Crossing Guard Program FY 2025-26 Midyear-Report Attachment Crossing Guard Program
The Crossing Guard Program is managed by the Special Operations Bureau of the Police Department. Twenty-seven crossing guard locations have been funded in the City’s budget to assist in guiding community members and students walking across streets, which are busy during peak travel times. Twenty-two of the 27 locations are staffed by City-employed crossing guards. The remaining five locations are covered by contract services through All City Management Services, Inc. (ACMS).
Table 1: Crossing Guard Locations
LINCOLN ELEMENTARY
• Robinson & Vail
• Rindge & Plant
MADISON ELEMENTARY
• Mackay & Nelson
BIRNEY ELEMENTARY
• Grant & Green
• Aviation & Grant
ADAMS & WASHINGTON K-8th
• Felton & Grant
• Felton & Ripley
• Lilienthal & Ripley
• 182nd & Inglewood
• Lilienthal & Ralston
• Inglewood & Ralston
TULITA ELEMENTARY
• Palos Verdes & Prospect
• Palos Verdes & Helberta
• Helberta & Prospect
JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY
• Harkness & Morgan
• Harkness & Carlson
• Flagler & Morgan
• Flagler & Havemeyer
BERYL HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
• Beryl & Maria
• Beryl & Prospect
ALTA VISTA ELEMENTARY
• Camino Real & Prospect
• Knob Hill & Julia
• Julia & Serpentine
• Knob Hill & Prospect
PARRAS MIDDLE SCHOOL
• Emerald & Lucia
• Vincent & Lucia
ST. LAWRENCE MARTYR K-8TH
• Prospect & Ave G
Funding Breakdown
Crossing guard staffing is split into morning and afternoon shifts of approximately two hours each, totaling 4 to 5 hours per day over the 180‑day school year. The annual cost for a single City‑employed Crossing Guard is approximately $18,954. In FY 2025-26, the Police Department’s operating budget included $212,600 for part-time personnel providing coverage at 12 crossing guard intersections. The City Council also approved Crossing Guard Program FY 2025-26 Midyear-Report Attachment a one-time General Fund appropriation of $340,000, which included $201,842 for 10 additional part-time city employees and $138,158 for contract services to staff 5 additional locations, bringing the total to 27 locations. For FY 2025–26, the ACMS contract rate is $37.81 per hour, for a total estimated annual cost of $138,158. This brought the total FY 2025-26 allocation for crossing guard services to $552,600.
Table 2: Cost Calculation
City part-time personnel Contract services (ACMS)
# of crossing guard
locations 22 5
Budget Allocation
(FY 2025-26) $413,842 $138,158
Cost per crossing guard
location $18,954 $27,631
Total Cost
(FY 2025-26)
$552,000
Crossing Guard Location Assessment
On August 19, 2025, staff presented on the Crossing Guard Subcommittee (Subcommittee) assessment of the 27 crossing guard locations. The Subcommittee is comprised of two Councilmembers and representatives from the Police Department, Public Works (Traffic Engineering), and the City Manager’s Office. The Subcommittee utilized a data-driven approach to assess the City’s existing crossing guard locations.
The assessment considered the following criteria:
A. Combined bicycle and pedestrian volume
B. Vehicular volumes
C. Total number of formal and de facto lanes that enter the intersection D. If any approaching street has a speed limit above 25 mph E. If any approaching street has more than one through lane in each direction F. If the intersection is signalized or contains an uncontrolled crosswalk (no stop signs or signal)
G. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) conditions, which outline standards that may warrant an adult crossing guard at intersections with higher vehicular volumes
H. Engineering assessment in the context of local conditions Crossing Guard Program FY 2025-26 Midyear-Report Attachment Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes were collected by the Police Department at each crossing guard location during a 90-minute window in the morning school dropoff period. By cross-referencing the Police Department’s traffic analysis with the criteria listed above, 12 locations were identified as having the lowest need.
The Subcommittee also discussed alternative traffic safety measures and initiatives aimed at enhancing student safety, in particular, the AAA School Safety Patrol Program (AAA Program). This program was established in 1920 and is a nationally recognized initiative that promotes pedestrian safety and student leadership. Students, typically fifth to eighth graders, serve as patrollers and assist their classmates to safely navigate school zone crosswalks.
The intersections identified as possible candidates for the AAA Program exhibit similar characteristics, such as they are all-way stop-controlled, experience lower vehicular volumes, are relatively easy for younger pedestrians to cross, have lower speed limits, and contain fewer approach lanes that could conflict with pedestrian paths of travel.
Based on these conditions, the need for an adult professional crossing guard at these locations is comparatively lower than at intersections with higher speeds, greater complexity, and/or heavier traffic volumes.
Below is a breakdown of existing crossing guard locations, indicating which locations meet thresholds for recommending an adult professional crossing guard:
Crossing Guard Program FY 2025-26 Midyear-Report Attachment Table 3: Crossing Guard Locations
Locations that do not meet thresholds
recommending an adult guard
Locations that meet thresholds
recommending an adult guard
• Emerald & Lucia (Parras Middle)
• Flagler & Havemeyer (Jefferson
Elementary)
• Flagler & Morgan (Jefferson
Elementary)
• Harkness & Carlson (Jefferson
Elementary)
• Harkness & Morgan (Jefferson
Elementary)
• Julia & Serpentine (Alta Vista
Elementary)
• Julia & Knob Hill (Alta Vista
Elementary)
• Mackay & Nelson (Madison
Elementary)
• Ralston & Lilienthal (Washington
Elementary and Adams Middle)
• Rindge & Plant (Lincoln Elementary)
• Robinson & Vail (Lincoln Elementary)
• Vincent & Lucia (Parras Middle and
Redondo Union High)
• Grant & Green (Birney Elementary)
• Aviation & Green (Birney Elementary
• Felton & Grant (Washington
Elementary and Adams Middle)
• Felton & Ripley (Washington
Elementary and Adams Middle)
• Lilienthal & Ripley (Washington
Elementary and Adams Middle)
• 182nd & Inglewood (Washington
Elementary and Adams Middle)
• Inglewood & Ralston (Washington
Elementary and Adams Middle)
• Palos Verdes & Prospect (Tulita
Elementary)
• Palos Verdes & Helberta (Tulita
Elementary)
• Helberta & Prospect (Tulita
Elementary)
• Beryl & Maria (Beryl Heights
Elementary)
• Beryl & Prospect (Beryl Heights
Elementary)
• Camino Real & Prospect (Alta Vista
Elementary)
• Knob Hill & Prospect (Alta Vista
Elementary)
• Prospect & Ave G (St Lawrence)
Attachment A provides details on the statistics and characteristics of each existing crossing guard location.
Potential Additional Locations
Staff also evaluated three additional candidate locations identified through the City Council and public feedback. Attachment A also compares these three candidate locations with the City’s existing 27 crossing guard locations, and each is discussed in more detail below.
Crossing Guard Program FY 2025-26 Midyear-Report Attachment Aviation & Ford: During a 90-minute AM school peak period observation window, no student pedestrians were observed crossing this intersection, although 29 nonstudents did use it. A total of 33 students crossed on bikes or e-bikes, with approximately half traveling towards Mira Costa High School and the other half traveling towards Adams Middle School. This location is not an official school crossing under State standards, as it does not include yellow‑painted crosswalks.
Artesia & North Redondo Beach Bikeway: This intersection is a signalized mixed-use path crossing with fewer potential conflict points than a conventional four-way intersection. This intersection experiences higher bike crossing volumes than existing crossing guard locations. Although it is not an official school crossing, this intersection serves a significant number of regional biking trips to nearby middle and high schools.
Staff also notes that curb extensions have been requested to improve safety at this location and are pending funding availability.
Inglewood & Grant: While this intersection does not directly serve a nearby school, it is the only crossing available to students living east of the Metro-owned railroad tracks, near the South Bay Galleria. This intersection experiences fewer bicycle and pedestrian crossings than locations currently staffed with crossing guards and includes multiple approaching lanes. Staff notes that extensive safety improvements, such as curb extensions and protected bike lanes, are currently in design and funded for construction as part of the Metro MAT Redondo Beach Blvd Project.
Based on the cost calculations provided in Table 2, it would cost the City an additional $27,631 per location, or $82,893 to add all three potential additional locations.
Table 4: Cost Calculation with Additional Locations
City part-time
personnel
Contract services
(ACMS)
Additional
locations (ACMS)
# of crossing guard
locations 22 5 3
Budget Allocation
(FY 2025-26) $413,842 $138,158 $0
Cost per crossing
guard location $18,954 $27,631 $27,631
Total Cost (est.) $413,842 + $138,158 + $82,893 = $634,893
Crossing Guard Program FY 2025-26 Midyear-Report Attachment
Program Challenges and Considerations
Historically, the City has struggled to hire, retain, and consistently staff crossing guard positions due to a limited candidate pool. The challenges are further intensified by the part-time nature of the work, which typically offers only a few hours per day and split shifts that can be difficult for candidates. Additionally, the seasonal nature of the position and the requirement to work outdoors in varying weather conditions can further narrow the pool of interested candidates. In FY 2022-23, the City Council approved increasing the hourly pay range to $20-25 in an effort to improve recruitment and reduce reliance on costly contract services.
The City is responsible for staffing 22 crossing‑guard locations. Although 24 crossing guards are currently employed, five serve exclusively as alternates and therefore cannot be assigned to a consistent post. As a result, the City has experienced ongoing challenges in fully staffing all 22 locations. From the start of the 2025-2026 school year in August through today, approximately 500 crossing‑guard vacancies have occurred.
These vacancies are typically filled by Municipal Services Officers, diverting them from their primary responsibilities, including parking enforcement and street‑sweeping support.
In addition to hiring difficulties, the City has also encountered challenges with its contracted crossing guard services. In August 2025, staff presented a proposed oneyear agreement with ACMS as part of a broader discussion regarding the contractor’s request to modify the City’s standard indemnity language. Following that discussion, the City Council directed staff to reject the contractor's proposed changes and require ACMS to accept the City’s Standard Indemnity Provision. ACMS ultimately agreed to the City’s indemnity requirements, however the contractor indicated that its concerns with the indemnity provision would likely continue in future negotiations, which may affect the City’s ability to secure a new contract after the current agreement expires on June 30, 2026.
Attachments:
A. Statistics and Characteristics of Crossing Guard Locations
Assessment
Crossing Guard
Location School # Bikes # Peds Total Bike/Ped1
# Vehicles2
Total # Of Lanes
Approaching2
Speed Limit
>25?
Signalized
Intersection?
Multilane Street
Approach?
Meets Suggested CAMUTCD
Adult Guard Thresholds3?
Potential Locations for AAA School Safety
Patrol Location4?
Flagler/Havemeyer Jefferson 57 74 131 586 4 Yes
Flagler/Morgan Jefferson 49 65 114 742 4 Yes
Harkness/Carlson Jefferson 14 102 116 490 2 Yes
Harkness/Morgan Jefferson 19 129 148 557 3 Yes
Julia/Serpentine Alta Vista 8 136 144 398 3 Yes
Prospect/Camino Real Alta Vista 18 46 64 3190 12 X X X X No Julia/Knob Hill Alta Vista 3 132 135 734 3 Yes
Prospect/Knob Hill Alta Vista 18 69 87 2233 10 X X X X No Rindge/Plant Lincoln 16 233 249 261 3 Yes
Robinson/Vail Lincoln 24 92 116 470 4 Yes
Mackay/Nelson Madison 8 129 137 111 3 Yes
PVB/Helberta Tulita 10 55 65 2275 8 X X X No
Prospect/Helberta Tulita 5 194 199 1947 7 X X X No
Prospect/PV Blvd. Tulita 7 49 56 2794 13 X X X X No
Prospect/Ave G St. Lawrence (Pvt.) 10 97 107 1255 5 X X X No Emerald/Lucia Parras MS 63 92 155 761 6 X Yes
Vincent/Lucia Parras MS 69 68 137 1003 4 X Yes
Beryl/Prospect Beryl Hgts 13 37 50 3519 11 X X X X No
Beryl/Maria Beryl Hgts 33 191 224 1364 8 X X X No
Grant/Aviation Birney 27 35 62 2316 9 X X X X No
Grant/Green Birney 21 169 190 1742 8 X X X No
Inglewood/182nd Washington/Adams 10 39 49 3093 7 X X X X No Grant/Felton Washington/Adams 174 128 302 1892 8 X X X No Inglewood/Ralston Washington/Adams 14 26 40 2827 7 X X X X No Ralston/Lilienthal Washington/Adams 50 133 183 597 7 Yes Ripley/Felton Washington/Adams 217 664 881 589 4 X No
Ripley/Lilienthal Washington/Adams 37 324 361 665 4 X No Additional Intersection Evaluation (No Guard Currently) Aviation/Ford N/A 47 29* 76 2509 6 X X X N/A No
Artesia/NRBB N/A 92 38 130 2000 4 X X X N/A No
Inglewood/Grant N/A 18 38 56 2960 13 X X X N/A No
Notes: 1Darker green bars show relatively higher bike/ped volumes. 2Darker red bars show relatively higher vehicular volumes or higher number of approach lanes (formal or defacto). 3California MUTCD (CAMUTCD), which governs public street design, provides guidance thresholds for when an adult crossing guard could be deployed. 4 Intersection Conditions, volumes, and other factors were used to determine location feasibility to vacate and/or introduce the AAA School Safety Patrol Program. *Please note that all 29 pedestrians at Aviation/Ford were adults. No students were identified crossing during AM school peak period. 90 min AM Data by RBPD Intersection Conditions