Click for next page ( 16

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 15
15 programs administered by DHHS were combined into a sin- same time, local transportation providers, which usually have gle new block grant to states called Temporary Assistance for distinct service area boundaries, may not have the operating Needy Families (TANF). A new welfare-to-work grant pro- authority to offer services in those neighboring areas. This cre- gram, offering formula grants to states and competitive grants ates a particular problem for people needing the mobility that to local communities, was established by the U.S. DOL. The transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged new programs recognized transportation as an important ele- can provide. However, regional coordination of services has ment of a successful transition from public assistance to inde- been specifically addressed in only a few states to date. pendent employment by the new programs and included it among eligible project expenses. In addition, FTA created the JARC grant program, which required that projects be the Coordination at the State Level result of a coordinated human services/public transit plan- Most states encourage at least informal coordination among ning process in order to be eligible for funding. Joint guid- transportation providers. In 1994, CTAA published a report ance to grant recipients from federal agencies outlined the that summarized coordination efforts in each of the 50 states ways in which TANF and welfare-to-work funds could be (1). By 1994, the following accomplishments had been made: used to provide transportation services. Two recent events highlight the prominence of human ser- Thirty-eight states had established state-level interagency vices transportation coordination on the federal transportation advisory committees/coordinating councils to promote policy agenda. In late 2003, the U.S.DOT, DHHS, DOL, and information sharing or assist in decision making about the Department of Education introduced a new human services distribution of available transportation funding. transportation coordination initiative, United We Ride. It Thirteen states had Memorandums of Understanding has five components--including state leadership awards and (MOUs) between their DOTs and human services coordination grants, as well as technical assistance tools and activities--designed to make coordination of human services agencies. These MOUs often establish the above cited transportation easier and more rewarding for states and local committees/councils and define general policy regard- communities to pursue. ing the desire for improved coordination. Twelve states had informal agreements between DOTs In February 2004, President Bush issued an Executive Order on Human Services Transportation Coordination, reasserting and human services agencies. Nineteen states had passed legislation requiring some the federal government's commitment to improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged citizens and more efficient level of coordination. In some cases, this legislation is use of transportation resources. The Executive Order estab- general and formally establishes the interagency processes lished a new Interagency Transportation Coordinating Coun- noted above. cil on Access and Mobility, composed of representatives of In three states (New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island) 10 departments. It charged the council with identifying laws, a single, statewide transit agency had worked to some regulations and procedures that facilitate coordination as degree with state human services agencies to coordinate well as those that hinder it, recommending changes that will public and human services transportation. streamline and coordinate federal requirements, and assess- Legislation requiring coordination and specifically defin- ing agency and program efforts to reduce duplication and ing processes for achieving coordination had been enacted provide the most appropriate, cost-effective transportation in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, services. North Carolina, and Vermont. An updated survey of states, prepared in 2000, showed STATE AND REGIONAL substantially the same results (2). COORDINATION EFFORTS A number of states are generally regarded as having devel- oped successful coordination programs that serve as models Coordination has also been an ongoing subject of interest for other areas. They include, among others, Florida, Iowa, among both transportation providers and human services agen- Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylva- cies at the state level. State DOTs and human services are nia, and Washington. concerned with making maximum use of limited resources and serving as many transportation needs as possible, as are local transit operators, nonprofit agencies, and human ser- Coordination at the Regional Level vices providers. Coordination at the regional level is becoming an increas- A great deal of research has been conducted over the past ingly important issue as populations continue to disperse. The 20 years on the development of coordinated transportation closest or most convenient employment opportunities, shop- systems, but that effort has typically focused on coordina- ping centers, or medical facilities to many residential areas tion activities within a single county. Recent experience has may be located in a neighboring city, county, or state. At the demonstrated that many trip destinations lie beyond the county

OCR for page 15
16 of trip origin and that there is a need to better coordinate trips vices programs as well as the general public, there is a lack of on a regional level. Examples of regional trips involve non- coordination for regional trips. For example, each county typ- emergency medical transportation to regional medical centers ically transports patients in its own vehicles to regional med- (often funded by Medicaid) and employment transportation to ical centers instead of providing feeder service to regional regional work centers. The need to develop public transpor- routes. A similar situation exists with employment trans- tation services that respond to living patterns that are becom- portation. Major employment centers are no longer located ing oriented to increasingly larger geographic areas is also a exclusively in downtown areas of major cities but are dis- regional issue. persed throughout many regions. There is typically a lack of While many public transportation systems have achieved coordinated transportation service provided to employees in some local coordination in transporting clients of human ser- such regions.