i) In house Utilising an existing Dependent upon Although there 6 months. Dependent on Call centre If embedded Delivery resource and capacity and might be the will of could be into the gaining value at schedules of the launch publicity SOTCC to fully outsourced to workings of a marginal cost. existing fleet. costs and investigate VAST (for stable fleet Can be delivered SOTCC has small revenue this and to example) operation, this without any in-house fleet, requirements assess its could be external and therefore for a call potential – sustained so commissioning or scope is narrow. centre, much of this would long as take the cost might require up and trip monitoring. Less easy to be drawing on further costs involve service staff and review. remained users in planning vehicle effective. and service resources (at specification. standing More difficult to costs). This identify with an could total independent around £25k brand identity. per year. A call centre / bookings facility will be needed (probably not currently offered by SOTCC)
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 49
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners j) Smarter Can extract greater Not beneficial if There would be Might have The down Current bus Dependent on Commissioning value from providers cost at an uplift to tie in with time between and taxi SOTCC providers at commercial against current pre-existing morning and providers under achieving marginal cost. rates. contract values tendering mid-afternoon contract to acceptable Contract Would lack the but these might cycle. school runs SOTCC. bids. management cohesive brand be acceptable if Providers presents an Call centre already undertaken that a single significant would need off-peak could be by SOTCC team. operator would provision is approx. 6 window that outsourced to enabled. This could be provide. month lead- VAST (for would need utilised. Would lack the in. example) careful advantages of evaluation (e.g. voluntary sector 10% uplift = X provision additional (charitable trips). status etc). A call centre / bookings facility will be needed (probably not currently offered by SOTCC) if delivery is spread over a number of providers.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 50
Description Benefits Drawbacks Estimated Cost Estimated Viability Potential Sustainability Timescale Partners k) Minibus Potential to Can be difficult For a decently 6-12 Dependent VAST / Ongoing Brokerage optimise usage of to sustain due to publicised and months. upon number Door2Door management existing resources. different managed of available and admin of Brings available priorities of scheme, £5k vehicles in the brokerage vehicles into the participants. could cover the area, and an should be common scope. Needs a set up. An organisation recovered additional £5k prepared to from an Provides revenue reasonable might be manage the element of source for groups. amount of organisation and required if a scheme. user charges, Demonstrates good management. software Requires a so Council use of resources for system is number of subsidy those groups whose Requires agreed required. agreements should be vehicles are under- usage protocols and usage minimal. utilised. and the conciliation of protocols Enables low-cost vehicle usage being in minibus usage to agreements from place. groups who cannot differing bodies afford commercial (e.g. youth rates. groups using Age UK vehicles).
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Service Options Appraisal ▪ 51
7General Issues for CT Development 7
7.1 Generic Issues for Consideration
7.1.1 This section covers a number of general issues that will be pertinent to any development of CT in Stoke.
7.2 Funding Voluntary Sector CT Services
7.2.1 Voluntary sector CT services are funded in a number of different ways, dependent on local conditions and national programmes. Many voluntary sector CT operators receive financial support from a number of funders, sometimes on a service-specific basis or for localised delivery of a wider service. Funding opportunities can be highly variable and are influenced by a range of determinants such as economic regeneration, rurality, local and central government priorities. More recent times have underlined the fact that a more stringent national economy is likely to hit hard at any provision for CT which ultimately is often dependent on local authority support that is diminishing. The follow approaches are the most common forms of support for CT:
Local transport authority (SOTCC) – CT support often derives from passenger transport directorates, though CT often needs special arrangements. It cannot be readily specified, packaged and tendered like other subsidised services. Authorities that have tendered CT delivery competitively have not always successfully achieved improved cost- effectiveness. Transport authorities have generally not recognised group travel services as falling under their remit, so direct funding for these kinds of service is less common. In some authorities, however, the support for CT derives from social services provision, chief executive’s or other departments;
Other local authorities – borough, district and parish councils. Discretionary support has been provided by some authorities in line with inclusion policies, localised needs (regeneration programmes), planning gain, and general voluntary sector support;
Local development funds – these might be targeting areas that are geographically defined or subject to specific measures or initiatives where external funding is available (from EU, for example), and where transport need / connectivity has been highlighted as a key factor;
Health sector – the NHS contributes financial support to a number of CT operations, sometimes for specific service provision (e.g. PTS trip delivery, GP surgery services) or more generally (supporting a holistic approach to well-being). There is, however, no formal requirement to do so and no
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 53
accepted approach to such arrangements being brokered. In general, however, many CT services contribute directly or indirectly towards NHS objectives without any financial contribution;
Big Lottery – many CT services have gained Lottery money, either capital grants, three or four year revenue support programmes or combinations of revenue and capital. Grants can be significant in size but awards are made on a competitive basis, and success rates are variable. Lottery grants are made against changing priorities and themes, not all of which are compatible with CT;
Trust funds – generally offer smaller grant support to the Lottery, a few will support CT services, often with capital (e.g. for vehicles);
Partnership approaches – pooling resources to commission services with cross-agency benefits has proved to be a useful way of sustaining CT services. A typical partnership might be brokered between the health sector and one or more tiers of local authority;
Local Business Sector – there is potential for the local business sector (via Chamber of Trade contacts) to make a donation to CT operations, or to assist with a fund raising promotion. As CT services often function to improve access to retail, there are good grounds to expect a sympathetic hearing. Donations are often best focussed around a tangible item (e.g. vehicle) rather than for general revenue;
Leverage from other council contracts – CT services have been resourced by commissioners seeking added value (or marginally costed provision off peak) on the back of day care or SEN contracts;
User Co-operatives and Personalised Budgets – it is feasible for a collective of individuals to pool the transport component of their care budgets to buy a vehicle and place this with a CT operator. This is a new approach not yet tested to any degree.
7.2.2 Cost to the User - This is a perennial challenge for CT operations and there is no accepted formula for reaching the right balance. Fares / charges are generally determined around a number of variables:
restrictions on surplus generation imposed by permit operations and car sharing mileage reimbursement;
applicability (or lack of) of concessionary passes on CT services;
commitment to inclusivity and making services accessible to those of low economic means;
expectations of and conditions required by funders and commissioners;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 54
business model of non-profit operators facing sustainability challenges;
elasticity of the market – the point at which a CT service is simply beyond the means of its target beneficiaries, or more expensive than a taxi.
7.2.3 Feedback in Stoke has suggested that some people are willing to pay a premium fare for an appropriate service. In any case, reductions in local authority support has seen many CT services increase their fares (or, indeed, introduce fares for the first time). In the interests of sustainability we would recommend that any new service that might be launched looks carefully at the beneficiaries’ ability to pay and charges as much as is deemed reasonable without deterring those in the most need.
7.3 Quality Standards
7.3.1 Although CT services in general can be assumed to embody a number of generic (or even unique) factors that characterise their ‘caring’ service provision, there is often some variation of emphasis between different projects, and a potential lack of consensus around what constitutes a high quality service standard. It is important to recognise the difference between legal obligations (which are generic and enforceable) and good practice (which ultimately is optional). Any CT service development by SOTCC would need to ensure that both these aspects are addressed and attained.
7.3.2 There is no acknowledged system of achieving or attaining a high organisational and operational standards within the CT sector apart from a number of very common training standards (e.g. MiDAS) and the Community Transport Associations Quality Mark, which is much less common.
7.3.3 Yet greater expectations are being placed on CT providers to meet higher professional standards. Some of these are statutory requirements and others remain discretionary ‘best practice’ (but might be insisted upon by commissioners). Training and personnel management is central to this issue. A conscientious CT provider would engage and train its operational staff to at least the following standards:
Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) – checks enable safer recruitment decisions with both staff and volunteers;
MIDAS / PATS (accessible, Car / MPV) – the CT training standard for drivers and assistants;
Wheelchair Tie-Down & Restraint Systems (WTORS) – some operators have looked at more specialist training, beyond that provided by MiDAS, due to the wide diversity of wheelchair types in use;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 55
Safeguarding (children and vulnerable adults) – this has gained greater importance recently, and is mandatory for many local authority contractors who come into contact with this client group;
Health & Safety – this would be both specific to the organisation’s vehicles and practices, but also generic around duty of care, risk assessment, corporate responsibility;
Disability Awareness – whilst this is a key component of the accessible MiDAS module, in some projects more specialist training has been added e.g. dementia awareness, autism etc;
First Aid – the short ‘save a life’ type course is readily available and can prove invaluable;
Customer Care – including dignity and respect of passenger, equality duty, complaints management, confidentiality, managing challenging behaviour – there are some off-the-peg courses available, such as WorldHost.
7.3.4 Many CT managers have no transport-specific qualifications or training at all, mainly due to lack of an obvious standard – although the Certificate of Professional Competence – National Passenger goes a long way to covering a number of basic areas of transport management that are very relevant to CT.
7.3.5 Although the CT sector has led the way in raising training standards with MiDAS, it needs to make ongoing efforts to maintain its assurance of quality. In practice MiDAS standards can be variable. The additional challenge of the dwindling number of drivers with pre-1997 automatic D1 entitlements remains. The option of additional training to PCV D category can be expensive. Some other training components, however, such as Safeguarding, are easy to access. The CTA Quality Mark provides a useful overall standard for the sector but needs some concerted internal effort to achieve.
7.3.6 From an operational and organisational point of view, the following areas should be covered by an appropriate policy / protocol / procedure:
Constitutional & governance (charitable objectives, governing documents, meetings)
Trustees (standing orders, voting rights, terms of tenure)
Financial (accounts, payroll, expenses, fares, budget setting)
Health & Safety (risk assessments)
Legislation relating to specific functions / items (e.g. lifts)
Staff handbook
Volunteers
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 56
Data Protection
Confidentiality
Vehicle Procurement & replacement
Vehicle management
Operator licensing.
7.4 Marketing & Branding
7.4.1 Whilst marketing public bus services is a long established practice in the UK (especially in recent years when modal shift has become a prime objective), CT operators have been less impelled to adopt any active or coherent approach. Many CT services may have a marketing drive during a launch phase but soon fall back on the self-perpetuation that word-of-mouth publicity brings, along with returning users. This approach is also convenient for the voluntary sector because it rarely has any significant budget for publicity, and conventional approaches to advertising are expensive.
7.4.2 There are several different reasons why a CT service might be marketed, including the need to:
create / continue patronage – a customer base needs to be established and maintained to make the service viable; maintenance reflects, amongst other issues, the fact that the customer base has a high mortality rate;
establish the target users – CT needs to make clear that its services are only available to a subset (of the wider community) who have mobility restrictions;
emphasise the quality standards – the care and personal support element that CT offers above and beyond conventional services;
emphasise the accessibility of the service – this is in both physical terms (wheelchair access to vehicle, door-to-door provision) and economic (affordable fares, subsidised travel);
assist penetration – the CT resource needs to be made available to the widest number of eligible persons;
achieve equity – services need to be delivered as equally as possible amongst different elements within the community (ethnic diversity, geographic spread) and this becomes more critical in situations where demand outstrips supply;
generate public perception / visibility – a CT service benefits from being recognised, understood and appreciated by the community at large;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 57
assist with networking / partnership building – this is a two way process as the branding is an acknowledgement of stakeholder involvement, and also signals to other agencies (e.g. health, social care, regeneration), as well as potential funders, the value of CT.
7.4.3 Regarding an actual brand, this should be vibrant and dynamic, not drawing any attention to the specific needs of the potential passengers, and comparable to the better forms of public transport marketing. Positive use of a local identity can be valuable but given the earlier reference to the benefits of a Pan North Staffordshire approach and the limitations of the ‘six towns’ culture, this should be used with some caution. (The Door2Door car scheme in Newcastle, for instance, avoids any use of a localised identity).
7.5 Volunteering
7.5.1 Volunteering is central to the sustainability of many CT services for the simple reason that it removes what is usually the largest cost component – driver salaries. Volunteering also has a number of other benefits (for the volunteer, and for the community in general), and is a widely-embraced characteristic of the voluntary sector. Volunteering is likely to be of significant relevance to how CT in Stoke is configured, and volunteer involvement runs through the vast majority of the options outlined.
7.5.2 Volunteers, however, are not an infinite resource: recruitment, induction, training and ongoing support requires a concerted effort and supporting budget. It is a fact that when looked at UK-wide, the CT sector does not always fare as well as other charities in its ability to attract volunteers. For a Stoke CT project to generate interest from would-be volunteers, a dynamic and active approach to recruitment, retention and support would need to be adopted, involving:
Professional, well-branded, slick recruitment methods – multimedia approach, wide networking capabilities, close working with Volunteering Centres, accurate and updated contact database management;
Well-developed volunteer roles, support systems, with a dedicated volunteer co-ordinator – ongoing support, development and training;
Beyond driving, developing a wider variety of volunteering roles to suit the differing skills / abilities / ages of potential volunteers – short and long term roles to suit different levels of commitment, ability to create bespoke roles around individual skill-sets / personal strengths;
Volunteering roles that are ‘time-dependent’, eliminate the need for any open-ended commitment (especially at trustee level), and have an active system for celebrating and valuing departing volunteers (many volunteers feel they have no escape route);
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 58
A culture of understanding the added value of volunteering: that it is not eliminating paid work, fully integrating volunteers with paid staff in a relatively seamless way (e.g. paid staff should not feel the longevity of their tenure be threatened by volunteers’ presence and conversely volunteers should understand that any volunteering activity cannot be viewed as a prelude to eventual paid employment or other material gain);
A fast track induction / involvement process that does not (a) keep volunteers waiting weeks, (b) overload them with bureaucracy or (c) discard volunteers who cannot immediately be used;
Well-established and efficient training arrangements. The need for DBS checks can prevent instant volunteer involvement, and together with MiDAS could be problematic. A project should have a way of involving volunteers rapidly (in a more supported way) whilst these issues are sorted;
Celebration / appreciation events – pub socials, benefits, achievement awards, opportunities for volunteers to interact together (many work on their own) and also with paid staff;
Audit trail to measure value of volunteering to be reflected in reporting, Annual Report, etc. This should capture volunteering hours = £ saved. Also, an appreciation of the skills that volunteers bring to projects;
A collective approach, sharing volunteers between projects, passing on volunteers who might not be suitable in one place, but good elsewhere, never turning volunteers away but always finding some niche. Volunteer Centres are able to play a critical role here.
7.6 Monitoring & Evaluation
7.6.1 A CT should communicate its performance in a transparent way that fulfils its obligations for internal purposes (the trustee board requires accurate and timely management information), for external monitoring (funders and stakeholders may stipulate the kind of data they require to be reported), and the wider community. This is partly achieved by the circulation of an annual report (which would contain, at minimum, a set of accounts), and by a range of supplementary material that outlines the performance outputs and outcomes.
7.6.2 As well as recording data relating to finances (a legal requirement), a well- managed CT should record and report the following:
Number of trips requested
Number of trips delivered
Number of trips refused / unfulfilled
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 59
Number of service users (active / passive)
Feedback / Comments / Complaints
Vehicle performance data (mileage, running costs etc)
Journeys by purpose
Education / Training / Learning
Employment
Faith / Religion / Cultural Diversity
Health
Hospital Visiting
Leisure / Recreation
Lunch Club
Meeting / Political Activities
Shopping / Retail
Social
Social Care
Sports / Physical Activities
Volunteering
Other
Fares income
Accidents / Incidents
7.6.3 The above list is not exhaustive, and the collecting and reporting of this data should be accorded a high priority. In some cases, much of this data collection will be done via bookings / scheduling software.
7.6.4 Performance data is essential for the enactment of any contract terms in which payments are intrinsically linked to targets being met. They are therefore important as audit trail. We would recommend that any commissioned service from SOTCC should be made under contract terms which stipulate performance targets (outputs) agreed by both parties in advance, and which are conditional to payments being made. The most effective targets for a door-to-door service are single passenger trips
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 60
delivered, number of active users and vehicle availability period (hours per day, days per week etc.). However, for some of the service models outlined in 6.2 above, defining appropriate output measures may be more difficult.
7.7 Digital Media & New Technologies
7.7.1 The use of the internet and the revolution in how services are marketed and procured via web-based systems (and the growth in related social media) have developed rapidly in recent times. Yet some CTs do not even have a website (nor think it particularly important to develop one). Many CTs are not particularly proactive in how they market their services in general, feeling a) it costs money that is better spent on delivery and b) it would only generate demand that they cannot fulfil. Some CTs that have embraced a web profile have poorly designed and unsympathetic websites (invariably out of date), often put together by an enthusiastic board member or volunteer. If CT were functioning exclusively within a competitive commercial market, its whole marketing ethos would have to be dramatically sharper.
7.7.2 It cannot be denied that some high quality marketing materials often involve considerable cost, and that CTs will never enjoy a large advertising budget. Regarding lack of websites, many CTs might reason that: “our users don’t have the internet or can’t use mobile phones or computers”. As well as making stereotypical assumptions that are increasingly redundant, this stance does not allow for the fact that whilst an older dial-a-ride user might not search for appropriate transport using the internet, a social worker, support worker, carer or relative (acting on their behalf) almost certainly would do. The online profile is also an extremely important one for external funders and stakeholders. Adequate marketing is important to achieve equity of provision – offering the service to the widest possible membership and ensuring new users’ needs are not ignored.
7.8 Total Transport
7.8.1 Total Transport is an £8m fund awarded to local authorities by Department for Transport. Local authorities in England were invited to bid for resources to implement a cross-sector approach to the delivery of supported public road passenger transport services. The purpose of the fund is to integrate transport services currently commissioned by different central and local government agencies and provided by different operators. This will allow existing resources to be allocated and co-ordinated more efficiently, resulting in services to passengers that are more effective at meeting their needs. Although Stoke- on-Trent did not qualify for the fund, Staffordshire County Council gained funding for 2 schemes: Moorlands Connect Plus (£70,000) and Wellbeing Project (£60,000).
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 61
7.8.2 Whilst the pilot fund is of no direct pertinence to SOTCC's position on CT, the broader principles of Total Transport remain relevant for the development of any new CT provision. This would emphasise cross-sector partnership working and integration at the different levels (commissioning, eligibility, bookings / scheduling and delivery). In the range of options presented below, we would expect any opportunities for collaboration and co-ordination to be fully exploited by SOTCC.
7.9 State Aid & Procurement of CT
7.9.1 The means by which any authority procures its services has an inevitable effect upon;
the kind of service that is consequently provided and
the kind of organisation that acts as provider.
7.9.2 In many local authorities over the past 20 years, procurement of CT has progressed from deficit funding arrangements (retrospective grants to cover an operator’s loss), through annual grants (latterly backed by Service Level Agreements) to full competitive tender.
7.9.3 The reasons for this progression have much to do with the developing process around how local authority procurement has responded to directives from both the UK central government and the EU. However, different procurement approaches have been adopted for specific reasons where authorities have been frustrated by current arrangements and wish to instigate a change.
7.9.4 Some authorities’ (e.g. Lancashire, Hampshire, Falkirk) move to competitive tender for Dial-a-Ride services has largely been to remain in line with a corporate procurement policy, but has also sought to eliminate some provider organisations from whom the authorities did not feel it was achieving a cost- effective or sufficiently professional level of delivery.
7.9.5 An overview of local authority procurement of CT needs to start with the premise that there is no ‘one size fits all’ formula. Approaches throughout the UK are primarily responses to local need, and may not easily be transferred to a different location. The perceived differences of locale, political complexion, community characteristics and infrastructure need to be accommodated. The Department for Transport has published Resource Guide for Local Authorities: Transport Solutions for Older People (February 2010) which is relevant to how CT can be supported and developed.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 62
7.9.6 The current broad approaches for procurement of CT and DRT services are:
a) Grant – a traditional way of funding non-commercial activities from external agencies, but one with limitations for local authorities. This is now less-favoured than was previously the case due to its lack of specificity, the fact that significant discretion in how the funds are applied is passed to the recipient organisation, the potential for misunderstandings in the relationship between the authority and the grantee and, more recently, and particularly as CT groups have moved towards establishing themselves on a more business-like footing, its vulnerability to criticisms of it distorting the market for transport services.
b) Service Level Agreement (SLA) – this was developed in an attempt to overcome the lack of specificity and potential for misunderstandings by creating a framework that sets out the expectations of both parties to the agreement. In particular, this usually describes the expected outputs, any conditionality about the funding and what happens if the outputs are not delivered or other conditions are not complied with, including revocation of the funding.
c) Contract – the legal agreement of offer, acceptance and consideration around a specification for delivery.
and various mixtures of the above that have been adopted according to circumstance.
7.9.7 It is important to note that from a formal legal perspective, funding arrangements are either grants or contracts; there is no legal form that is a halfway house between them. Consequently, whether a SLA is actually intended to simply be a clarification of a grant arrangement, or whether it is intended to create actionable obligations between the parties i.e. a contract, will depend upon the individual circumstances in each case. It may be noted that some local authorities are not apparently aware of this distinction. This might seem a lucrative field of work for lawyers, but in practice, despite various disagreements between CTs and local authorities over the years, we are not aware of any that have actually involved court action. This reflects the effective power that the authority has to dictate terms for future funding.
7.9.8 A second point is that there is no general legal requirement for contracts to be won by competitive tender (other than under European competition rules discussed below). Whether this is the case will depend upon whether this is the most appropriate means of the council procuring the desired service which will be set out in standing orders and guidance from the council’s procurement team. In the case of financial support by local authorities for local bus services, there was a general requirement under the Transport Act 1985 that these were secured by competitive tender. This was tempered by a ‘de minimis’ rule that allowed authorities to award contracts directly (i.e. without competitive tender) – initially this was limited to contracts of up to £12,000
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 63
with a maximum threshold of £70,000 p.a. per operator. In England they are now: £30,000 per contract with no limit per operator, in the case of authorities with expenditure on local bus services of less than £600,000 p.a., and up to 25% of the authority’s bus service support budget, with no limits on individual contracts or operator thresholds, in the case of authorities with forecast expenditure above £600,000.
7.9.9 Recently, a few authorities (including Hampshire County Council) have concluded that support for CT qualifies as state aid under European rules, and therefore competition regulations apply. It is worth noting that the majority of authorities are currently either ignoring this issue or disputing the reasoning behind it. In principle, any 'state aid' (publicly financed interventions that favour one operator or class of operator and which distort or potentially distort market competition) above €100,000 over 3 years (ca. £69,348 – that is, £23,116 p.a. maximum grant) is not allowed under EU legislation. Financial support for services above this level therefore has to go through a competition process that meets EU standards, assuming that the service concerned can be considered to be provided within a competitive market.
7.9.10 In general, local authorities are moving towards commissioning CT as they would any other service from the competitive market. This is usually done for one or more of the following reasons:
to reduce costs – same service, less money
to improve productivity – more service, same money
to achieve legal compliance – meeting EU procurement requirements
to eliminate poorly performing CTs
to create a ‘level playing field’ – to be seen to be giving other (non-CT) transport providers a chance to bid
to pin down what is expected – providers must deliver against a precise specification
to create firmer contract arrangements – give more control than with grants and SLAs
to streamline arrangements – merging several SLAs under one contract.
7.9.11 Many CTs find bidding in this way time-consuming, distasteful and too fraught with uncertainty. It is alien to their traditional outlook. It requires commercial and business-like skills that they struggle to provide. CTs often feel that they cannot compete on price, and must emphasise quality – but may feel that LAs are not so interested in quality that they will pay over the odds. More fundamentally, some CTs will feel that their traditional ‘ownership’ and ability
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 64
to define and develop services has been usurped by the LA, who commodify CT as an LTP output rather than as a result of local community empowerment.
7.10 Social Value Act
7.10.1 The purpose of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 is to compel commissioning authorities to seek to gain additional economic, social and environmental value from their procurement activities. The relevant clauses of this Act came into effect (England & Wales) on 31 January 2013. Some authorities had already made attempts at ‘smart procurement’ – bundling together CT and Adult Social Care trips, for instance, or seeking some added value over and above the standard contract terms. The Act means that authorities will be expected to make contract awards where value is greatest, and not merely against lowest cost.
7.10.2 The Act provides a response to the CT sector, which has felt disadvantaged when bidding head to head against commercial providers due to the feeling that it could always be undercut. In theory, the Act means CT operators should be able to gain an advantage over commercial bidders because providing economic, social and environmental value is fundamental to their activities, and not difficult to factor into any bid (e.g. dial-a-ride provider can offer group transport in downtime). However, CTs would need a systematic way of evidencing such value, and the Local Authorities (likewise), would need to have a means of assessment that can hold up to the rigours of the procurement process. In practice, however, after nearly three years in force, we are not aware of any local authorities having successfully used the Act commission or enhance transport services for mobility impaired residents.
7.11 Service Design
7.11.1 Without any planning tools (such as DfT’s Accession) and with relatively crude demand forecasting methods, CT service design has often been of the “try it and see” variety, and pilot projects and early operational experience have determined how much is provided, and what form it takes. Design would take account of mode (minibus, car scheme, taxi), accessibility levels, coverage (times, locations served), fares policy, eligibility, bookings and membership criteria (eligibility criteria in CT services, although constrained by s19 regulations, can vary in detail). Design would also need to take account of other services that exist but which are not funded by the authority - many ‘parallel’ CT operations, such as car schemes offered by RVS, Red Cross or village communities, for example, can fall ‘under the radar’ of transport planners. Demand analysis and service design can also be understood as a cyclic process as depicted in Figure I below. This recognises the fact that needs change and service specifications should be amended to reflect this.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 65
Figure I: Service Design & Development Cycle
7.12 General Comment
7.12.1 We observe that the more successful CT projects (in addition to meeting aforementioned legal requirements and achieving high standards of best practice) also tend to embody the following characteristics:
an involved and engaged trustee board with a diversity of relevant skills;
an energetic, multi-tasking manager or co-ordinator;
a good networking profile with the wider community;
involvement of end beneficiaries in service planning and delivery;
an ability to be flexible, to adapt the operational model to changing circumstances.
7.12.2 It will be noted that these factors are somewhat elusive and cannot be easily accounted for in a service specification or contract.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ General Issues for CT Development ▪ 66
8Conclusions and Recommendations 8
8.1 Conclusions
8.1.1 The size, population and levels of multiple deprivation in Stoke suggest that need for a CT service is significant. It is noted on the SOTCC website that “Stoke-on-Trent is the 3rd most deprived local authority in the West Midlands (out of 30) and the 9th most deprived Unitary / Metropolitan authority area in England (out of 92)”1. The stakeholder feedback gathered through this review can be taken as being reasonably representative of a number of diverse elements of need in the Stoke community – there are direct links between areas of deprivation (often involving transport poverty) and CT interventions.
8.1.2 There is scope for a number of initiatives to be developed that would achieve a reasonable impact for a minimal investment. However, there are two initial issues that will need consideration:
momentum – following the workshop and stakeholder consultation, there is a small number of engaged individuals / organisations that would be keen to form a collective development panel. This will dissipate if SOTCC fails to provide any follow-up – circulating this report to interested parties would assist this process;
resourcing – there is need to identify some form of financial support for any new proposal to be progressed. This is unavoidable, although it should be understood by all parties that fund allocations (if identified) are likely to be modest – in the first instance this might be an issue to take up with SOTCC members
the role of SOTCC in any service development - this is considered in more detail below.
8.2 The Role of Stoke City Council
8.2.1 There is a critical issue to be addressed regarding how SOTCC sees itself in relation to any CT initiative. Broadly speaking this would logically follow from any policy position that the authority has adopted on CT (long term), the priorities and directives from members (medium – short term), and, importantly, the budgetary position (medium – short term). As a transport authority, SOTCC is obliged to consider the needs of residents with mobility impairments, but not specifically to provide a CT-type service. Since specific provision of CT is discretionary for the authority, SOTCC could choose to adopt one or more of the following positions (starting at minimum):
1 http://webapps.stoke.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/Indices%20of%20Deprivation%202010%20-%20Summary.pdf
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 67
a) Do nothing – having withdrawn funding in 2011, there would appear to be little external pressure for SOTCC to reinstate a service, however the authority would potentially be running counter to its policies on social inclusion, and be at risk of neglecting its most vulnerable residents;
b) Provide peripheral support to any external initiative (advice, recognition, publicity on SOTCC transport webpage) – minimal financial impact to SOTCC;
c) Investigate feasibility / commission research;
d) Initiate and develop services (either alone, or in partnership with other agencies);
e) Provide financial support to an external provider but with minimal monitoring;
f) Specify and commission services – outsourcing to an external provider with active contract management;
g) Deliver services in house.
8.2.2 We note that SOTCC’s position in the past has been that of e) but at present it is somewhere between c) and d). The likelihood of a CT service developing without SOTCC’s involvement is minimal – although Stoke has a very active voluntary sector, transport operations have not been notable, even among agencies that routinely offer transport elsewhere in the country (RVS, Age UK). The sole exception here is VAST, who have developed and operated CT services in neighbouring districts.
8.3 Beneficiaries – Young People
8.3.1 SOTCC has indicated its priorities in terms of the anticipated beneficiaries of a CT service (see 1.1.1 above). However, the recommendations presented here (and the range of options provided in 6.2 above) do not explicitly meet the transport requirements of “young people in the 16-18 age category for whom transport costs are a problem”. There are a number of reasons for this:
the eligibility criteria for door to door services (and s19 permit regulations) have a focus on mobility restrictions and lack of ability to access conventional services. Whilst economic constraints are a key factor in social exclusion, it would be impractical for young people to be allocated trips on any specialist service where trip costs would exceed that of an equivalent bus fare, and where demand from those who cannot for mobility reasons use the buses. Lack of access for young people on solely cost grounds is best met via fare subsidies on the bus network – usually via a concessionary pass. We would recommend that this approach is investigated in more detail in the first instance;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 68
in terms of group transport provision, CT can certainly improve journey options for organisations that involve young people – the brokerage options would doubtless be of value to many youth organisations for whom affordable collective transport is desired. However, this does not directly improve travel options for individual;
young people’s transport needs are often more critical during the evening when bus services are less frequent or have ceased altogether, and taxi costs are prohibitive. A possible solution here would be to create a journey sharing bookings hub (using social media and technology tools) to collectivise journeys split costs. This could be similar to Uber (https://www.uber.com) or Hailo (https://www.hailoapp.com);
A more common CT response to young peoples’ need is Wheels2Work, which is a scooter loan for those unable to reach employment or education locations – it is not clear that this approach would be beneficial in Stoke; and
CT in general has become less focused on the needs of young people – BSOG, for example, does not apply to trips undertaken by young people. In the majority of cases where transport supply is severely rationed (and this includes almost all CT services in the UK), people with fewer transport options due to mobility impairments (disabled and frail elderly people) are prioritised.
8.4 Recommendations
8.4.1 We have outlined a range of options in 6.2 above which seek to address the range of needs that have been identified by the consultation. Whilst the online survey showed that there was significant support for a minibus-based Dial-a- Ride type service, we understand that SOTCC is unlikely to be in a position to provide this level of resource. Although there is potential merit in the majority of the identified options, we would suggest that the following are pursued:
a) a multi-stakeholder CT development group is formed to steer any future project, namely the recommendations that follow. We feel there is sufficient interest from the range of attendees at the workshop (and wider) to create a core working group. This should include volunteering development and recruitment agencies. However, this will likely require an SOTCC officer to lead;
b) the Door2Door Car Scheme operated by VAST in Newcastle is extended to cover Stoke-on-Trent. The project itself has stated its willingness to extend into Stoke and this is likely to be dependent on volunteer recruitment in the Stoke area, and additional time being resourced for the co-ordinator to develop the service. Door2Door should be invited to prepare a business case for SOTCC / CT working group to consider. We would also recommend
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 69
that Door2Door works towards securing an accessible car / MPV to provide accommodation for wheelchair users who cannot transfer – this would be in the form of a fund raising campaign involving the local business sector;
c) the utilisation of volunteers in transport be considered further and specific volunteering roles are developed and promoted (focus on drivers for the Door2Door scheme above, but also other projects). This will need to be in collaboration with the volunteer centre and voluntary sector support agencies. Deployment of bus buddies should be pursued with Age UK.
d) a taxi gold standard (with the emphasise on improved provision for mobility impaired passengers) is specified and implemented. This should commence with a closer study of similar schemes elsewhere, and review of SOTCC’s taxi licensing policy and quality standards. Involvement of the taxi trade will be critical;
e) that a database of local minibuses that are available for wider community use is compiled and consideration is given to how this can be circulated to the organisations in need of transport – this falls short of organising a brokerage at present but if there is sufficient supply and demand a brokerage could be developed.
8.4.2 We would suggest that all these initiatives are developed in parallel and overseen by the CT working group to ensure a joined-up approach. This should ensure that quality standards are consistent and that synergy and networking between different projects are achieved.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Community Transport Options Appraisal ▪ Conclusions and Recommendations ▪ 70
Appendix A: Power Point Presentation from Workshop on 10th November 2015
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix A: Power Point Presentation from Workshop on 10th November 2015 ▪ 71
Welcome and Introductions
Brian Edwards (Passenger Community Transport Transport Manager) Stoke City Council in Stoke-on-Trent John Atkins (Principal Consultant) The TAS Partnership Ltd Consultation Workshop Nick Dangerfield (Principal 10 th November 2015 Consultant)
The brief Objective of the Workshop
We want to learn more about the Brian Edwards (Stoke City Council) kinds of Community Transport (CT) Background to the workshop service that would bring the Scoping Report commissioned from greatest benefits to the Stoke TAS community What Stoke City Council hopes to gain from the consultation
Community Transport – Community Transport – what is it? what is it? Transport (and other) services: Examples of CT: broad objective to promote social Group travel for community inclusion organisations aimed at ‘disadvantaged’ individuals and groups, not general public traditional emphasis on accessibility and mobility Non-profit making / distributing ‘Heineken’ approach – reaching the needs that other transport ….
n1 Community Transport – Community Transport – what is it? what is it? Examples of Examples of CT: CT: Volunteer car schemes Door-to- door accessible services (e.g. Dial- a-Ride / Ring and Ride)
Community Transport – Community Transport – what is it? what is it? Examples of CT: Examples of CT: Section 22 community bus Shopmobility / Wheels 2 Work routes etc
Community Transport – what is it? Supply Issues CT in Stoke – BUT all these Communibus ceased in 2009 examples of Scraggs Taxi cancelled 2011 CT come at Neither Red Cross, RVS or Age a price… UK offer local car schemes Support / subsidy can be Nearest CT services in unsustainable Newcastle-under-Lyme – urban Use of volunteers can reduce boundary with Stoke suggests some but not all costs potential for joint service
n2 Supply Issues Supply Issues CT in Stoke – North Staffs Provision Taxis in Stoke 1,401 licensed vehicles (188 Taxis, 1,213 Private Hire) 202 (14%) are accessible of 15 comparator authorities, Stoke has 2 nd largest supply but is 4 th in accessibility
Supply Issues Supply Issues
Bus Services Taxis in Stoke Accessible network but Cost of taxis: £4.95 wheelchair users don’t for average 2 mile always get a space trip – the average of Also reports that the 15 comparators drivers not always co- is £4.85 operative …BUT reports that Confusion with wheelchair users changes to routes and have been stands at bus station overcharged
Supply Issues Supply Issues
Taxis in Stoke Taxis in Stoke Quality Training – drivers standards to achieve BTEC determined by Level 2 Certificate Council – new and to complete a policy due 2016 Disability Accessibility Discrimination policy 50% of Course Hackneys
n3 Supply Issues Demand Issues TAS estimate of demand for Taxis in Stoke – door-to-door accessible transport what can be done? in Stoke - 4,500 eligible for Dial- Example of Bristol a-Ride type service “Gold Standard” However, actual take-up of a includes emphasis service would typically be much less than half of this on customer care & disability awareness
Demand Issues Demand Issues Ring and Ride
Average West Greater Demand Per Midlands Manchester Map – District darkest Population 380,630 268,250 patches = Users 3,420 (0.9%) 3,619 (1.3%) 150 + Trips 184,000 85,000 residents Vehicles 19 8 Cost £1.5m £643,000 Broken Cost Per Single Trip £8.15 £7.56 down by Return Trips Per User 1 per fortnight 1 per month Ward
Demand Issues Demand Issues
Illustration of Ring and Ride TAS has surveyed 114 Stoke type service in Stoke organisations (average of West Midlands Many of these provide and Greater Manchester): services, support, advocacy 2,500 users (1% of pop.) or campaigning on behalf of 95,000 single trips per year specific members of the 10 vehicles Stoke community Cost £748,000 pa
n4 Demand Issues Demand Issues
Demand Issues Future Options What kinds of service would be of The Challenge: most value? Demographic pressure – ageing population Reduction in state funding Pressure on support services Potential for personalisation
Future Options Future Options
Integrated Transport Provision Use of technology Health / Social Care / Public Recent Age UK Transport needs could be co- report ordinated App based Recent Total Transport initiative booking – Staffordshire CC was awarded Central booking £130,000 (Moorlands Connect hub Plus - £70,000 & Wellbeing Smartcards Project £60,000)
n5 Future Options Discussion – Supply
Sustainability what transport is currently Volunteers available? Where ? Provided by Widen range of stakeholders whom? Users pay higher fares? what has worked (or not Eliminate duplication / overlaps worked) in the past? Share resources between what was the agencies impact of service Smarter commissioning withdrawals (Communibus)?
Discussion – Demand Discussion – Demand who needs a specific service (where are they travelling from Who should be eligible? and to, when and how often?) Focus on the needs of the how will demand change over community (those experiencing future years? potential social exclusion or ‘transport poverty’ now, or at risk of becoming so in the foreseeable future), specifically:
Discussion – Demand Next Steps
Consultation Process Individuals with restricted Who will take this forward? mobility Role of Stoke City Council those who are economically disadvantaged (esp. young people) voluntary sector organisations Other stakeholders and agencies who look to CT services
n6 Stoke-on-Trent Stakeholders
Thank you for your contribution today…
Also, feel free to contact us at TAS anytime 01772 - 204988
n7
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix A: Power Point Presentation from Workshop on 10th November 2015 ▪ 80
Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 81
Stakeholder Feedback
The following verbatim notes comprise the interview and email feedback that was gathered before and after the workshop event. JA is John Atkins (TAS Principal Consultant and interviewer). All the key points from these interviews have been included in 4.2 above.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council – Brian Edwards, Passenger Transport Manager; Lesley Smith Access Officer / Green Door Project Manager. 23rd Sept 2015.
BE and LS commented on nature of Stoke – large urban area comprising several traditional town centres. This has presented challenges for bus network on hub and spoke approach. Communities strongly identify with individual towns. This is an area with high levels of deprivation and many older residents are affected by illness and disability that is a consequence of former industries.
Lack of a door-to-door accessible transport service following the closure of Communibus and withdrawal of contract with Scraggs taxis has meant that individuals with a mobility impairment have long since been forced to reply on other transport means (bus, taxi, friends / relatives cars). LS didn’t think that the Communibus service served very many individuals in any case, so its closure didn’t have so great an impact. It was doubtful that the authority would return to reinstating a minibus- type service along these lines.
Conventional bus network – main bus routes are mostly accessible and used by wheelchair users, though there have been some problems with capacity – push chairs in wheelchair space, wheelchair user already on board. LS commented on the increasing number of very large wheelchairs and the increased difficulty of these being accommodated. Driver attitude / co-operation has been a problem as well, though BE thought this had improved recently, possibly following a training initiative by First. Recently the concessionary pass reverted to a 9.30am commencement after years of being restriction free – this cause some grumbling.
Taxis – there is a large taxi sector in the area, with a large number of fully accessible vehicles. LS reported that there have been cases / reports of Private Hire drivers over charging wheelchair users. There is often inconsistency between fares charged to different people for the same trip. Quality standards: taxi licensing do not require any training or customer care skills, though the threshold is higher for taxis bidding for contract work.
The role of taxis as forming key part of any future accessible transport provision – need for Clarity / transparency on charges Customer service improvements Improved marketing and information provision
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 83
This could suggest the need for a quality partnership approach with the text sector, with a gold standard / kitemark for operators wishing to improve the service offer to people with disabilities.
LS commented on the large numbers of Blue Badge holders in the city and likelihood of these increasing. There is little incentive for care users to switch mode given the alternate transport offer.
There is a very good network of disabled people and organisations (Disability Solutions / STAND) who are adept at campaigning and consultation. In terms of the current scoping exercise, JA indicated meetings with VAST (CT co-ordinator) and Age UK later in the day. It was agreed to undertake telephone interviews with a few other key stakeholders: Action for Blind People Disability Solutions North Staffs Carers Association North Staff Pensioners Convention Shopmobility STAND
SCC’s Local Matters teams would distribute the survey link and the workshop would be planned for end of October, with the draft report to follow within two weeks.
VAST Health Liason - Lorien Barber. 19th Nov 2015
LB is hosted by VAST and her role is to provide liaison between CCGs and providers to ensure that the CCG are aware of the health and social care needs of their local communities and of what the sector can offer to help provide for these needs, to build healthier and more sustainable communities.
NEPTS in Stoke is provided by NSL under contract to University Hospitals of North Midlands (UHNM). There is no volunteer car scheme attached to this.
Some transport is provided by the Red Cross as part of the Home from Hospital scheme – LB says this is mostly a transport function.
A problem with buses and taxis is that many people need help with luggage, getting to the door and struggle if just dropped off.
Access to hospital sites is generally good – on bus routes, but some patients would have to make two bus journeys to reach them. On-site parking and need for assistance is a problem for some people. Health centres are not so easily reached – some patients would have a difficult or convoluted journey.
Health sector should be engaged with over any new CT planning but there was no obvious person to be approached. LB thought that Dave Sanzeri, Senior Commissioning Manager at Clinical Commissioning Group - NHS Stoke on Trent was a useful starting point, as he appreciates the holistic value of transport. Also, PALS would be a good contact point.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 84
Door2Door (VAST) - Margaret Dobell, Co-ordinator. 23RD Sept 2015
MD is co-ordinator of Door2Door in Newcastle Borough and is the key transport staff member of VAST (Staffordshire’s CVS). Door2Door available to residents of Newcastle who have mobility problems that prevent them from using public transport and are on a low income. The service is delivered by volunteer drivers using their own cars, with an office & co-ordinator to process transport requests and bookings (currently mornings only). (http://www.vast.org.uk/door-2-door)
There are currently 15 volunteers (reimbursed 45p per mile in expenses.) Driver recruitment is subject to interview and DBS clearance, with induction, Safeguarding and manual handling training. All drivers wear ID badges and cars display a Door2Door badge.
The service receives £10k pa from Staffordshire CC. It has recently lost a further £10k funding from the PCT. This has resulted in the service being scaled down – MD is on fewer hours per week. 450+ user and 5,000 single trips pa. Service can be used for shopping, visiting friends, day centres & clubs, private business, health related appointments (where transport is not the responsibility of the local health service), and social / recreational events.
The service is no wheelchair accessible, but MD reports that a number of wheelchair users transfer. There is a £4 minimum charge for journeys up to 3 miles, thereafter:
Charges: 0 – 2.9 miles = £4.00 3 – 3.9 miles = £4.70 4 - 4.9 miles = £5.40 5 – 5.9miles = £6.10 6 – 6.9 miles = £6.80
Multi-occupancy trips are scheduled where possible, though individual fares are always charged. S19 permits are not used.
MD has 15 years’ experience in community transport and has been keen to see Door2Door extended to cover Stoke. She feels volunteers could be recruited to extend the service to Stoke City and utilise the already established bookings centre. There is clearly potential for a similar service in Stoke and / or some degree of co-ordination / integration of existing car schemes aimed at the same users. People are currently relying on taxis, which do not always provide the level of service needed.
Green Door - Mark McIntosh. 17th Nov 2015
Green Door is a Big Lottery funded project which aims to encourage people, particularly older and disabled people, to make more use of the green spaces in the city, to improve their physical and mental wellbeing and to reduce isolation. The project provides many cost-free or low-cost activities within green spaces. Green Door Hub Building and Accessible Cycle Hire Facility which opened at Westport Lake.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 85
As the nature of this project is to stimulate activities in parkland and countryside, an ability to transport individuals or groups to these activities is of critical importance. Some users have been reliant upon taxis to access events and this has been prohibitively expensive. Green Door also hosts a number of larger events where accessible minibus / coach facilities would be required.
Green Door relies upon volunteers as organisers and buddying with individuals but it does not recruit volunteers to offer transport - this is an area Green Door does not see itself getting into.
A low cost, accessible transport service would greatly assist in Green Door reaching its objectives and offering a more inclusive service. Activities at Westport Lake and Rudyard Lake have proved less accessible to people travelling from south of Stoke centre.
Mark McIntosh is keen to hear more of any CT developments and asks to be kept in the loop.
Age UK North Staffordshire - Peter Bullock. 23rd Sept 2015
Stoke has a higher than average older population, and also a higher than average level of deprivation. Age UK North Staffordshire is involved in the Age Friendly City initiative. PB welcomes Stoke CC’s initiative to investigate community transport options – transport problems are consistent challenges for many older residents, and this crops up repeatedly across many different services offered by Age UK NS.
A recent survey involving circa 200 people highlighted the need for more inclusive transport options. The Older People’s Forum frequently discusses transport problems. Age UK is aware of high levels of loneliness / exclusion of older people which adequate transport (in part) would be able to address.
Many older people rely on bus network but are hampered by changes to timetables and routes. Bus information is increasingly digital and Stoke’s older population is not generally digitally literate. For Age UK’s own services, there is no in-house transport provision – this has been attempted in the past (voluntary car scheme) but has not proved sustainable.
PB feels there are two main issues concerning transport: Scheduled requirements – such as social groups and medical needs, which a CT scheme could provide, and Unplanned needs – which CT is poor at responding to, and which may involve taxis
The bus / taxi network will remain the primary provision for older people but both present problems to many users. PB suggests that a volunteer ‘travel buddy’ initiative could make the transport network more accessible. It is important to recognise that assistance needs are often involve ‘psychological’ support – many old people may be reticent or lacking confidence to use the buses. Taxis can also be problematic – the high proportion of Asian taxi drivers in Stoke can alienate some older people (there are residual racial / cultural divisions).
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 86
Asset-based solutions are likely to be more successful i.e. volunteer / shared resources that can be drawn upon and are sustainable. PB also interested in Active Travel solutions – potential for older people to use cycles if cycling infrastructure can support their needs. This is an underdeveloped area at present, though JA had heard of cycle hire hubs that were now offering wheelchair accessible / hand-driven trikes etc.
PB is keen to participate further in the consultation and will circulate survey to different members of his team.
Healthwatch - Val Lewis (Manager). 13th Nov 2015
Stoke has no CT service and to some extend has relied upon the goodwill of the Door2Door car scheme in Newcastle, which has made some trips in Stoke. It would be beneficial if this scheme were to be offered in Stoke, given that the operator is keen to expand. Many people dependent on taxis services. Val cited Silvertrees as being particularly good with customer care. Heathwatch had been involved in arranging transport for severely disabled man (w/c user + sight impaired) and they were excellent. Some taxi firms can deliver high quality services.
There is much potential in seeking funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership / local business for vehicle sponsorship - this could be a potential source of an accessible car that a car scheme could use to meet needs of wheelchair users that cannot transfer. Stoke council has good relations with the Chamber of Commerce and it could be possible for local businesses to offer support under Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives.
Shopping needs in Stoke are made more complex by the residual 'six towns' mindset, and the dissipation of retail centres - passengers of any service will probably wish to shop in their traditional town centre. In fact, key retail outlets might be located in Hanley, Burslem or Stoke centres etc.
Healthwatch have been involved with the development of a Pan-Staffordshire Health Economy which seeks to promote health initiatives and support across the North Staffs area (including Newcastle) - CT should develop along the same lines, and not be centred around just Newcastle or Stoke City. There are already established transport schemes in the rural areas of North staffs - the urban needs have not been properly addressed. Need for the 'Pan Staffs' vision to be developed and embraced, and CT should align with this.
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Partnership NHS Trust (SSOTP) community based services (district nursing, health visiting) have been restructured involving centralising of some clinics. This has created travel problems for which many patients have used taxis - in some cases the fare could be reclaimed by the passenger. Access to these services (also GP and Pharmacy access) has been problematic for many. Any new CT initiative would need to be responsive to these needs.
Healthwatch is an enabling and empowering service for patients which seeks to shape services. Transport issues have included hospital parking problems (survey) and the
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 87 fact that less mobile people arriving by car were often parked too far from the part of the hospital they required. On site assistance (meet and greet) services, provided by volunteers was often inadequate - it is important that transport either includes continued support within the hospital or clinic (driver stays with the patient) or a handover is made to a support volunteer on site. Lack of the latter in North Staffs hospitals suggests that a car scheme should also recruit meet and greet volunteers for main hospital sites. (Val cited Telford hospital as an example of how well a volunteer meet and greet team could function).
Recent initiatives with potential synergy with CT development: My Care My Way - which aims to ensure that "a patient’s journey is supported from the point of acute (hospital) admission to discharge home, delivered by a single organisation to ensure that the journey is integrated, smooth and trouble-free without the delays currently being experienced." Likely to result in increase of community based services and greater demand for transport. Healthy Towns - Stoke has been involved with a bid, context of dom care crisis and increasing demand. Building Better Opportunities Fund (Big Lottery) / European Social Fund - a £25m package to developing collaborative working partnerships between voluntary sector groups to support the efforts of the Local Enterprise Partnerships to help people improve their employment prospects. This is likely to include support for volunteering initiatives. (VAST no longer a lead body in this).
Identified problem for carers - higher demand for care has made recruitment difficult. Yet it is difficult for non-driving carers to gain employment. There would be value in a scheme that was able to geographically match carers and those needing care to enable walking between appointments. Carers should be more knowledgeable about specific transport provision but private care providers tend to be outside the public / voluntary sector network.
Contacts provided: Hazel Matthews (PALS manager, West Midlands Ambulance Service) Lorien Barber (Strategic Liaison Manager - Health), VAST, Clare Neill (SSOTP)
Stoke Shopmobility - Nikki Rowley. Oct 2015. - Shopmobility is a council service. Many shopmobility users have arrived by CT services but now most use private hire. This is felt to be expensive. Would attend the workshop if staffing allows (there are two people only).
STAND - Pam Bryan. Oct 2015. (husband is wheelchair user). Disabled people are at mercy of taxis. Disabled people are being overcharged and many PH operators are disreputable - however a few are good. Pam feels a "gold standard" taxi would be good. Suggests involvement of Dave Curry (Chair of Private Hire Association). A CT scheme would be brilliant and is much needed - Pam feels a voluntary sector provision would be best. Buses leaving from wrong stands at bus station has inconvenience disabled travellers - however, many disabled people cannot use buses despite accessibility because they cannot get to bus stops. Older people venture out less often
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 88 but younger disabled people have a real struggle, especially with late night travel. Pam refers to "horror stories" and suggests talking to PHAB Freewheelers. Pam will attend the event but may need to leave early.
North Staffordshire Pensioners Convention - Andy Day. Oct 2015. Andy is co- ordinator of Pensioners Convention. Convention is very proactive at promoting public transport and campaigning to improve buses in Stoke. Group went on study visit to Nottingham and were very impressed but Stoke's transport leave much to be desired. There is a working group from the Convention who have now started a dialogue with the council. Andy is very keen to see a community transport service revived.
Action for Blind People - Suzanne Roberts via email Oct 2015.: "Andy passed your email onto me, I have completed the survey, the survey asks about number of clients that we represent in Stoke on Trent, I have ran a report of the clients that we currently have on our database in Stoke on Trent and that is the figure that I have entered however the number of people with sight loss in Stoke on Trent is likely to be far higher than this, the sensory team at the council would probably be able to give a more accurate figure of the number of people with sight loss that a scheme could benefit.
I would love to attend the workshop however I am running a course for some of our clients on that day; this consultation is very much something that we would like to be involved in as using public transport independently is a major issue for many of our clients and we meet many people who are very isolated because they want to get out to social events and groups but are unable to use public transport independently. We do support clients as best we can to gain the skills to use the transport available for example by getting long cane training from the council or by accessing the Guide Dog organisation's My Guide service to practice routes however we have many clients who do not feel able or ready to do this and we have many clients with mobility issues in addition to their sight loss. We hold events at our centre in Hanley and around Staffordshire and we often hear from clients that they would like to attend and meet other people who may be going through a similar experience to themselves but transport sometimes prevents them from doing so which is a real shame.
I ticked the box to say that we are interested in attending but as I said I am not able to attend, I have emailed my manager to see if there is anyone else that could attend from here. If we are unable to attend would we still be able to feed into this? Have you been in touch with the local Macular Society as they support many local people with sight loss and they hold meetings monthly in Hanley, they may like to be involved also."
Live at Home Scheme (Stoke North) - Liz Daley. Oct 2015. Liz cannot make the workshop (jury service) but is very interested in any CT initiative. Her project involves over 100 older people and transport is a continuing problem. "I run activity groups weekly and we support 130 members. Transport is a major concern to our groups as it limits the amount of people we can support as we presently use volunteer drivers to
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 89 collect our members, but as you can imagine these are few and far between and are like gold dust."
PHAB Freewheelers - Gillian Cooper. Oct 2015. Social group for wheelchair users (or those with significant mobility restrictions. PHAB meetings and events had up to 45 people and Communibus was used in the past. Group meets locally but also organises excursions (e.g. Alton Towers). Group was very badly affected by Communibus closure. Gillian not overly impressed with Communibus but felt that Scraggs taxi was much poorer service. Members who do not have personal transport use taxis but cost is prohibitive - one member travelling shortish distance pays £18 for single trip. The activities of the group are very compromised by the lack of a reliable transport service.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix B: Stakeholder Feedback ▪ 90
Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 91
Community Transport Development – General Notes
1. At its purest, community transport development follows a standard third sector model:
a) A problem is identified – unmet need, inappropriate or ineffective provision
b) One or more local people decide to do something about it (the more, the better, due to the collective energy)
c) It becomes clear that other agencies either cannot or are not willing to sort the problem
d) The individuals involved decide to do it themselves
e) Usual period of gathering advice from others who have done this, more or less developing a ‘business’ plan, followed by organising the necessary resources (people, money)
f) The service starts
g) Ongoing commitment to maintain, enhance and develop the service.
2. Ideally, at the end of this process, the CT is better positioned to uncover new unmet needs and starts the process again, but shortcutting b), c) and d).
3. Let us now look at key points in this process.
Identification of a problem
4. Bottom up approach: Individuals may be frustrated at lack of suitable transport, or indeed, the cost of appropriate transport for their needs, placing them at risk of exclusion. As individuals they may feel motivated to voice these frustrations, and not necessarily be aware of others facing similar difficulties to themselves. However, it is not always clear how an individual can voice their issues (to whom? in what form?).
5. CT projects have often been conceived by a single committed individual who has the time and energy to become an activist / lobbyist for a particular type of service. In some cases, the local political structure can be used – a resident may raise their needs with a sympathetic councillor who then progresses this to committee. Many CT services have gained impetus due to the involvement of individual councillors. Alternately, a local CVS or community forum might provide a starting point.
6. Top down approach: The transport needs of individuals with mobility restrictions (people with a disability, frail elderly) are nominally accounted for during local authority planning processes (LTP etc.) but lack of a systematic
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 93
approach often results in little more than broad comment and often aspirational intent (accessibility planning does not account for door-to-door accessible transport, for instance). Significantly, although local authorities have been crucial in sustaining existing CT services, very few CT operations have been established by them. Even the larger social enterprises (such as Hackney CT) grew from a modest scale with the bottom up approach.
7. Both approaches at some stage need to establish a collective need (numbers of people in the same community with common mobility restrictions). More often than not, identification of needs is led by voluntary sector bodies concerned with the needs of older and disabled people. Age UK, RVS, access and disability rights groups, public transport pressure groups, Arthritis Care, MS Society – at both national and local level seek to campaign for their beneficiaries’ transport needs to be better met, and play an important role as lobbyists, publishers of research, and in some cases, acting as transport operators themselves.
8. The position for group transport is not significantly different in terms of the bottom up identification of a problem. Voluntary sector intermediate agency or infrastructure bodies (Councils for Voluntary Service, Community Action etc.) may play a greater role here, being very well placed to assess collective travel needs. However, in terms of local authority transport planning processes, voluntary sector group travel needs are barely recognised and rarely prioritised.
9. A central priority for any needs assessment (and a continuing necessity for established services) is to listen closely to potential users and understand their needs. There is no single method of achieving this but approaches can include networking, questionnaires and surveys, creative use of ICT, liaison with a range of community organisations, participation in a range of community forums etc. This function cannot be overemphasised.
Deciding to do something about it
10. The point of forming a group may be to achieve one or more of the following:
Raise awareness of the need in the community (in the media and at political level)
Gather support of others with similar need
Seek to form a group which can achieve greater momentum than disparate individuals
Recognising that waiting for someone else to provide the service might be futile.
11. The latter point is often arrived at when attempts to influence conventional operators to make adjustments (if attempted at all) are not met with positive
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 94
results – sometimes this can be the initial impetus for collective action. At some point it becomes clear what might be achieved with purely voluntary input, and what would need funding support.
12. Connecting with other community networks is also important – this enables strategic links to be made, useful contacts to be forged and hopefully a reduction in feelings of isolation. Networking can also enhance an appreciation of need and may lead to a solution (there may be another group who have already started to lobby for the same kind of service, or who are prepared to operate such a service).
Gathering advice
13. After a sector history of over 30 years, many different models of CT delivery are fully mature and there is a vast store of experience and guidance material that can be drawn upon. CT is not about a ‘one size fits all’ approach, however the guiding principles of vehicle operational and charity legislation and voluntary sector best practice are relevant to all CT activities across the UK. The following sources of advice are available:
Local Community or Rural development agency (the aforementioned CVS) – it is usually a core function for these bodies to offer generic organisational support and start up guidance, as well as a research and needs analysis function. Assistance is often offered in preparation of funding bids;
Community Transport Association (CTA) national membership body for CT operators, with a remit to supply development support and advice for CT services. Services include an advice desk (via telephone or email), a range of guidance leaflets, publications and downloads, training events and (for more substantial work) a consultancy service;
Local authority – many transport authorities are able to offer advice, particularly those with delegated CT development staff (such as North Yorks County Council) or Integrated Transport Units with a remit to offer vehicles to the wider community. This may be an informal function or part of the authority’s CT strategy;
VOSA – legal and operational advice, downloadable definitive guides to minibus and car operations, how the s19 / s22 permit systems and Bus Service Operators’ Grant (BSOG) work;
Other CT operators – these might be smaller neighbouring operations whose experience is likely to be relevant, or larger established projects. In general, CTs are more than happy to offer assistance and host fact finding visits. It should be noted that in this context that the transport operations of many charities such as Age UK, RVS, Red Cross, Neighbourhood Care Scheme, and Carers networks whose primary functions are not transport- specific, should be considered as CT;
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 95
Consultants – a small number of independent transport consultancies have experience and expertise in CT.
Business planning
14. Energy, vision and commitment are all key attributes to getting a CT project underway, but in order for any substantial progress towards resourcing and sustaining a service to be made, business planning needs to be undertaken. Business planning does not need to be an overly complex or time-consuming activity, but should establish objectives, outcomes, and parameters. Following the established SMART model (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) is a useful approach, and includes:
Aims & objectives (defining beneficiaries and any limitations of the service);
Required resources (personnel, vehicles, materials, plant, equipment etc.);
Skills (and where these will be sourced);
Capacity (who will do what and where);
Demand (how this is matched with supply, and with what degree of flexibility);
Publicity and marketing (how beneficiaries and other stakeholders will learn of the service);
Time (chronology of actions, priorities, realistic development);
Estimated income and expenditure (with safeguards against liabilities, contingencies for fluctuations);
Formal arrangements (H&S, governance, operational arrangements, insurance);
Action plan (what will be done, by whom, when, and how).
15. The business plan should not only focus around the development of the service, but should demonstrate to others (particularly potential funders) the value of investing in the project. If more substantial funding bids are to be made, such as for the Big Lottery, to local authorities or grant-making trust, a business plan will be an essential requirement.
Collecting the resources
16. The fundamental reality of organised transport (especially in rural areas) is that it entails tangible cost, a portion of which is usually recovered from the end user. However, recovery of 100% of cost from users runs the risk of making the service unaffordable, and so the difference has to be accounted for
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 96
in some way. In effect, all external resource support (and internal contributions, such as voluntary time) act as a subsidy.
17. As labour is the most expensive revenue item in this business model, utilisation of volunteered time is a common means of configuring resources in a workable way – this underpins many of the smaller CT operations (such as car schemes) as well as playing an important role in many larger ones. Under most charity models, volunteers are essential at trustee board level; many CTs also utilise volunteers as drivers, passenger assistants, fund-raisers, co- ordinators, dispatchers / schedulers, and for publicity and marketing activities.
18. There is no standard, consistent source of funding for CT, and even local authorities that provide financial support may do so via different departments and for different reasons. Public sector / charitable finance from a wide range of sources is available for CT projects often with an emphasis on either capital or revenue, with some funders (Big Lottery, local authorities) able to provide both. Finance is often made available because CT outcomes meet the policy criteria of the funder in a broader sense (e.g. enhancing social inclusion, promoting community resilience, reducing geographic exclusion in a specific location, promoting a less car-centric lifestyle etc.) and therefore any bids need to have supporting evidence of these broader outcomes. Voluntary sector intermediate agencies generally have a funding-bid support function and can search and identify funding sources, although many fund sources are now searchable online.
19. Fundamental principles of successfully raising funds are:
demonstrate a sound level of governance (transparency, accountability), often using charitable constitutional structures;
ensure that the service is meeting a defined and substantial need, and be able to demonstrate or evidence this;
have in place suitable practical arrangements (banking, accounting) to handle finances;
submit a bid that is carefully prepared, and targeted at an appropriate fund source.
20. Requests for charitable funds (and often those distributed via grants by councils) are evaluated in a competitive arena, and considerable preparation and attention to detail is necessary. In the case of smaller projects, a funder may delegate the grant and practicalities to an intermediary body, such as CVS or larger CT.
21. Finally, although generally used for pre-specified services over a certain scale, CT may be put out to tender, for which any qualifying body can offer a bid. The tender process may appear to be too onerous to a small, newly formed body, but there is some potential in consortium or joint bidding if a suitable
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 97
partner can be identified. In general, it is worthwhile for any newly-formed or smaller scale CT operation to form links with a larger operator, as this can be beneficial on many levels.
Maintaining and developing the service
22. Starting a CT service creates a dependence and expectation from beneficiaries, and this in turn makes sustainability a challenge. The precarious nature of securing on-going funding is a perpetual issue for CTs, with cut backs to public funding adding to the problem. Sustainable services in the current climate need to be lean, with a strong emphasis on voluntary input and with the ability to recover a higher proportion of costs from users. Consequently the current climate favours car schemes and s22 community bus operations but has been less kind to dial-a-ride services with paid staff.
23. Developing a service is often an organic process. Scaling up can be viable to a certain point, but any major growth needs to be accompanied by attendant changes to the governance model and business plan along the way. More fundamentally, the purpose of the CT activity should also be under regular review, by asking questions such as:
is our original approach still valid?
is need and demand the same – or what has changed?
is there a better way to deliver against this need?
are there alternate or emergent sources of support we can access?
24. Many medium to large scale CTs are in fact a composite of individual service components (dial-a-ride, group transport, MiDAS training, car schemes, wheels 2 work, scheduled bus service, shopmobility) which have separate funding sources (and often dedicated staff) with some shared overheads and branding. This is because many CTs have broadened their objectives, not been prescriptive about their delivery methods, and have been able to respond to opportunities as they emerge. In many cases CT development has led to a differentiation between activities which deliver against core charitable objectives, and those which are operated as ‘trading’ opportunities to secure funds and / or resources that will in turn enhance the core work. In more developed instances, this has meant the creation of separate trading companies. Ambition and enterprise may have been motivators for this in some cases, but more often than not it is merely a survival strategy.
25. Whatever the scale, it is a fact that keeping a CT service running does require an on-going high level of energy and commitment; experience suggests that the individuals managing and running will benefit from:
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 98
actively seeking new volunteers in a variety of roles at every opportunity, and finding productive activities for all volunteers (rather than leaning on a few);
understanding the limitations of what can be achieved and not losing sleep over what cannot;
feeling able to value and celebrate the achievements;
seeking external support and assistance when required, and understanding that help can always be gained;
actively maintaining contacts with stakeholders, peers and the broader community.
©The TAS Partnership Limited ▪ November 15 Appendix C: Community Transport Development Process ▪ 99