The ASCG Program originally operated under the Police Department, but was transferred to the Department of Parking and Traffic in 1993. The legal authority for the ASCG Program is: (a) State Department of Transportation Traffic Manual for School Area Pedestrian Safety, Section 10-07.4, which provides the legal authority for Adult Crossing Guards to "designated local law enforcement agencies, the governing board of any school district, or a county superintendent of schools"; and (b) the California Education Code Section 21100(i), which states that local authorities may provide for the appointment of nonstudent crossing guards for the protection of persons who are crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school.

DPT accepts requests for school crossing guards from any school or community member. If DPT"s Traffic Engineering division determines that the intersection meets the criteria set forth in the State Department of Transportation Traffic Manual for crossing guard assignment, including the criterion that the intersection has elementary school aged pedestrians and meets specified traffic density requirements, then a crossing guard may be assigned if DPT has adequate funding in its Temporary Salaries budget. Schools are informed which intersections will be stationed with a crossing guard. According to the State Department of Transportation Traffic Manual, individual elementary schools are responsible for creating and publicizing a "Suggested Route to School" so that parents and children know where crossing guards and other traffic controls are located and which route to school affords the greatest safety.

Adult School Crossing Guards are temporary exempt employees in classification 8201 Crossing Guard, represented by SEIU 790. Guards work an average of two and a half hours per school day: one hour before and 15 minutes after the starting bell in the morning and 15 minutes prior to and one hour after the bell in the afternoon. At the beginning of FY 1997-98, DPT employed 98 crossing guards. During FY 1997-98, after several accidents involving children on route to or from school, the Mayor promised to expand the crossing guard program. A supplemental appropriation in mid-year provided funding for 20 additional guards, for a total of 118 guards. The DPT FY 1998-99 budget for the ASCG Program of $724,609 includes funding for another 25 guards, for a current total of 143 crossing guards. As of December, 1998, 25 of the 143 funded positions remain vacant.

ASCG Program Staff

Since the ASCG Program came under DPT jurisdiction, it has been managed by one 1406 Principal Clerk. The Program Manager has administrative support from one half-time 8201 Crossing Guard ^[1] position. In FY 1998-99, a new full-time 1404 Clerk Typist position was approved, but as of the writing of this report, the position is vacant. The ASCG Program Manager schedules crossing guards, processes payroll (including requests for sick leave and vacation, the latter of which can be taken in one hour increments per the MOU) and is responsible for all recruiting, training, and personnel administration activities. The Program has a persistent turnover rate of 30 to 50 percent, which results in year round personnel-related duties for the Program Manager. Additionally, approximately 50 telephone calls a day from school employees, neighbors, parents, and crossing guards are answered by the ASCG Program staff.

DPT has delegated responsibility for the Program to classifications which are both inappropriate, leading to insufficient management of service delivery, and the exposure of the City to potentially significant liability.

A 1406 Principal Clerk classification does not possess the skills needed to properly meet the management needs of a program consisting of a field operation with 143 sites and employees, and a 8201 Crossing Guard is not an appropriate classification to perform administrative and payroll duties. Due to the administrative requirements, the ASCG Program staff do not monitor crossing guard attendance or provide any field supervision of crossing guards. Furthermore, there is no internal structure of accountability for the Program"s performance.

DPT should upgrade the classification for ASCG Program Manager. If, for example, the position were upgraded from the 1406 Principal Clerk currently assigned to a 1842 Management Assistant, then the Program Manager would provide the operational skills needed to coordinate the program and the management skills needed to serve as a liaison between DPT and the schools. The 8201 Crossing Guard currently providing half time administrative support should be reclassified to a position that would be appropriate to conduct field supervision and training of crossing guards, as well as some administrative support, such as a 9971 Community Aide, which has the same pay scale as a 1404 Clerk. DPT should also fill the vacant 1406 Clerk position in order to reduce the administrative burden, thereby allowing the Program Manager time to perform vital management duties such as: (1) Establish an MOU for cost sharing with private and parochial schools, (2) Train schools to report attendance and guard misconduct to DPT, (3) Improve crossing guard recruitment, and (4) Establish policies and procedures for absent crossing guards and monitoring of attendance by Parking Control Officers (PCOs) in the field.

Establish Cost Sharing and Program Partnership

In March of 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DPT and SFUSD was established requiring SFUSD to pay for one-half of the expanded ASCG Program, which includes 10 crossing guards from FY 1997-98 and 12.5 crossing guards for FY 1998-99, for a total of 22.5 crossing guards to be funded by SFUSD at a total annual cost of $180,811, including salary, mandatory fringe benefits, and materials and supplies. No such MOU currently exists with private or parochial schools.

An MOU for sharing costs of the expanded ASCG Program should be established between DPT and the private and parochial schools which benefit from the Program. The MOU should assign responsibility for attendance taking to the schools, as is the case with the MOU between DPT and SFUSD, and the Program Manger should train schools to report attendance and crossing guard misconduct to DPT. Success of the ASCG Program requires active participation by the schools: cost sharing and attendance reporting are the first steps to building what should be a collaborative partnership.

Improve Recruitment

As noted above, of the 143 intersections which have been determined by DPT to meet the criteria for coverage by an adult school crossing guard and which have been funded for FY 1998-99, 25 are vacant as of December of 1998. The Program Manager estimates that the Program will suffer a 50 percent turnover in FY 1998-99. DPT personnel staff rely mainly on word-of-mouth to fill vacant position, along with occasional newspaper advertisements.

To fill vacancies, DPT personnel staff need to improve and expand the recruitment process for crossing guards. DPT should send job announcements to the Department of Human Resources (there is currently no announcement posted for vacant 8201 Crossing Guard positions), the SFUSD, individual schools that have vacant positions, neighborhood publications, college job boards, senior organizations, and Parent Teacher Associations. In order to meet DPT"s obligation to the public and maximize the benefits of cost-sharing with SFUSD (costs are shared only for filled positions), all crossing guard positions must be filled.

Field Supervision

As noted above, due to administrative duties, the Program Manager does not monitor crossing guard attendance or provide any field supervision of crossing guards. Furthermore, the DPT Crossing Guard Training Manual plainly states, "You will not be required to report to anyone either in person or by telephone. We will assume that you have gone to your crossing on time, fully equipped and ready for duty." DPT has no direct knowledge of whether guards are present or performing properly.

Currently, DPT has two sources of information for crossing guard attendance: the crossing guards themselves, who are supposed to call in if they are going to be absent, and the school community of teachers, administrators and parents who may call DPT to report a missing crossing guard. A survey of schools conducted by the Budget Analyst and interviews with DPT staff suggests that both sources of attendance information are inconsistent and unreliable. Although the new MOU with SFUSD requires participating public schools to take and report attendance of the guards assigned to the school"s intersections, as of the writing of this report DPT has obtained approximately 60 percent participation from schools. DPT has no procedure in place for building school participation to 100 percent or for using school attendance reports to reduce pay for those guards who do not attend their assigned post. Furthermore, DPT has no personnel policies or procedures for disciplining or replacing absent guards.

According to the Program Manager, crossing guards report absences for approximately 40 shifts per week (each guard has two shifts per school day, morning and afternoon). When DPT learns of unreported or unapproved absences, DPT contacts absent guards to determine whether a guard is going to be temporarily missing or needs to be permanently replaced. Guards are encouraged to attend work, but there are no formal reprimands and DPT has never released a guard from employment during a school year due to absence.

Without field supervision or attendance reporting, DPT may be paying crossing guards who do not show up for work or who fail to perform properly on the job. Although DPT has no records of incidents of fraud, DPT management agrees that it is impossible for DPT to know whether crossing guards are actually working the assigned hours for which they are paid. Similarly, since DPT provides no supervision of crossing guards and has no system for gathering performance information from schools, it is possible that DPT is paying guards who do not properly perform the assigned duties. Crossing guard absences or misconduct could create liability exposure to DPT and the City.

Liability Exposure

According to the City Attorney"s Office, by notifying schools that the City will provide a crossing guard to a particular school intersection, there is an established expectation and an implied contract between the students and parents of that school and the City that a crossing guard will be present to help children safely en route to and from school. Any child who sustains injury as a result of crossing guard absence or negligence may have cause for a liability claim against the City

If schools were made into active partners in the ASCG Program by monitoring attendance and reporting poor conduct to DPT, then DPT would be informed as to which guards are in need of additional training or discipline, and which need to be replaced. The opportunity for payroll fraud would be eliminated, service delivery to the public would be improved, and exposure to liability would be reduced.

Policies and Procedures for Absent Crossing Guards

As noted above, when DPT learns that a guard is absent, the ASCG Program Manager is directed to notify the school, if necessary, then determine whether the guard is temporarily absent or needs to be permanently replaced. If the guard is temporarily absent, the ASCG Program Manager urges the guard to work his or her shift, but there is no disciplinary action for unapproved absences and no procedure for using a substitute guard. If DPT learns that the guard has left the job, the intersection is added to the vacant list.

As noted above, the Program Manager estimates that of the 118 filled positions, each with 2 shifts per day for a total of 236 crossing guard shifts, approximately 40 crossing guards shifts, or 17 percent, have approved absences each week. Additionally, there are an unknown number of unapproved absences. DPT should devise a plan and procedures to use Parking Control Officers (PCOs) assigned to a local beat to monitor attendance of School Crossing Guards. If a PCO identifies an absence at an intersection for morning shift, then during the school day DPT could attempt to get the assigned guard onto the afternoon shift. Additionally, DPT needs to devise an absence policy that provides for reprimands of unapproved absences. With enforcement of an absence policy, and enhanced attendance monitoring by PCOs, absences would be reduced as would the City"s liability exposure.

Conclusions

The Adult School Crossing Guard (ASCG) Program operated by the Department of Parking and Traffic provides 143 adult crossing guards to protect elementary school children from traffic hazards when going to or from public, private, and parochial schools across streets which meet the criteria set forth in the State Department of Transportation Traffic Manual.

The ASCG Program is managed by one 1406 Principal Clerk, with administrative support from one half time 8201 Crossing Guard, which are both inappropriate classification assignments for Program responsibility. The Program is understaffed, suffers from insufficient management oversight, and there is no attendance monitoring or field supervision of crossing guards.

When DPT assigns a crossing guard to an intersection, it establishes a public expectation and an implied contract with the public that crossing guards will be present. However, DPT has no knowledge of whether guards are present or performing properly. The lack of supervision has created the potential for payroll fraud, poor service delivery, and liability exposure for the City.

In order to improve program management, reduce the City"s liability and provide the service expected by the public, DPT should request a classification review of the 1406 Clerk currently assigned as ASCG Program Manager. DPT should also reclassify the half-time support position from an 8201 Crossing Guard to a classification appropriate to provide administrative support and field supervision. Finally, DPT should fill the vacant 1404 Clerk position recently approved in the DPT budget.

Such personnel changes would provide the appropriate skill requirements to coordinate the program and to (1) Establish an MOU for cost sharing with private and parochial schools, (2) Train schools to report attendance and improper crossing guard conduct to DPT, (3) Expand recruitment activities, and (4) Establish policies and procedures for reducing absenteeism which includes crossing guard attendance monitoring by PCOs.

Recommendations

Costs and Benefits

The current salary for the 1406 Clerk serving as the Program Manager is $30,110 annually, plus fringe benefits. If the position were upgraded to an 1842 Management Assistant, for example, the annual salary cost ranges from $43,274 at Step 1 to $52,565 at Step 5, or an increase of $13,164 to $22,455 annually, plus fringe benefits.

The benefits of establishing an MOU with private and parochial schools to share funding of an expanded program would be $4,019 in cost savings (half of the total $8,038 cost) for each crossing guard.

Implementation of these recommendations would significantly improve service delivery and public safety while reducing the City"s exposure to liability.