National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Funding Sources." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 70

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

55 CHAPTER 6 FUNDING SOURCES Fortunately, there are many sources of funding that may be used to support the provision of transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged individuals. Federal trans- portation and human services agencies provide a level of assistance that has been estimated to be as high as $10 billion annually (10). Many states, in addition to administering fed- eral funds for transportation services, make funds available to transportation providers from sources such as sales taxes, motor fuels or vehicle taxes, or lottery revenues. At the local level, funding sources for transportation services for the trans- portation disadvantaged may include revenues from general or special taxes or grants from foundations or other private organizations. The number and diversity of funding programs, however, may make the identification of suitable funding sources dif- ficult. Moreover, the regulations attached to some programs impose restrictions on eligible recipients, riders, or trip pur- poses; prescribe planning processes; or set requirements for local matching funds. Such constraints may limit their use- fulness to some transportation providers. To aid organizations that may be considering coordination or are looking for sources of funding for an ongoing effort, this chapter has three sections: • Types of Funding: Describes the types of funding that are typically used to support the provision of trans- portation services for the transportation disadvantaged, from federal, state, regional/local, and private sources. Funding methods, eligibility, and requirements are also discussed in this section as appropriate. • Identifying Funding Sources: Provides guidance for iden- tifying funding sources to fit your organization’s partic- ular needs. • Practitioners’ Advice and Other Resources: Lists other resources for information about relevant funding programs. TYPES OF FUNDING Federal Funding Programs There is a wide array of federal funding available for public transportation services, either in their own right or indirectly as an important ingredient of a nontransportation program’s primary goals. For example, funds from FTA are generally used to fund public transit services, while Medicaid funds from the CMS primarily support medical services, but may also be used to fund transportation services needed to get Medicaid recipients to those services. CTAA and ESPA in their 2002 compilation of such pro- grams found 70 different programs in 15 federal departments and independent agencies that could be used to fund commu- nity transportation, defined as “transportation services that address the transit needs of an entire community, including the needs of both the general public and special populations” (11). The following summary relies heavily on the CTAA/ESPA compilation, supplemented where appropriate from other sources such as information from funding agency websites and previous research reports. The CTAA/ESPA compilation separated federal funding programs into three categories: 1. A program that routinely addresses or supports com- munity transportation services 2. A program that has been used, in at least a few instances, to support community transportation services 3. A program that could support such services but does not have a documented history of such support With several exceptions, programs in the first category account for the great preponderance of the funding most likely to be used for coordinated transportation services. These 20 programs are summarized in Table 4. Agency Programs Although all the funding programs provide the potential for funding public transportation services, they may differ in a number of important respects, as noted in Table 2 and the following paragraphs. Funding Methods. The CTAA compilation identified six basic funding methods or styles: 1. Formula or Block Grants. Funds are allocated on a for- mula or block grant basis to states or other public agen- cies. Such funding can be categorical or block in nature.

56 Program Name Funding Methoda Total FY 2003 Fundingb (millions) Eligible Usesc Eligible Recipientsd Department of Education • Vocational Rehabilitation Grants Formula/block grants $2,481.0 O PB • Supportive Services and Senior Centers (Title III-B) Formula/block grants $357.0 C/O NP/PB • Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian Elders (Title VI) Subcontracts $25.7 C/O TR • Head Start Subcontracts $6,537.9 C/O/T NP/PB/TR • TANF Formula/block grants $16,489.0 O PB • Medicaid Formula/block grants $144,842.9 O FP/NP/PB/TR Department of Labor Department of Health and Human Services • Senior Community Service Employment Program (Title V) Solicited grants $445.1 A/O NP/PB • Workforce Investment Act Programs Formula/block grants $5,630.3 O/T PB/TR Department of Transportation • Federal-Aid Highway Program Formula/block grants $31,178.0 A/C PB • Federal Lands Highway Program Other $706.0 A/C/T PB/TR • ITS Program Solicited grants $225.0 A/C/T FP/NP/PB/TR • Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program Designated/ earmarked $25.0 A/C PB • JARC Program Designated/ earmarked $125.0 C/O NP/PB/TR Source: Building Mobility Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Funding. Community Transportation Association of America. March 2002. aAn explanation of the funding methods listed is given in the text bFunding shown is for the total program, not just for transportation. For many programs, transportation is a relatively minor component. cEligible Uses: C = capital; O = operating; A = administrative; T = technical; P = planning. dEligible Recipients: PB = public body; NP = nonprofit; FP = for-profit; TR = tribal entity. • National Transit Planning and Research Other $49.1 T FP/NP/PB/TR • Nonurbanized Area Formula Transit Grants (Section 5311) Formula/block grants $223.4 A/C/O NP/PB/TR • Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program Solicited grants $7.0 C/O FP • Statewide Transit Planning and Research Subcontracts $11.6 P/T PB • Transit Capital Assistance for Elderly/Disabled (Section 5310) Formula/block grants $84.6 C NP/PB • Transit Major Capital Grant Program (Section 5309) Designated/ earmarked $2,841.0 C PB • Urbanized Area Formula Transit Grants (Section 5307) Formula/block grants $3,199.9 C PB TABLE 4 Major federal funding sources for transportation services

Categorical grants have a narrow range of eligible uses that permit funds to be used only for specific, narrowly defined purposes, e.g., for transportation oper- ating expenses. Block grants have a broader range of eligible uses that address a general rather than a specific problem area, e.g., the TANF program that allows funds to be used for many different kinds of expenses as long as they are in support of the overall goals of the pro- gram. Organizations that wish to participate in this type of funding generally have to contact the state or public agency that administers these funds. An example of this type of grant is the nonurbanized area formula transit grants (Section 5311) that are allocated to states for support of rural public transportation services. 2. Solicited Grants. These funds are awarded on a dis- cretionary basis, often through a competitive solicita- tion process. The federal agency usually announces the availability of such funds by posting a Solicitation for Grant Application (SGA). Examples are some of the Workforce Investment Act grant funds administered by the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. DOL. 3. Designated/Earmarked. These funds are usually ear- marked by members of Congress as part of the legisla- tive process. Even though earmarked by Congress, it is often necessary to apply to the appropriate federal agency through a defined grant application process. To obtain such funding, organizations should contact their Congressional delegation. Examples are the Section 5309 major capital grants for transit administered by the FTA of the U.S. DOT. 4. Subcontracts. Funds can only be obtained through subcontracts, interagency agreements, or partnerships with existing grantees. Funds provided for transporta- tion under the Head Start program of the DHHS are an example. 5. Other. A simple categorization of this program’s fund- ing is not possible—additional information may be obtained from the administering agency. An example is funds awarded under the National Transit Research and Planning Program of the FTA. 6. Loans. Funding is through federally sponsored loans. Loans provided by the Small Business Administration are an example. Eligible Uses. The various programs have a variety of eligi- ble purposes for which the funds can be used. For example, some programs fund only capital expenses such as the pur- chase of buses or facilities. Other programs may fund only operating expenses such as driver salaries and fuel costs, or expenses such as administration, planning, or technical assis- tance. Some programs allow a great deal of flexibility as long as the use is in furtherance of the program’s central goals. Eligible Recipients. The funding programs allow a variety of types of recipients. Most often, the recipient must be a 57 public body such as a state, municipality, or transit authority. Sometimes grants can be made to nonprofit agencies or com- munity organizations. In addition, the initial recipient can often provide funds for transportation purposes through con- tracts with nonprofit or for-profit service providers. In general, the programs provide funds to the suppliers of the transportation service. In some instances, however, fund- ing is provided directly to the users of the services in the form of vouchers, transit passes, and so forth that can be used to pay for rides on public transportation or by taxi. Planning Requirements Some funding programs require only the planning that goes into preparing a good grant application. Other programs require participation in an elaborate planning process. For example, as discussed in Chapter 5, most projects funded by the FTA must be included in either a metropolitan area’s 3- to 5-year TIP or a STIP. These plans are produced by a feder- ally required planning process coordinated by either the MPO or the state, a process that involves local governments, trans- portation authorities and providers, and other important stake- holders including the public. Matching Requirements Most federal funding programs require local matching funds. However, the amount of the required match can vary greatly. Funding provided by the FTA typically requires at least a 20% local match. Sometimes all or part of the local match can be in the form of in-kind services rather than in cash. Some programs do not require matching funds. Federal Efforts to Overcome Funding-Related Barriers to Coordination The wide variety of funding types, eligible uses and recip- ients, and matching and planning requirements among federal funding programs creates a challenge—it can be extremely difficult to develop a coordinated transportation system involv- ing several agencies, multiple funding sources with varying program requirements, and different kinds of riders. How- ever, many service providers are finding ways to surmount the barriers to such coordination, and many federal and state funding agencies are making strong efforts to eliminate them. The following are some recent actions taken at the federal level in this effort. Joint Efforts in Welfare Reform. An excellent example of addressing barriers at the federal level is the effort by the U.S. DHHS, DOL, and DOT to make it possible for states, tribes, and communities to respond to the transportation chal- lenges of welfare reform. This effort involves three specific

funding sources that can be used to address the transportation needs of individuals entering the workforce: (1) the TANF block grant program of DHHS; (2) the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program of DOL; and, (3) the JARC grant program administered by the U.S. DOT. The agencies issued joint guidance on how these three programs can be used in com- bination to provide transportation services. States may use TANF block grants to finance transporta- tion and other support services that will make it easier for welfare recipients to find and maintain employment or help to achieve other goals of the welfare reform effort. In its JARC Grant Program, the FTA makes it clear that service and funding coordination is required. The use of a coordi- nated human services/transportation planning process and financial commitments from both human services providers and transportation providers are factors in FTA’s evaluation of grant applications for these funds. Formal Coordination Policies between the FTA and the Administration on Aging. In January 2003, the FTA and AoA executed an MOU designed to increase affordable mobil- ity for older Americans by encouraging coordination between the transportation services supported by each agency’s fund- ing programs. The objectives which the two agencies have agreed to work toward include the following: • Promoting awareness of the transportation needs of older adults. • Gathering information about existing and innovative transportation services and coordination models. • Providing technical assistance and training to state and local agencies to encourage the implementation of promising coordination strategies, including the use of ITS technologies. • Conducting outreach to other national, state, and local entities to identify issues of concern, possible solutions, and future activities. • Coordinating funding for transportation and aging-related organizations so as to encourage coordination of trans- portation services and development of innovative ways of addressing mobility needs. Executive Order on Human Services Transportation Coordination. In February 2004, President Bush issued an Executive Order on Human Services Transportation Coordi- nation, reasserting the federal government’s commitment to improved mobility for transportation-disadvantaged citizens and more efficient use of transportation resources. The Exec- utive Order establishes a new Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, composed of representatives of the U.S. DOT, DHHS, and DOL; Depart- ments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior; and the Attorney General and Social Security Commissioner. 58 To further its goals of eliminating duplication and overlap among federal transportation programs and services, facili- tating use of the most cost-effective services available within existing resources, and developing policies and procedures to enhance transportation services, the Council will identify laws, regulations, and procedures that facilitate coordination as well as those that hinder it; recommend changes to streamline and coordinate federal requirements; and assess agency and pro- gram efforts to reduce duplication and provide the most appro- priate, cost-effective transportation services. New or Proposed Federal Funding Opportunities From time to time, new funding programs are established that complement the long-standing sources of funding for transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged. Other programs and legislative decisions, which are not sup- ported by funding, may also touch upon coordination issues or indicate areas of future federal priority. In addition, legislative reauthorization of the transportation funding programs administered by agencies of the U.S. DOT, which typically occurs at 5-year intervals for most major programs, can lead to changes in funding levels, priorities, and administrative requirements. A few recent funding and policy developments, as well as reauthorization proposals, are discussed below. Advanced Technologies. A promising new federal program in regard to the coordination of transit services concerns operational tests of advanced technologies in rural transit ser- vice. The FTA, DHHS, DOL, and U.S. Department of Agri- culture are jointly funding grants to local transit systems in rural areas to implement advanced technologies and test their performance and usefulness in transit service. Grants will fund use of advanced technologies to demon- strate and evaluate innovative approaches to integrating Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS) technologies (also referred to as ITS technologies for transit, or Transit ITS) and available information technology systems to better coor- dinate subsidized transportation services among multiple tran- sit operators in rural areas. Eligible recipients include com- munity groups and public and private transportation providers currently developing, operating, coordinating, or brokering rural transit services. Community Access Program grantees may also apply, as may consortia or partnerships of eligible parties. The FTA is serving as the lead agency in the administra- tion of this program. CTAA’s Community Transportation Development Fund. CTAA offers financial assistance through a loan program, the Community Transportation Development Fund, to provide financial and technical assistance to various public trans- portation service providers, suppliers, and manufacturers. This

fund is flexible and available to develop new products for the special needs of potential borrowers in the public and community transportation field. Negotiable loan financing is offered through the following products: • General fund financing • The Transit Small Business Fund • Micro-loans for transit software and hardware • Transit operating loans • Transportation and Railway Facilities Fund • Insurance and self-insurance funds New Freedom Initiative. A new federal program that should be noted is the New Freedom Initiative, first announced by President Bush in February 2001. This program, included in the administration’s proposal for legislation to reauthorize federal transportation funding programs, is part of a nation- wide effort to remove barriers to community living for people with disabilities. The U.S. DOT requested authorization in the amount of $145 million in FY 2004 for the transportation component of the New Freedom Initiative. Funds would be distributed to states on a formula basis for the development and implemen- tation of transportation services designed to increase access to jobs and related services for people with disabilities. FTA has developed an internal working group to develop these programs. The Office of the Secretary, the FHWA, and others participate. Consultation with advocates for the trans- portation disadvantaged and other federal agencies has taken place to discuss program development and implementation. Olmstead Decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1999 (E.W. & L.C. v. Olmstead) that providing services for people with disabilities in an institutional setting while failing to provide those same services in a community setting is a vio- lation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Most states have formed task forces and commissions to assess what needs to be done to comply with Olmstead and many have already developed Olmstead plans. Although the Court’s decision has much more direct implications for the provision of human ser- vices agencies’ core mission services, some states have looked at transportation as a means to comply with the ruling. In Missouri, for example, the state’s Olmstead plan rec- ommends additional subsidies for the statewide paratransit system, OATS, so that the system can serve all people with disabilities regardless of age. This recommendation is one of several developed by the state to address the Olmstead goal of “ensuring the availability of community-integrated ser- vices.” Additional information on Missouri’s progress is available on the state’s Department of Labor and Industrial Relations website at http://www.dolir.mo.gov/. Other states have also identified increasing accessible transportation options as a component of their Olmstead plans, with recom- mendations including the provision of transportation (other 59 than Medicaid-funded trips) from general revenue and the extension of public transportation service hours. Ticket to Work. Another federal program with potential implications for coordination is Ticket to Work. This pro- gram is the centerpiece of the Ticket to Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The program is under the author- ity of the Social Security Administration (SSA). The SSA contracts with national, state, and local service providers to become Employment Networks (ENs). SSA beneficiaries with disabilities are eligible to receive tickets that can be used to obtain rehabilitation and employment services or a job from any EN of their choosing. Any qualified state or local agency or private entity that assumes responsibility for the coordination and delivery of training/employment ser- vices is eligible to be an EN. ENs are then reimbursed by SSA for achieving predetermined results with beneficiary ticket holders. The focus of the Ticket to Work program is primarily job training and the development of career paths and goals. The program does list transportation assistance, however, as one of the possible responsibilities that an EN can assume. This may provide an opportunity to target the market for coordi- nated services, particularly as the Ticket to Work program expands in scope and funding. At this point the program has only been implemented in 33 states, with the remainder to be included in 2003. Reauthorization of Federal Funding Programs Reauthorization is the term used for the renewal of fed- eral laws that permit funds to be spent for particular pur- poses or programs. Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act occurred in 2000, after a delay of several years beyond the expiration of the previous version. Reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, the leg- islation passed in 1996 that reformed the federal welfare sys- tem and created the TANF block grant program, is currently underway. The legislation that contains authorization for all U.S. DOT programs, TEA-21, expired on September 30, 2003, but has been extended several times by Congress. At the time this report was prepared, legislation reauthorizing the trans- portation programs was about to be taken under considera- tion by a Congressional conference committee. The changes that can be brought about by reauthorization can be significant. Authorized levels of funding may increase or decrease, existing programs may be consolidated, new programs may be created to address current priorities, and administrative requirements may be streamlined or revised. It is important for transportation providers and human ser- vices agencies to keep up to date on a number of items: the reauthorization schedules of relevant pieces of legislation, issues that are being debated, reauthorization proposals and analysis, and opportunities to comment on proposed legislative

changes. The easiest way to stay informed is to identify key pieces of legislation that govern the funding programs that support your transportation services and regularly check the websites of the federal agencies that administer those pro- grams, as well as those of transit and human services indus- try associations and other stakeholders. State-Level Funding Programs As mentioned earlier, many of the main federal funding programs that support transportation services distribute funds to states, often by formula, to pay for eligible services and programs, oversee compliance with federal requirements, and make grants to eligible local recipients. DOTs and depart- ments of human services are the primary sources of funding for transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged individuals. This section first provides a brief description of the major federal programs that, as administered by the states, supply much of the funding that is used to support transportation ser- vices for the transportation disadvantaged. Selected exam- ples of innovative state programs that encourage coordinated transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged are then presented. A more comprehensive listing of selected state funding programs is provided in Appendix C on the accompanying CD-ROM. Federal Programs Administered by State and Local Agencies The primary sources of federal funding typically used to support transportation services for the transportation disad- vantaged include Medicaid, various transportation programs administered by the FTA, the TANF program, and Title III of the Older Americans Act. An overview of each of these funding programs is provided below. It is important to note that states may administer the same federal program in very different ways. While the federal government has established broad guidelines for these pro- grams that state government agencies must follow, it grants the state agencies the flexibility to develop the specific pro- gram parameters that will best meet local needs. Medicaid. Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965 estab- lished the Medicaid program as a joint effort on the part of the federal and state governments to ensure health care services for individuals and families who meet certain income and resource requirements, or who belong to other needy groups. A critical component of achieving this goal is the provision of transportation services that allow Medicaid recipients access to health care services. CMS, part of the federal DHHS, oversees the Medicaid program. CMS issues general program guidelines and require- ments, but each state is responsible for the design of its own 60 Medicaid program, including such components as eligibility standards; the type, amount, duration and scope of services to be provided; rates of payment for services; and adminis- trative procedures. Funds are allocated to states on a formula basis and are dis- tributed to a designated state Medicaid agency. Medicaid agencies are usually located in state departments of human services; health services; health care planning, administra- tion or financing; public health services; medical services; social services, or public welfare—they may have Medicaid or Medical Assistance in their titles. The federal share of the cost of medical services (including transportation necessary to ensure access to those services) may range from 50 to 83%. The nonfederal share of Medic- aid expenses is typically provided by state or county funds. In addition to supporting nonemergency medical trans- portation, Medicaid is a significant source of funding for organizations that operate day programs and other types of services for individuals with mental retardation or develop- mental disabilities. Such organizations often provide trans- portation so that clients are able to attend programs. Service may be provided with agency-owned vehicles driven by pro- gram staff or contracted to a local public, not-for-profit, or for-profit transportation provider. Transportation is usually one element of the services that are covered by the Medicaid funding the organization receives for a particular client (typ- ically a set rate per day that the client attends the program). Budgets and funding for transportation services are not typ- ically separate from those of the other services the organiza- tion operates. Examples of approaches states have taken to the provision of Medicaid nonemergency transportation are provided in Figure 5. FTA’s Section 5310 Program. This program, which is administered by state DOTs, authorizes capital grants to pri- vate nonprofit organizations to assist in providing trans- portation for the elderly or people with disabilities. Section 5310 funding provides up to 80% of all costs for equipment, with a 20% match from nonfederal sources. Vehicles can be obtained by a wide range of agencies serving elderly or dis- abled clients. FTA’s Section 5311 Program. The Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program, or Section 5311, makes funds available to rural and small urban areas with populations under 50,000. The apportionments are made directly to individual states and administered by the state’s DOT. These funds may be applied for either capital or operating purposes, providing federal funding for up to 80% of capital projects and 50% of operating projects. Transportation and the TANF Program. Government initiatives to reform welfare policies have led to a new emphasis on transitioning welfare recipients from federal assistance to viable self-employment. Recognizing that

transportation barriers are among the most significant to preventing a successful transition to employment, the TANF program allows significant federal funds to con- tribute to removing transportation barriers. Specifically, the TANF program has designated the following as appropriate uses of these funds for transportation, according to DHHS’s website (12): • Provide transportation allowances to cover incidental expenses and participation-related expenses for unem- ployed families. • Provide transit passes or tokens. • Arrange with another agency to use its buses or vans or share in the costs of purchasing transportation services. • Invest in reverse-commute projects and other local ini- tiatives to improve the existing transportation network so that needy parents can access jobs. • Reimburse clients for mileage, auto repairs, or auto insur- ance to facilitate finding employment and job retention. 61 • Contract with a private organization or service to refur- bish previously owned cars and provide the cars to TANF recipients or provide financing support that enables recip- ients to purchase a car. • Subsidize costs of transporting needy children to child care. However, certain restrictions do apply to the use of TANF funds. Funds must be used only for programs and activities that further the goals of the TANF program, which include the provision of transportation service for use by eligible TANF recipients for work and work-related activities. TANF funds may not be used to subsidize the use of such transportation services by non-TANF individuals. If non- TANF individuals use a service provided with TANF funds, or if the TANF agency participates with another agency in the provision of transportation services, only the expenses associated with eligible TANF recipients’ use of those ser- vices may be allocated to the TANF program. State Medicaid agencies provide transportation services in a number of different ways. Some continue to purchase trips directly from qualified, authorized transportation providers (that may be for-profit, nonprofit, or public entities) on a fee-for-service basis. Other approaches include managed care models, brokerages, and coordination with public transit and human services agencies. Over the past 5 or 10 years, more states have implemented managed care approaches to the delivery of health care services. Some of those states, including Arizona and New Mexico, hold managed care organizations responsible for obtaining transportation services and reimburse them on a fee-for-service or capitated basis. In a Medicaid program using a capitation rate, managed care organizations are reimbursed a set amount that is based on a rate per Medicaid recipient per month; the amount is agreed upon and paid in advance and does not change regardless of the number of recipients that actually receive transportation service. The managed care organizations, in turn, typically contract with transportation providers and pay for service either on a fee-for-service or capitated basis. Under a managed care system, states also have the option of excluding transportation from the services that a managed care organization is required to provide or including it only for certain Medicaid recipients or geographic areas. According to a survey conducted in 2003 for the National Consortium on the Coordination of Human Services Transportation by the American Public Human Services Association, 21 states use brokers to manage their Medicaid transportation services. Some brokers are professional brokerage management firms (as in Connecticut and Georgia). State Medicaid agencies may also contract with local or regional public transportation providers to perform brokerage services; Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Rhode Island use this approach. Human services agencies and other nonprofit organizations may also serve as brokers, as they do in Vermont and Washington. Brokers may be responsible for transportation of Medicaid recipients in a designated region or throughout the state (as is the case in Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah, for example). Brokers typically contract with a number of transportation providers and may also utilize the fixed-route services provided by the local transit agency or operate their own vehicles. For each Medicaid trip, the broker identifies the most appropriate and cost-effective provider, bills the Medicaid agency, and reimburses the provider. Use of a broker often results in improved service quality, better record- keeping, and lower costs (particularly if the broker performs centralized reservations and scheduling). For more information about brokerages, see Chapter 3. State Medicaid agencies also coordinate with public transportation providers by subsidizing use of fixed-route bus and rail services for Medicaid transportation. The most widely known example of a Medicaid bus pass program is in operation in Miami- Dade County, Florida. Administered by the Miami-Dade Transit Agency, the program has resulted in significant annual savings for Florida’s Medicaid program. Figure 5. State approaches to Medicaid transportation purchases.

TANF funds also may not replace other federal funds that normally would be used to provide those services. If funds from another federal agency, such as FTA, are currently used to provide transportation services that will be used by TANF recipients, TANF funds may not be substituted for those other funds. Funding Programs That Support Transportation for Older Adults. The AoA, another DHHS agency, is respon- sible for the administration of a number of programs autho- rized by the Older Americans Act. These programs support a variety of services for seniors, especially those who are frail or vulnerable, including home-delivered and congregate meals, preventive health care, in-home services, senior cen- ters, transportation, ombudsman services, insurance and ben- efits counseling, and community service employment. AoA also funds research, training, and demonstration projects. Title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965, which autho- rizes state and community programs, supports programs and services that are intended to aid active seniors and those who are at risk of losing their independence. Title III funds are awarded to each state’s designated Agency on Aging on a formula basis, according to the state’s senior population (people aged 60 years and older). Each Agency on Aging in turn distributes funds to the state’s desig- nated AAAs for the development and implementation of pro- grams and services to meet the needs of seniors in each local area or region. Funds are allocated among AAAs according to intrastate funding formulas that are subject to approval at the federal level. Factors such as geographic distribution of seniors and degree of economic and social need are taken into consideration in the development of these formulas. Individuals aged 60 years and older are eligible for ser- vices provided with Title III funds, with priority given to individuals with the greatest economic or social needs; low- income minority seniors and older individuals living in rural areas are targeted in particular. Fees may not be charged for services, but seniors must be given the opportunity to make voluntary contributions toward the cost of the services they receive. The prohibition against fees was retained in the 2000 amendments to the Older Amer- icans Act. States must provide funds to match the federal dollars in the following proportions: 25% for state administrative activ- ities, 25% for administration of the state plan, and 15% for supportive services and multipurpose senior centers. Supportive Services (Part B) is one of the types of programs and services that are funded under different parts of Title III. Title III-B covers supportive services in several categories, including access services, one of which is transportation. Transportation is often delivered by nonprofit or for-profit ser- vice providers. This is typical of other types of services for seniors that are developed and implemented by state and area agencies on aging and financed with Title III-B funds. 62 Amendments to the Older Americans Act—Coordinated Transportation Services. The 2000 amendments to the OAA include several provisions to promote coordination of trans- portation services. Language in the section dealing with Title III activities encourages local AAAs to coordinate with local transportation providers, public transportation agencies, and local government entities. A new provision explicitly explains that Title III services may be provided to nonelderly individ- uals if other sources of funding, such as Medicaid, are avail- able to support those services. Title IV, which covers train- ing, research, and discretionary projects and programs, now includes authorization for grants to public or private non- profit organizations to design and implement health care ser- vice projects for seniors in rural areas, which may encompass a number of related services, including transportation. Grants are also authorized for nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance to transportation providers and aging organizations to “encourage and facilitate coordination of federal, state, and local transportation services and resources for older individuals.” Several specific examples of technical assistance are included in the amendments. State Funding Sources State transportation funds derive primarily from two fun- damental tax sources: sales taxes and fuel/vehicle taxes. Some states have also incorporated lottery or casino rev- enues as a source for transportation funding. Some exam- ples of these state funding sources are summarized in Table 5 and described below. Sales Taxes • California Local Transportation Fund (LTF): LTF rev- enues are derived from 1/4 cent of the 7.25% retail statewide sales tax and are returned to each county in proportion to the amount of tax collected in that county. • Indiana Public Mass Transportation Fund: Receives 0.76% of the state’s general sales and use tax revenue. • Michigan Comprehensive Transportation Fund (portion): Michigan funds public transportation services through the Comprehensive Transportation Fund, which is admin- istered by the DOT. The fund is supported from a por- tion of state motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and state sales taxes on automobiles and other auto- related products. Motor Fuels/Motor Vehicle Taxes • California State Transit Assistance Fund: Established in 1980 through the Transportation Development Act, the Fund derives its income from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Assistance is allocated by for-

mula to each Transportation Planning Agency, the five county transportation commissions, and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board. Funds are allocated 50% by population and 50% by operator rev- enues from the prior fiscal year. Funds are allocated to operators within each county in proportion to each oper- ator’s share of total revenues within the state. • Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund: The fund receives $1.50 from every vehicle registration and includes the Put Your Dollar to Work program enacted 63 in 1994, which allows donating an additional $1 (or more, in $1 increments) to the fund when renewing a car, truck or boat registration. Operating revenue ($271.0 mil- lion in 2001) included funding from agencies: – Agency for Health Care Administration (Medic- aid): 30% – Local entities (government and nongovernment): 38% – Commission for the Department of Children and Fam- ilies: 11% – Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund: 9% Sales Taxes Motor Fuels/Motor Vehicle Taxes State Lottery and Casino Revenues For Programs to Increase Coordination California—Local Transportation Fund: 1⁄4 cent from the 7.25% statewide retail sales tax Arizona—portion of vehicle license tax, as required to provide an annual minimum of $20.5 million in the Local Transportation Assistance Fund Arizona—Local Transportation Assistance Fund II: up to $41 million from state lottery fund revenues Florida—Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged: supported by $1.50 from each motor vehicle registration Indiana—Public Mass Transportation Fund: 0.76% of state general sales and use tax revenue California—State Transit Assistance Fund: portion of locally collected statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel Pennsylvania— Lottery: all lottery proceeds targeted to benefit elderly citizens; Shared-Ride/Free Transit Programs North Carolina— Human Service Transportation Management Program: state funds ($2.4 million in FY 2002) provided on (amounts vary regionally) provide free/reduced fares ($114.4 million in FY 2000-01) 75% state/25% local basis Michigan— Comprehensive Transportation Fund: portion of state sales taxes on automobiles and related products—FY 2004, 2005=6%; FY 2003, 2006 and after=6.98% Florida— Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund: $1.50 from each vehicle registration New Jersey—Casino Revenue Program: portion of casino revenues ($24.9 million in FY 2003) Ohio—Coordination Program: state General Revenue Funds ($1.3 million in SFY 2003) provide up to 75% of total direct operating expenses to a maximum of $75,000 for first 3 years, $50,000 in subsequent years Iowa—Highway Trust Fund: 1/20 of the first 4 cents, or 0.002 cents per dollar collected, of sales tax on motor vehicles and accessory equipment Michigan— Comprehensive Transportation Fund (portion): portion of state motor fuel taxes— FY 2004, 2005=6%; FY 2003, 2006 and after=6.98% South Carolina—State Mass Transit Funds: 0.0025 cents per gallon gasoline tax TABLE 5 Selected state funding sources

– Florida DOT: 5% – Department of Elder Affairs: 3% – Department of Labor and Employment Security: <1% – Other federal/state programs: 4% • Iowa Highway Trust Fund: Iowa devotes 1/20 of the first 4 cents (or 0.002 cents per dollar collected) of the sales tax collected on sales of motor vehicles and accessory equipment to support public transportation. In addition, Iowa Code allows cities to levy a dedicated property tax for transit of $0.95 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Other local tax funding comes from General Fund levies and, sometimes, from trust and agency levies. • Michigan Comprehensive Transportation Fund (portion): As described above, a portion of this fund derives from motor vehicle taxes other than sales, such as registration and motor fuel taxes. • South Carolina State Mass Transit Funds: The state DOT receives the remainder of allocated highway and motor vehicle usage tax revenues to support transportation activities such as construction and mass transit. State Lottery and Casino Revenues Arizona and Pennsylvania are two states that use state lot- tery revenues to support transit or transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged. Similarly, New Jersey makes casino revenues available for the provision of service to seniors and people with disabilities. • Arizona Local Transportation Assistance Fund II: Rev- enues from the Vehicle License Tax and excess Power- ball (lottery) monies go to this fund, which received an estimated $15.4 million for FY2001. A local match of at least 100% for cities and towns with a population greater than 50,000, and a match of at least 25% for all other cities and towns is required. Eligible uses are for transit only, except for communities receiving less than $2,500, which may use funds for any local transporta- tion purpose. • Pennsylvania Lottery: Proceeds were initially targeted to provide property tax relief for the elderly. Since its introduction in 1971 by a legislative act, Title 91, pro- gram benefits funded by the Pennsylvania Lottery have expanded to include rent rebates, administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, and free and reduced-fare transit for older Pennsylvanians and reduced vehicle registration fees, programs adminis- tered by the Pennsylvania DOT. The Pennsylvania Department of Aging administers a co-pay prescription drug program, and the Pharmaceutical Assistance Con- tract for the Elderly, and allocates funding for services provided by AAAs, as well. The Pennsylvania Lottery is the only state lottery that exclusively targets its pro- ceeds to benefit older citizens. 64 The Lottery Programs for Older Pennsylvanians and Shared-Ride/Free Transit Program are available to senior citizens 65 years of age and older and received a total of $120.8 million in Lottery funds in fiscal year 2002– 2003. The Shared-Ride Program offers door-to-door shared-ride, demand-responsive services, for which rid- ers pay only 15% of the shared-ride fare. State Lottery proceeds are used to reimburse the participating ser- vice provider up to 85% of the fare. In 2001–2002, the 59 Shared-Ride operators served all 67 counties in the state, provided approximately 6 million rides to seniors, and received $62 million in Lottery funds. The Free Transit Program provides free transportation on local fixed-route bus, trolley, subway, elevated, and commuter rail services during off-peak hours weekdays and all day on weekends/holidays. Fifty-five programs provide ser- vice in 50 counties. In fiscal year 2002-2003, 39.6 million free rides were provided to seniors through this program. • New Jersey Casino Revenue Program: The Senior Cit- izen and Disabled Resident Transportation Assistance Act, passed in 1984, enables NJ TRANSIT’s Office of Special Services to apply a designated portion of the state’s casino revenues to the provision of transporta- tion services for seniors and people with disabilities. Of the funds that are dedicated to transportation, a small percentage is retained by NJ TRANSIT for upgrading the accessibility of fixed-route systems and administra- tion of the program. However, most of the funds are distributed to the coordinated paratransit systems oper- ating in each county. Funds may be used for capital, oper- ating, or administrative purposes. Transportation services may include feeder service that connects users to rail or fixed-route bus services, or traditional local paratran- sit services. State Programs to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services While many states encourage coordinated transportation efforts, some states provide financial incentives for coordi- nation initiatives. The following overview highlights several examples. • Florida’s Commission for the Transportation Disadvan- taged (CTD) was created in 1989 when the Florida State Legislature passed Chapter 427. The commission, whose members represent a variety of public agencies, citizens and consumers, and transportation professionals, over- sees the coordination and delivery of transportation ser- vices to transportation-disadvantaged individuals, as well as local government, federal, and state funding for such services. Transportation-disadvantaged individu- als include older adults, people with disabilities, low- income individuals, and children at risk.

The commission utilizes CTCs throughout the state to implement its policies and procedures at the local level. CTCs can be public, nonprofit, or for-profit entities and are selected through public competitive bidding. They serve as transportation brokers for a designated service area and contract with transportation operators for the provision of service to transportation-disadvantaged individuals in that area. State and local agencies are required to participate in the coordinated system if they receive local, state, or federal funds for the transporta- tion of transportation-disadvantaged people. These agen- cies contract with each CTC. LCBs identify local service needs and provide infor- mation, advice, and direction to the CTCs on the coor- dination of services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged. Each county has an LCB, with member- ship that is similar to that of the CTD. Located within the Florida DOT, the CTD is sup- ported by the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund, which was described earlier. Trust fund pro- ceeds are also used to subsidize transportation services provided to individuals whose service is not covered by another agency • North Carolina’s Human Service Transportation Man- agement Program provides administrative assistance to community transportation systems that provide only human services transportation or are located in one of the state’s urban areas. Funding ($2.4 million in FY 2004) is provided on a 75% state-25% local match ratio. • Ohio’s Coordination Program enhances and expands transportation through coordination in counties with no public transportation system. Projects must demonstrate some level of interagency coordination in their local area to be eligible for funding and must designate a lead agency and start the project within 90 days of contract award. Applicants may apply for up to 75% of their total direct operating expenses, to a maximum of $75,000 for a 1-year period. A 25% cash match is required, and a project may not receive funding at the $75,000 level for more than 3 years. Continuation grants are limited to $50,000 per year, and there is no limit to the number of years a project may receive a continuation grant. Fund- ing in the amount of $1.3 million was provided from State General Revenue Funds in Fiscal Year 2003. Regional and Local Funding Strategies In addition to funds that are available from federal and state programs, support for transportation services may be provided from regional or local sources. These may be from the general fund of local or regional governments or gener- ated by a dedicated tax source, such as a local sales or prop- erty tax. Such regional or local funds are often used to pro- vide the required match to federal assistance. 65 As of 2001, voters in 23 counties and 43 municipalities in Michigan that were served by public transit systems had approved local millages to support those systems (13). In Massachusetts, RTAs rely on local property tax revenues to fund at least 25% of expenses remaining after federal grants, farebox receipts, and other revenues have been applied to the annual operating deficit. Another approach to financing transportation services at the regional or local level is to coordinate a variety of fund- ing sources. While each source may be directed at serving a specific type of trip or client group, combining the individual funding streams can form the financial basis for a cohesive transportation system. The LYNX system in Orlando, Florida, is one such sys- tem. It serves the three-county Orlando urban area and has been designated by the state as the CTC for that area. As CTC, it provides paratransit service for the Medicaid, Transportation-Disadvantaged, and ADA programs. It does so by contracting with a regional transportation broker. It receives funding from the state from the Transportation Dis- advantaged Fund and from local human services agencies that contract for service from the broker. An unusual source of funding for this service is the Transportation Disadvan- taged Voluntary Trust Fund. Each time that a person in Florida registers or renews a vehicle license, he or she may choose to check a box that contributes $1 to this fund. Money collected in each county provides funding for transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in that area. The RIDES MTD in rural southern Illinois evolved from a nonprofit organization to a state-funded agency. This system began as a small nonprofit organization (Golden Circle Senior Citizens) that provided various transportation services for seniors in two counties. A succession of federal grant funds starting in the 1970s allowed it to gradually expand its ser- vices and open them to the general public. In 1990, the RIDES MTD was created under Illinois law and it took over the trans- portation operations of the nonprofit agency. The main pur- pose of this move was to make the organization eligible for state funding that could only go to MTDs, thus providing a more stable funding source than contracts with human services agencies. RIDES now serves nine counties and 70 to 80 human services agencies. Human Services Contracting A common source of local or regional funds for transporta- tion services for the transportation disadvantaged is through contracts with human services agencies. Often, human ser- vices agencies provide transportation services directly because of a lack of transportation alternatives for their clients. For example, AAAs may operate van services to enable their mobility-limited, senior clients to get to nutrition sites or activ- ities at the local senior center. Agencies that operate residences or programs for individuals with developmental disabilities may use program staff to transport clients to day programs.

However, for such agencies, transportation is not their primary mission and they are often more than willing to contract for such service if a suitable provider can be found. While the sources of funding for client services are likely to be many of the federal and state programs previously described, contracting with human services agencies is one way for transportation providers to access those funds. Many community transportation systems began in this man- ner. Service was first provided by a human services agency for its own clients. It might have done so with its own vehicles and drivers, or it might have contracted with a private trans- portation provider. The transportation provider may have operated such service for more than one agency and soon the nucleus of a more comprehensive service was formed. The ability to use resources such as vehicles and drivers more efficiently created a synergy that made it possible to serve more users than if the services had remained independent. Later, federal or state transportation funding may have been added to the mix, thereby requiring that the service be made available to the general public. Funding from Client-Specific Agencies Organizations that focus on advocacy or the provision of services for certain population groups may also be local sources of funding for transportation services. In Missouri, for example, Senate Bill 40, enacted by the state legislature in 1969, gives county residents the ability to dedicate tax rev- enues to services for individuals with developmental disabili- ties. The Developmental Disabilities Resource Board (DDRB) is the agency established in St. Charles County to oversee the programs and services provided for this group of county res- idents and their families. DDRB coordinates closely with the St. Louis Regional Center, the local branch of the state agency responsible for services for the developmentally disabled (i.e., the Department of Mental Health, Division of Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities). DDRB distributes several million dollars of property tax revenues annually to about 30 organizations for the develop- ment and operation of a variety of support programs and ser- vices.3 Many contracts between DDRB and service delivery organizations include transportation as an eligible expense, either as an identifiable item separate from other services or as part of a daily rate for services. In some cases, DDRB pro- vides matching funds for capital purchases. Organizations are required to exhaust all other possible funding sources before applying for assistance from DDRB. Often, DDRB funds cover the gap between reimbursements from the St. Louis Regional Center (mainly federal and state Medicaid funds that allow individuals to reside at home rather than in some type of facility) and the cost of providing services to the developmentally disabled population. 66 The federal Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), part of the Administration for Children and Families of DHHS, administers four grant programs created by the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (the ADD Act). One of those programs funds state councils on developmental disabilities, which work to make independent living and community inclusion a reality for indi- viduals with developmental disabilities. The ADD Act sets forth federal emphasis areas—employment, education, child care, health, housing, transportation, recreation, and quality assurance. State councils focus on all or a subset of those. The Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities (ICDD) makes grants available to organizations and individuals for the purpose of implementing programs and services that address its priority areas through periodic calls for investment. Cur- rent investments of the council are contributing to projects designed to increase access to transportation service for indi- viduals with developmental disabilities. Current projects include the following: • MetroLINK in Moline, Illinois, is expanding its trans- portation service area to include three rural counties, which will improve access for people with disabilities and others. • Voluntary Action Center of DeKalb County is provid- ing additional transportation service on weekdays, serv- ing destinations such as job sites, health care facilities, educational institutions, and shopping areas. • Greater Peoria MTD is pursuing coordinated, regional transportation services in rural Peoria County. Foundation Funding Public and private foundations can be excellent resources for transportation funding, although they are not often con- sidered by agencies looking for such funds. Foundation funds typically fall into four categories, according to the Founda- tion Center’s website (14): • Private foundation: a nongovernmental, nonprofit orga- nization with an endowment (usually donated from a sin- gle source, such as an individual, family, or corporation) and a program managed by its own trustees or directors. Private foundations are established to maintain or aid social, educational, religious, or other charitable activities serving the common welfare, primarily through making of grants. • Corporate grant-maker: corporate giving programs and company-sponsored foundations. Corporate giving pro- grams are grant-making programs established and admin- istered within a for-profit business organization. They dif- fer from company-sponsored foundations (also referred to as corporate foundations) in that the foundation, while it derives it assets primarily from the for-profit business 3 $0.16 for every $100 of assessed value is dedicated to programs and services for individuals with developmental disabilities in St. Charles County.

and may maintain close ties with the parent company, is an independent organization. A corporate-sponsored foundation has its own endowment and as such is sub- ject to the same rules and regulations as other private foundations. Some companies make charitable contri- butions through both a corporate giving program and a company-sponsored foundation. • Grant-making public charity: a nongovernmental public charity that operates grants programs benefiting unre- lated organizations or individuals as one of its primary purposes. There is no legal or IRS definition of a public foundation, but such a designation is needed to encom- pass the growing number of grant-making institutions that are not private foundations. • Community foundations: 501(c)(3) organizations that make grants for charitable purposes in a specific commu- nity or region. The funds available to a community foun- dation are usually derived from many donors and held in an endowment that is independently administered; income earned by the endowment is then used to make grants. Although a community foundation may be classi- fied by the IRS as a private foundation, most are classi- fied as public charities and are thus eligible for maximum tax-deductible contributions from the general public. Although few foundations specifically fund transportation projects, many provide support in areas that are directly or indirectly related to transportation, such as social welfare, health care access, smart growth, economic development, and environmental sustainability. In general, program goals and guidelines vary dramatically from foundation to foundation. However, many foundations explicitly state that they will not fund capital or ongoing operating expenses. Thus, trans- portation providers are more likely to obtain funding for new and innovative programs that fit into a foundation’s program goals than for general vehicle purchases or reimbursement of operating expenses. An excellent use of foundation funding 67 might be to jump-start a program that will later be funded by other sources, such as state or local funding. Additionally, many foundations are geographically focused in their support of nonprofit organizations. Thus, in looking for support from public and private foundations, transporta- tion providers may want to concentrate on ones that specifi- cally fund nonprofit organizations in their state or locality. Moreover, most foundations will only fund nonprofit organi- zations that have 501(c)(3) status. Table 6 lists just a few of the foundations that trans- portation providers may approach for funding transporta- tion initiatives, while the following paragraphs describe each foundation in more detail. It should be noted that this is by no means an exhaustive list of potential funding founda- tions, but rather is meant to give the reader an idea of the types of programs funded by foundations, as well as the types of guidelines generally imposed by foundations. Additional guid- ance for finding potential foundations to fund transportation programs is provided later in this chapter. Resources that can be helpful in identifying foundations that support transporta- tion projects and preparing grant proposals are listed in Appen- dix D and Appendix E on the accompanying CD-ROM. The Bullitt Foundation. The Bullitt Foundation is focused on “protection and restoration of the environment of the Pacific Northwest” (14). Grantmaking activities are focused on non- profit organizations that serve Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, western Montana, and the rain forest region of southern Alaska. Program areas include the following: • Energy and climate change • Forests and land ecosystems • Growth management and transportation • Public outreach, education, and capacity building • Rivers, wetlands, and estuaries • Sustainable agriculture • Toxic substances, mining, and radioactive waste Foundation Eligible Recipients Eligible Grant Uses Related to Transportation Bullitt Foundation Nonprofit organizations serving WA, OR, ID, British Columbia, and parts of MT and AK Growth management and transportation Pew Charitable Trusts Nonprofit organizations Health and human services Meyer Foundation Community-based nonprofit organizations Increasing the welfare of low-income individuals and improving neighborhoods National Kidney Foundation Kidney disease patients and organizations providing services to these patients Support for kidney disease patients and their families, including transportation assistance TABLE 6 Selected foundation funding sources

The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Pew Charitable Trusts are based in Philadelphia and support nonprofit activities in the areas of culture, education, the environment, health and human services, public policy, and religion. Both national and local funding is available through the trusts. One of the more rel- evant programs for transportation providers is the health and human services program, which is designed to promote the health and well-being of Americans and to strengthen dis- advantaged communities (15). The Meyer Foundation. The Meyer Foundation is focused in the greater Washington, D.C., area and supports “community- based nonprofit organizations that foster the well-being of all people in the region” (16). Goals of particular concern to the foundation are improving the welfare of low-income people and creating healthy neighborhoods. National Kidney Foundation. The mission of the National Kidney Foundation is “to prevent kidney and urinary tract diseases, improve the health and well-being of individuals and families affected by these diseases, and increase the avail- ability of all organs for transplantation” (17). The Foundation has six goals, according to its website (17): • Educating the public • Supporting research • Expanding patient services • Providing continuing professional education • Shaping health policy • Fund raising Under its Patient and Community Services Program, the foundation provides support for kidney disease patients and their families, which may include aid for transportation. Healthcare Foundation for Orange County. Healthcare Foundation for Orange County, California, was formed with excess funds from the acquisition of the United Western Med- ical Centers (a nonprofit hospital) by OrNda Healthcare (for- profit company) The foundation’s mission is “to improve the health of the neediest and most underserved residents of Orange County, with particular emphasis on United Western Medical Center’s historic service area of Central Orange County” (18). One of the specific areas that the Foundation focuses on is removing access barriers, such as those due to transportation. Preference is given to “programs that maxi- mize existing resources and enable individuals and commu- nities to take charge of their own health” (18). The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The overreaching goal of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is to improve the health and health care of all Americans. Among the foun- dation’s program goals is assuring that all Americans have access to quality health care at a reasonable cost. The foun- dation funds a variety of grantees, including hospitals; med- 68 ical, nursing, and public schools; hospices; professional asso- ciations; research organizations; state and local government agencies; and community groups. Funding is provided via both competitive national calls for proposals and unsolicited proposals. General operating expenses and capital costs will not be funded by the foundation. The Public Welfare Foundation. The Public Welfare Foun- dation is dedicated “to supporting organizations that provide services to disadvantaged populations and work for lasting improvements in the delivery of services that meet basic human needs” (19). The Foundation has a wide range of inter- ests including community support; the disadvantaged elderly; employment, training, and alternative education; health; and the environment. IDENTIFYING FUNDING SOURCES Wading through the labyrinth of transportation and human services funding programs, regulations, guidelines, and con- straints can be an arduous and complex task. Fortunately, many of the resources cited in Chapter 4 as starting points for identifying existing transportation providers in a local area can also provide helpful information about funding programs. In addition, a number of aids to locating foundations whose funding priorities may include transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged are also available. Identifying Public Sources of Funding This chapter has presented an overview of the major sources of public funding that can be used to support specialized or coordinated transportation services and examples of the types of funding strategies that are being used by transportation providers across the country. For additional information, con- sider the following steps: • Use the Internet to research funding programs in more depth and to obtain the latest information. • Network locally or within your state with other organi- zations that have an interest in transportation issues. • Keep abreast of developments in proposed new pro- grams, particularly at the federal and state levels. Whether your organization is a transportation provider or a human services agency, the most comprehensive single source of information about federal transportation funding programs is CTAA. CTAA’s publication, “Building Mobil- ity Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Funding,” was the source of much of the information presented in this chapter and several of the appendixes. The guide, which is updated periodically, is available on CTAA’s website, www.ctaa.org. Click on Information Station and then on Funding. The CTAA website is also a good place to find current information about

proposals for new federal programs and initiatives and leg- islative developments, all of which can affect specialized transportation funding. For more detail about the requirements associated with fed- eral funding programs, the websites of the federal transporta- tion and human services agencies that administer the programs can be helpful. Start at www.firstgov.gov, or go directly to the FTA (www.fta.dot.gov) or DHHS (www.dhhs.gov) websites for links to program and agency information. State DOTs and regional and state-level human services agencies can also be sources of information. Refer to the sec- tion on locating transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in your area in Chapter 3 for tips on identify- ing relevant organizations. If you are located in an urbanized area with a population over 50,000, another organization with which you should be acquainted is the region’s MPO. Involvement with this plan- ning body, through participation on its citizen’s advisory com- mittee or attendance at public meetings as described in Chap- ter 5, can help you to gain insight into funding opportunities and processes (as well as to bring transportation issues of concern to the attention of the MPO). In nonurbanized areas, county or municipal planning departments may be able to serve the same function. Finally, if you are not already a member of your state tran- sit association, consider joining or participating in activities it sponsors. Meetings and conferences typically include pre- sentations by federal or state officials on topics such as fund- ing programs and new initiatives. Discussion of issues with organizations that have the same interests and challenges as yours can also be educational and lead to the formation of beneficial partnerships. Identifying Foundations That Fund Transportation Projects The prospect of identifying sources of foundation funding for transportation services may be discouraging, but some key resources can make the task easier. Perhaps the most widely recognized source of information is the Foundation Center, an independent, nonprofit organi- zation founded in 1956. The Foundation Center serves as a clearinghouse of information about grants available through- out the country. It offers the following methods for research- ing potential funding foundations: • Center Libraries and Cooperating Collections: The Cen- ter operates libraries in New York, Atlanta, Cleveland, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. Additionally, 220 Cooperating Collections are offered around the country (in local libraries, for example). Cooperating Collections have a core collection of the Center’s resources. The five Center libraries have staff trained to help with founda- tion searches. Free orientations on how to use Center 69 resources are available at the libraries and at many of the Cooperating Collections. All Center libraries and Coop- erating Collections maintain a selection of books and periodicals relating to fundraising and philanthropy. The Literature of the Nonprofit Sector Online, a web-based version of the Center’s bibliographic database, lists and abstracts many of these resources. • Electronic Resources: Grantseeking organizations can order FC Search: The Foundation Center’s Database on CD-ROM, which includes more than 70,000 grant mak- ers and 202,000 grant listings. CD-ROM prices range from $1,200 to $1,900, or the database can be used free of charge at any Foundation Center library or Cooperat- ing Collection. FC Search is searchable by subject, name of foundation, geographic focus, and other categories. • Online Resources: The Foundation Center’s database information is also available online. Individuals and agencies may do basic searches free of charge. More detailed searches of the Foundation Directory Online are available by purchasing an online subscription. The Center offers four different subscription levels (offering varying levels of access to information), ranging from $19.95 to over $200 per month. Additionally, the libraries in New York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco offer fee-based custom database searches for the public. The Foundation Directory Online subscription page is avail- able online at http://fconline.fdncenter.org/. • Publications: The Foundation Center’s online Market- place offers published directories, guides, research reports, and books for grantseekers. The Marketplace has descriptions of all Foundation Center print and elec- tronic publications, as well as some of the Center's other services. Directories of foundations are available at the national, regional, or international levels. Directories for specific subject areas are also available. Additionally, grantseekers can subscribe to the Foundation Center’s weekly newsletter, Philanthropy News Digest, which offers a compendium of philanthropy-related articles. The Marketplace is available online at http://fdncenter. org/marketplace/ • Courses: The Foundation Center offers a variety of classroom-based and online courses, including an Online Orientation to the Grantseeking Process. Information on the Center’s educational offerings is available online at http://fdncenter.org/learn/ The Foundation Center also includes an online listing of websites maintained by community foundations, another source for geographically specific funding; it is available at http://fdncenter.org/funders/grantmaker/gws_comm/comm. html. Additionally, the Center has compiled a bibliography of grantmaker directories, which are state-specific. These books are typically published by nonprofit organizations, public libraries, or for-profit publishers and are sometimes available electronically. The Foundation Center’s list of state founda-

tion publications is shown in Appendix E on the accompany- ing CD-ROM; the list is taken from the Guide to U.S. Foun- dations: Their Trustees, Officers and Donors, which is another excellent source for finding potential funding foun- dations and is also available from the Foundation Center. In addition to the Foundation Center, there are a few other sources of information for grantseeking organizations. The Council on Foundations is an association of more than 1,500 grant-making foundations and corporations. The Council is geared more toward serving the needs of grantmakers than those of grantseekers. Nonetheless, it does maintain informa- tion on its members, and this information can be accessed via its website, http://www.cof.org/. Similarly, Foundations On- Line offers a small directory of charitable grantmakers, avail- able at http://www.foundations.org/. However, the Founda- tion Center is by far the most comprehensive resource for finding foundations, and transportation providers are likely to have the greatest level of success using the Center’s resources. ADVICE FROM PRACTITIONERS AND OTHER RESOURCES Practitioners’ Advice Guidance from case study subjects related to funding and other financial issues is summarized below. • Focus on cost savings early in the process. It is helpful to have a clear idea of what some of the concrete bene- fits of coordination may be. • Develop better cost information. Many agencies are unaware of the true cost of the transportation service that they provide. This creates problems when billing third-party agencies and also keeps agencies from real- izing how much money they devote to transportation. A cost allocation methodology should allow “apple-to- apple” comparisons between service proposals by a pub- lic entity and nonprofit agencies. It may be difficult to explain the benefits of contracting with a public pro- vider to such agencies because they compare the cost of contracting to their own estimates, which often do not represent the full cost of providing the service. Stan- dardized guidelines and procedures for costing such ser- vices would be useful. 70 • Recognize that benefits may not be realized immedi- ately but may be long-term. Decision makers often want to see an immediate cost-savings from a coordination initiative. However, cost savings and other benefits may not be immediately apparent. Participants need to real- ize the value of long-term impacts. • Start-up funding is likely to be necessary. Although a primary goal is often to save money, getting a coordi- nation effort underway usually requires some front-end money for planning, buying necessary technology, etc. • Prepare to spend financial resources on ongoing man- agement and administrative functions. Consider expen- ditures on items such as a sufficient number of well- qualified staff and tools such as hardware and software as an investment in the future success of the coordina- tion initiative. • Enlist the aid of a coordination partner with access to significant financial resources. The participation of such a partner can make it much easier to acquire large items, such as hardware or software, which may be needed for the coordination effort. • Be aware that budget cutbacks at various levels of gov- ernment may affect transportation service coordination efforts. On the one hand, cutbacks may provide addi- tional incentives to find ways of more effectively coor- dinating service, thereby saving money. On the other hand, the stronger effect may be to reduce the amount of funds that could otherwise be made available for coordination efforts, particularly some of the front-end money needed to plan the coordination effort or to pur- chase necessary equipment or technology. Other Funding-Related Resources For more information about potential federal sources of funding for transportation services, see Building Mobility Partnerships for People with Disabilities: Opportunities for Federal Funding and Promising Practices, prepared by CTAA and Easter Seals Project ACTION for the U. S. DOT, FTA, June 2002. Appendix F, on the accompanying CD-ROM, provides an index of case studies, coordination guidebooks, and other doc- uments that contain information about funding sources.

Next: Chapter 7 - Use of Technology »
Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 105: Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged examines strategies for initiating or improving coordination of local and regional publicly funded transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!