National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 2 - Understanding Vehicle Operator Recruitment and Retention Issues
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - National Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14415.
×
Page 48

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.

23 Development of the Survey A survey was also developed and administered to get broad feedback from the industry on ADA paratransit vehicle oper- ator issues. The survey was developed to be answered both by public transit agencies and by private companies providing ADA paratransit services under contract to public entities. A general set of questions was developed to be answered by all public transit agencies, regardless of whether they operated service directly or contracted out for some or all of the ser- vice. Additional questions were then included for public tran- sit agencies that operated some or all of their ADA paratran- sit service in-house. Public transit agencies that contracted out for some or all of their ADA paratransit service were then asked to forward the survey to all of their private contractors. The survey was structured to then get specific information from these private contractors. Finally, the survey was structured to have slightly different questions for public agencies and private contractors who operated only ADA paratransit service versus those who were involved in the operation of both ADA paratransit and fixed- route services. For example, for entities that operated both types of services, questions about pay rates and fringe bene- fits asked for information for both modes. A copy of the questions included in the electronic survey is provided in Appendix A. Distribution of the Survey Two separate electronic mailings of the survey were com- pleted. The first, in March of 2008, was sent to 352 public transit agencies included on the member contact list of the American Public Transit Association (APTA). APTA pro- vided an electronic list of these member agencies. The survey was sent electronically to the persons listed as the primary APTA contacts with instructions to forward it to the appro- priate individuals in the agency. A second electronic mailing was conducted in May 2008 to 282 public transit agencies listed as members of the Commu- nity Transportation Association of America (CTAA). The list provided by CTAA was cross-checked with the APTA list to eliminate duplicates. Responses The online survey link was kept open through June of 2008. Responses were received from 76 public transit agen- cies. In some cases, respondents did not complete all of the questions in the survey. Of the 76 public transit agencies that responded, 50 complete responses were received. Responses were also received from 47 private contractors. This included 39 contractors who provided service for 26 of the public transit agencies that also completed the survey. In some cases, this included multiple contractors for a single transit agency. It also included eight private contractors of public transit agencies that did not complete the survey (the public entities forwarded the survey to their contractor with- out completing the public agency questions). In total, a response—either from the public transit agency and/or from one or more contractors—was received from 84 transit districts across the country. Given that surveys were sent to 634 different public agencies, this represents about a 13% response rate. Responses were received from public transit agencies and private contractors in 27 states. Of the 76 public transit agen- cies that responded, 21 were in large urban areas, 26 were in medium-sized cities, and 29 were in rural areas or small urban communities. Responses were also received from service providers of all sizes. The total number of ADA paratransit vehicle operators ranged from 2 to 522. Table 3-1 shows the distribution of respondents by number of total ADA paratransit operators employed. As shown, a total of 69 respondents indicated that they employed vehicle operators directly. Among these 69, there was a fairly good distribution of operations by size. C H A P T E R 3 National Survey Results

Perceived Impacts of Operator Recruitment and Retention (Public Entities) Public transit agencies were asked to indicate what impact vehicle operator recruitment and retention had on ADA para- transit services in their area. They were asked to indicate if there had been no impact, minimal adverse impact, a moderate adverse impact, or a significant adverse impact. A “Not Sure” response option was also provided. A total of 83 responses to this question were received from public transit agencies. As noted in the beginning of this section, responses were received from a total of 76 different public transit agencies. In a few cases, multiple responses to this question were received from the same transit agency. Thirty of these contracted out and 53 provided services in-house. Responses are shown in Figure 3-1. Overall, 20 of the 83 agencies (24%) indicated that vehicle operator recruitment and retention had no impact on ser- vices. Another 18 agencies (22%) indicated that vehicle oper- ator recruitment had minimal impact. Twenty-five agencies (30%) indicated a moderate impact, and 18 agencies (22%) indicated a significant impact. Responses varied significantly depending on whether ser- vices were operated in-house or contracted. Nineteen of the 20 entities that reported “No Impact” were transit agencies that operated services in-house. Eleven of the 18 that indi- cated “Minimal Impact” were also in-house operations. On the other hand, 15 of the 25 that reported “Moderate Impact” were contracted operations, but 11 of the 18 that reported “Significant Impacts” were in-house operations. Workforce Status In order to gauge the seriousness of the issue from providers as well as administering agencies, a second question about impacts was asked. All entities that operated service, both public entities that provided service in-house as well as pri- vate contractors, were asked to indicate the status of their paratransit vehicle operator workforces. They were asked to 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 No Impact Minimal Adverse Impact Moderate Adverse Impact Significant Adverse Impact Not Sure Public Transit Agencies (Contracted)-30 Responses Public Transit Agencies (In-house Operations)-53 Responses Figure 3-1. Perceived impacts of vehicle operator recruitment and retention. Number of ADA Paratransit Vehicle Operators Number of Respondents 2-25 13 26-50 9 51-75 13 76-100 10 101-200 18 201+ 6 Total 69 Table 3-1. Distribution of survey respondents.

indicate if they (1) had a full complement of operators and had no issues, (2) did not always have a full complement of operators and had experienced somewhat of a problem, or (3) experienced constant shortages of vehicle operators and had significant ongoing issues with recruitment and reten- tion. A “Not Sure” response option was also provided. A total of 67 agencies and companies provided a response to this question. This included 26 public agencies that oper- ated all or some service in-house and 41 private contractors. Responses are shown in Figure 3-2. Sixty-two (24 public agencies and 38 private contractors) indicated one of the standard responses offered. Five provided “other” informa- tion different from the standard responses offered. Overall, 23 of the 62 respondents (37%) indicated that they had a full complement of vehicle operators. Twenty-eight respondents (or 45%) indicated that they do not always have a full complement and experienced some service issues related to operator recruitment and retention. Ten respondents (16%) indicated a constant shortage of operators and a significant impact on services. Again, there was some difference between public entities that operated service and private contractors. Twelve of the 24 public entities that answered this question (50%) indi- cated a full workforce and no issues. A lower percentage of private contractors (11 of 38, or 29%) reported a full work- force. Seven public entities (28%) indicated some workforce shortages and some service issues. On the other hand, 21 of 38 private contractors (55%) reported some workforce short- ages and some service issues. Equal percentages of public and private agencies reported a constant workforce shortage— 4 of the 25 public entities (16%), and 6 of the 38 private con- tractors (16%). Pre-Qualification Requirements Most ADA paratransit services require pre-qualifications for ADA paratransit vehicle operators. These include mini- mum age requirements, good driving records, no criminal background, and other requirements. Respondents who indi- cated that they hired and managed ADA paratransit vehicle operators were asked to indicate the types of pre-qualifica- tions used in their systems. Seven common pre-qualifications were listed as well as an “Other” option. Figure 3-3 shows responses to this question. As shown in Figure 3-3, all 69 public agencies and private contractors that provided this information required a good driving record, criminal background checks, and pre- employment drug and alcohol tests. All but one also had a minimum age requirement. Sixty respondents (87%) also required proficiency in English. CDL licenses are required of all vehicle operators at 29 of the 69 systems (42%). Another 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Full Complement of Operators Do Not Always Have a Full Complement of Operators Constant Shortage of Operators Not Sure Other Public Transit Agencies- 26 Responses Private Providers- 41 Responses Total- 67 Responses Figure 3-2. Paratransit vehicle operator workforce status.

16 systems (23%) only require CDL licenses for operators who drive larger vehicles in the fleet. Ten respondents indicated that they had other pre- qualification requirements not on the survey list. These other requirements included the following: • “Pre-employment physical.” • “Must pass FCE prior to starting work.” • “Approved I-9 Identification to work in USA.” • “Mapping skills, customer service skills.” • “Attend defensive driving courses. Also, CPR, first aid. Also, University of Wisconsin Passenger Safety and Sensi- tivity training.” • “We offer paid training. This includes training for the CDL license. Must be able to read a map book. Must have good customer relation skills. Must be open to working all shifts and weekends. Must be able to work well with passengers with disabilities.” • “Out of State Residency Check.” • “Act 33 Child Abuse Clearance.” • “Must complete the following training programs: Defen- sive Driving, Passenger Assistance, Map Reading, First Aid/ CPR.” • “There is no pre-qualification that an applicant must have a CDL license, however, they must be able to attain one as it is necessary to have this license prior to working as an Opera- tor and they will receive it through the training process.” Hours of Training Survey respondents were asked to indicate how many hours of classroom training and on-the-road training were provided to ADA paratransit vehicle operators. A review of the responses indicated there was a significant difference between the number of hours of training provided by many public transit agencies versus hours of training provided by private contractors provid- ing service on behalf of public transit agencies. Figure 3-4 shows the average hours of each type of training for public agencies, private contractors, and for all respondents. Overall, ADA paratransit vehicle operators receive an aver- age of 127 total hours of training which includes 59 hours of classroom training and 68 hours of on-the-road training. Operators employed by public transit agencies receive signif- icantly more training. These employees receive an average of 182 total hours of training, made up of 88 hours of classroom training and 94 hours of on-the-road training. Private con- tractors reported providing an average of 97 hours of total training—43 hours of classroom training and 54 hours of on-the-road training. Training Completion Rates All respondents who indicated that they operated services were asked to indicate how many vehicle operator candidates had started training in the past 12 months and how many 26 2 21 26 26 26 7 15 26 8 39 43 43 43 9 14 42 10 60 69 69 69 16 29 68 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Other Must be proficient in English Must pass drug & alcohol test Must pass criminal background check Good driving record CDL license for larger vehicles only All must have CDL license Minimum age requirement Number of Respondents That Require Total Private contractors Public agencies Figure 3-3. ADA paratransit vehicle operator pre-qualifications.

completed the training. A training completion percentage was then calculated for each. Reported training completion rates are shown in Figure 3-5 for both public and private enti- ties. Note that four systems indicated a 0% training comple- tion rate. These were relatively small systems (three public and one private) that had little or no turnover and therefore few or no trainees. Fifty-nine respondents provided this information—25 public agencies and 34 private contractors. Overall, the 59 respondents indicated that 66% of recruits completed train- ing and 34% did not. For public entities, the average comple- tion rate was 77%, and the drop-out rate 23%. For private contractors, an average of 60% of recruits completed training while 40% did not. Reasons for High Training Drop-Out Rates Respondents who reported that a relatively high percent- age of recruits did not complete training (defined in the sur- vey as more than 33%) were asked to indicate why they felt the drop-out rate was high. Twelve respondents offered the following explanations for the high turnover rates in their system. • “I believe that this job requires more skills than just driv- ing. Many applicants apply for a driving position and then realize it also requires a high level of customer ser- vice, patience, and compassion. Once they realize it is more than just driving, they tend to seek other employment. I feel the pay rates for operators in this capacity should be several dollars per hour higher than the national average is currently paying. Additionally, a lack of benefits such as medical insurance has lead to high turnover rates as well.” • “Low pay and/or training wage.” • “More responsibility than salary warrants.” • “Work is harder than anticipated.” • “Failure of background checks.” • “Inability to map route/decipher manifest.” • “Difficulty working with persons with disabilities.” • “Too much stress.” • “Overall job pressure.” • “Conflicting second jobs.” • “Failure of Class B license exam.” • “Problems understanding technology.” Five of the reasons included in the previous list cite the stresses, responsibilities, and difficulties of the job. Three also cite low pay and poor fringe benefits, and two of these indicate that the compensation does not match the requirements and difficulties of the job. Difficulties with map reading, under- standing the required technology, failing Class B exams, and conflicting second jobs were cited once each. Annual Post-Training Turnover Rates Respondents that provide ADA paratransit service directly were also asked to indicate the total number of ADA para- transit vehicle operators in the workforce and the number of post-training vehicle operator terminations in the past 27 88 43 59 94 54 68 182 97 127 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Public Agency Operators Private Contractor Operators All Operators Ho ur s of T ra in in g (A ve rag e) Hours of Classroom Training Hours of On-the-Road Training Total Hours of Training Figure 3-4. Average hours of classroom, on-the-road, and total training for ADA paratransit vehicle operators hired by public transit agencies and private contractors.

12 months. An annual turnover rate for vehicle operators was then calculated. Reported annual turnover rates are shown on Figure 3-6. Again, rates reported by public entities are shown in black and rates for private companies in gray. Note that all five of the systems that indicated no turnover in the past 12 months were public entities. Sixty-three respondents provided the information used in Figure 3-6—23 public entities and 40 private companies. Over- all, the 63 respondents indicated an annual post-training ADA paratransit vehicle operator turnover rate of 27%. For public entities, the average annual turnover rate was 14%. For private contractors, the average annual turnover rate was 30%. Work Assignments Respondents who indicated that they provided ADA para- transit services directly were asked to indicate how paratran- sit work was assigned to vehicle operators. Three choices were provided as well as an “Other” response where another method could be described. The three provided choices were: “Vehi- cle operators pick work shifts based on seniority,” “Vehicle operators are hired for a specific work shift and the shift does not vary,” and “Vehicle operators are assigned work shifts by managers/schedulers as needed.” Figure 3-7 shows the responses to this question. As shown in Figure 3-7, most ADA paratransit vehicle operators pick work shifts based on seniority. This is the case in 55 of the 68 systems (81%) that responded to the question about how paratransit work is assigned. In 13 systems (19%), managers and schedulers assign work to operators as needed. No systems indicated that vehicle operators are hired for spe- cific work shifts. One private company indicated “Other” and noted that work is assigned in all three ways, with some work selected based on seniority, some assigned by managers/ schedulers as needed, and some vehicle operators hired for specific shifts. Use of Split Shifts In order to efficiently provide capacity only during morn- ing and afternoon peak periods, some transit agencies use split shifts. Operators are asked to work several hours through the morning peak period, take a 2-3 hour unpaid break during the middle of the day, and then work for several hours through the afternoon peak. This practice of using split shifts is used for both fixed-route and paratransit services. It sometimes is 28 Private Providers Public Transit Agencies 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average Training Completion Rate Among all Providers: 66 Percent Average Training Completion Rate for Public Transit Agencies: 77 Percent Average Training Completion Rate for Private Providers: 60 Percent Figure 3-5. Training completion rates for public and private paratransit operators.

29 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average Turnover Rate Among all Providers: 27 Percent Average Turnover Rate Among Public Transit Agencies: 14 Percent Average Turnover Rate Among Private Providers: 30 Percent Private Providers Public Transit Agencies Figure 3-6. Annual ADA paratransit vehicle operator turnover rates. 0 5 0 22 1 8 0 33 1 13 0 55 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Other Work shifts assigned by managers/schedulers as needed Operators hired for specific work shifts Vehicle operators pick work shift based on seniority Total Private contractors Public agencies Figure 3-7. How paratransit work is assigned. not popular with vehicle operators, and excessive use of split shifts could affect job satisfaction and retention. Survey respondents were asked to indicate what percent- age of ADA paratransit vehicle operators were asked to work split shifts. They were also asked to indicate if these operators were full-time or part-time employees. Finally, they were asked for similar information about fixed-route vehicle oper- ators if they indicated that they directly operated both types of services. Table 3-2 summarizes the responses received. A total of 67 respondents provided this information. This included 24 public systems that operate services directly and 43 private contractors. Twenty of the public agencies indi- cated that they operate both ADA paratransit and fixed-route services and four provide just ADA paratransit service. Ten of

the 43 private contractors operate both ADA paratransit and fixed-route service, and 33 indicated that they operate only ADA paratransit services. Overall, 42 public and private respondents indicated that some full-time paratransit operators were assigned split shifts. On average, 22% of the full-time paratransit operators in these systems worked split shifts. Only 18 of the respondents indi- cated that part-time operators were used for split shifts in para- transit operations. In these systems, about 13% of part-timers were assigned split shifts. Use of split shifts was more prevalent in fixed-route oper- ations. Overall, 26 of the 30 public agencies and private con- tractors that operated fixed-route services indicated that full-time fixed-route operators were assigned split shifts. On average, 35% of the full-time fixed-route operators in these systems worked split shifts. Ten of the 20 fixed-route systems indicated that part-time operators were used for split shifts. In these systems, about 19% of part-time operators were assigned split shifts. Public transit agencies reported using split shifts slightly more than private contractors. Nineteen of the 24 public agen- cies that provide ADA paratransit services directly indicated using some full-time paratransit operators for split shifts. On average, about 28% of the full-time operators in these 19 sys- tems worked split shifts. Only seven of the 24 public systems indicated using part-time paratransit operators for split shifts. In these seven systems, about 18% of part-time paratransit operators worked split shifts. Use of split shifts was more prevalent in public fixed-route operations. Eighteen of the 20 public agencies that reported providing fixed-route services directly indicated that full- time fixed-route operators work splits shifts. Seven of the 20 systems used part-time fixed-route operators for splits. On average, 37% of full-time fixed-route operators work split shifts, and 22% of part-time fixed-route operators work split shifts. Twenty-three of the 43 private contractors reported using full-time operators for split shifts in ADA paratransit opera- tions. On average, about 18% of full-time paratransit operators in these 23 systems worked split shifts. Only 11 of the 43 pri- vate contractors reported using part-time paratransit operators for split shifts. In the 11 systems, about 10% of part-time para- transit operators worked split shifts. The 10 private contractors that operated fixed-route as well as paratransit services reported greater use of split shifts in fixed-route operation. Eight of these 10 systems used full-time fixed-route operators for split shifts, and about 31% of these full-time operators worked split shifts. Three of the 10 private fixed-route contractors used part-time fixed-route operators for split shifts, and about 11% of these part-time operators worked split shifts. Pay Rates Respondents who indicated that they hired vehicle opera- tors and provided services directly were asked for the train- ing, starting, and maximum pay rates of ADA paratransit vehicle operators. Public entities and private contractors who indicated that they operated fixed-route services in the same area were also asked for similar pay information for fixed- route vehicle operators. Table 3-3 summarizes the informa- tion received. 30 Public Transit Agencies Private Contractors Total Total Responses 24 43 67 Systems Providing ADA Paratransit 24 43 67 Using full-time paratransit operators for split shifts 19 23 42 Average % of full-time paratransit Operators working split shifts 28% 18% 22% Using part-time paratransit operators for split shifts 7 11 18 Average % of part-time paratransit Operators working split shifts 18% 10% 13% Systems Providing Fixed-Route Service 20 10 30 Using full-time fixed-route operators for split shifts 18 8 26 Average % of full-time fixed-route Operators working split shifts 37% 31% 35% Using part-time fixed-route operators for split shifts 7 3 10 Average % of part-time fixed-route Operators working split shifts 22% 11% 19% Table 3-2. Use of split shifts in ADA paratransit and fixed-route operations by public transit agencies and private contractors.

As shown in Table 3-3, ADA paratransit vehicle operator training wages ranged from $4.80 to $15, while fixed-route vehicle operator training wages were slightly higher, ranging from $5.15 to $16.79. Public entities reported slightly higher average training wages ($9.81 average for paratransit and $10.77 average for fixed route) compared to private com- panies ($8.93 average for paratransit and $9.13 average for fixed route). ADA paratransit vehicle operator starting wages ranged from $7 to $15.77, and fixed-route vehicle operator starting wages ranged from $8.15 to $19.51. Public entities reported higher average starting wages ($12.06 average for paratransit and $12.65 average for fixed route) compared to private com- panies ($10.47 average for paratransit and $11.39 average for fixed route). ADA paratransit vehicle operator maximum wages ranged from $7.90 to $23.74, and fixed-route vehicle operator max- imum wages ranged from $9.15 to $24.93. Public entities reported higher average maximum wages ($16.88 average for paratransit and $18.59 average for fixed route) compared to private companies ($14.14 average for paratransit and $14.94 average for fixed route). Use of Pay Differentials Survey respondents were also asked if they used hourly pay differentials to compensate vehicle operators for “less desir- able” work assignments. Respondents were asked if they used pay differentials for part-time work, split shifts, or evening and weekend work assignments. Sixty respondents provided this requested information. This included 21 public transit agencies that operate service directly and 39 private contractors. Table 3-4 shows the responses. Only eight systems reported using pay differentials—two public transit agencies and six private contractors. The six pri- vate contractors indicated that pay differentials were only used in ADA paratransit operations. One of the two public agencies also only used pay differentials for ADA paratransit. The other public agency used pay differentials in both ADA paratransit and fixed-route operations. Only one system used pay differ- entials for part-time work. And only one system used pay dif- ferentials for split shifts. Seven systems used pay differentials for evening and weekend work. One of these seven stated that an extra $1.50 per hour is paid to vehicle operators who work Saturdays and double pay is provided for work on holidays. A second respondent stated that an extra 15% is paid for night work. One respondent who indicated that pay differentials were not currently in use noted, “unions would agree to vari- able pay rates.” Impact of Wages on Turnover To determine if there was a relationship between vehicle operator turnover and the amount of wages paid, these two data elements were charted. Figure 3-8 shows the result of this cross-tabulation. Starting wages for ADA paratransit vehicle 31 Training Wage Paratransit Operators Paratransit Operators Private ProvidersPublic Transit Agencies Fixed Route Operators Fixed Route Operators Starting Wage Maximum Wage Range Average $7-$13.69 $8.15-$15.14 $9.13 $11.39 $9.15-$19.79 $14.94 $7-$15 $7-$14.06 $8.93 $10.47 $7.90-$20 $14.14 $5.15-$16.79 $9-$19.51 $10.77 $12.65 $12.27-$24.93 $18.59 $9.50-$15.77 $12.06 $11.81-$23.74 $16.88 $4.80-$14.19 $9.81 Range Average Range Average Table 3-3. Vehicle operator pay rates by type of entity and type of service (67 responses total). Public Transit Agencies Private Contractors Total Total Responses 21 39 60 Use pay differentials for part-time work 1 1 Use pay differentials for split shifts 1 1 Use pay differentials for evening and weekend work 1 0 0 6 7 Table 3-4. Use of pay differentials by public transit agencies and private contractors.

operators for all respondents (public and private) is shown on the Y-axis. Annual post-training turnover is shown on the X-axis. A linear trend line has also been added. As shown, there appears to be a general relationship between starting wages and annual turnover. On average, turnover appears to decrease with higher starting wages. There also appears to be significant variation, though, which suggests that while wages do have an impact on turnover, other factors also cause turnover. The relationship between levels of compensa- tion and turnover rates is explored in more detail in Chapter 5. Union Representation and Impacts on Wages All respondents who indicated that they employed vehicle operators and operated services directly were asked to indi- cate whether or not the paratransit vehicle operator work- force was represented by a union. Respondents were asked to indicate if all operators were represented by a union, some were represented by a union, or none were represented by a union. Table 3-5 provides the responses of 71 public agencies and private contractors who answered this question. As shown in Table 3-5, 45 of the 71 respondents (63%) indicated that all paratransit operators were represented by a union. Union representation of all operators was higher among public agencies—71% of public agency operators were all represented, while 58% of private vehicle operators were represented. Another seven respondents (10%) indicated that some para- transit vehicle operators were represented. This included 7% of the public agencies that responded and 12% of the private con- tractors that responded. No paratransit operators were represented by a union in 19 of the systems that responded (27%). This included 21% of the public agencies and 30% of the private contractors. Responses to the question on union representation were cross-tabulated with the information provided on paratran- sit vehicle operator wages to determine if union representa- tion had an impact on wages. Table 3-6 shows the informa- tion from this cross-tabulation. Starting wage information is used in this cross-tabulation. Information is provided sepa- rately for public agencies and private contractors to minimize the already known difference in pay rates between public and private agencies. As shown in Table 3-6, among public agencies, the average starting pay rate was about $1.00 higher for union repre- sented operators than for non-union operators. For private contractors, the difference was more pronounced—$2.15 higher when all operators are part of a union and $1.43 higher even if only some operators are part of a union. The average starting wage in the 20 public systems where all operators were represented was $12.33 while the average starting wage for the 13 private contractors where no operators were part of a union was $9.03. This difference of $3.30 per hour is sig- nificant and explains at least some of the difference in annual turnover between public transit agencies and private contrac- 32 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 $18.00 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Annual Post-Training Turnover St ar tin g W ag e Figure 3-8. Relationship between starting paratransit operator wages and annual post-training turnover. All Some None Total Public 20 2 28 43 71 6 13 19 Private 25 5 Total 45 7 Table 3-5. Paratransit vehicle operator union representation.

tors. The high required contribution to health care benefits, described in the following sections, is also likely another part of the difference. Types of Fringe Benefits Provided Respondents who indicated that they hired vehicle opera- tors and provided services directly were also asked to provide information about certain fringe benefits. This included indi- vidual health care coverage, family health care coverage, long- term disability benefits, paid sick leave, and a retirement plan. Information about vacation and holiday benefits was asked in a separate question. Where the transit agencies or private contractors operated both paratransit and fixed-route services in the same area, fringe benefit information for both types of vehicle operators was requested for comparison. Table 3-7 shows the number of public transit agencies and private contractors that provided the requested information, as well as the percentage of respondents indicating that they provided each type of benefit to paratransit operators and fixed-route operators. The types of benefits offered to full- time as well as part-time operators are also shown. As shown, full-time paratransit operators received paid vaca- tions from 81% of the public transit agencies that responded, paid holidays from 100% of the public agencies, individual health care benefits from 70% of the public agencies, family health care benefits from 70% of the public agencies, long-term disability benefits from 39% of the public agencies that responded, paid sick leave from 48% of the public agencies, and retirement benefits from 65% of the public agencies. As might be expected, part-time paratransit operators received these benefits with less frequency. Part-time operators received paid vacations from only 7% of the public transit agencies that responded, paid holidays from 11% of the public agencies, individual health care benefits from 28% of the public agen- cies, family health care benefits from 22% of the public agen- cies, long-term disability benefits from 11% of the public agencies, paid sick leave from 22% of the public agencies, and retirement benefits from 33% of the public agencies. These benefits were offered to fixed-route operators by a similar percentage of the public agencies. Full-time fixed- route operators received paid vacations from 76% of the pub- lic transit agencies that responded, paid holidays from 100% of the public agencies, individual health care benefits from 76% of the public agencies, family health care benefits from 76% of the public agencies, long-term disability benefits from 41% of the public agencies, paid sick leave from 53% of the public agen- cies, and retirement benefits from 76% of the public agencies. None of the public systems provided part-time fixed-route 33 All Some None Public 20 2 Wage Range $9.50 - $15.77 n/a n/a $9.50 - $12.87 Average Wage $12.33 $11.30 Private 25 13 Wage Range $9.21 - $14.06 $9.56 - $11.50 $7 - $10.50 Average Wage $11.18 $10.46 $9.03 Total 45 6 5 7 19 Table 3-6. Impacts on wages of union representation. Public Transit Agencies Private Contractors Paratransit Fixed Route Paratransit Fixed Route PT1 FT2 PT FT PT FT PT FT Number of Systems Responding 18 23 14 17 37 44 7 9 Paid Vacation 7% 81% 0% 76% 27% 68% 14% 67% Paid Holidays 11% 100% 14% 100% 44% 93% 71% 100% Individual Health Care 28% 70% 29% 76% 19% 75% 0% 67% Family Health Care 22% 70% 21% 76% 19% 68% 0% 56% Long-Term Disability 11% 39% 7% 41% 8% 34% 14% 22% Paid Sick Leave 22% 48% 14% 53% 27% 54% 14% 56% Retirement Plan 33% 65% 36% 76% 35% 57% 14% 56% 1 PT = part-time 2 FT = full-time Table 3-7. Percent of public transit agencies and private contractors providing fringe benefits to full-time and part-time paratransit and fixed-route vehicle operators.

operators with paid vacations. Part-time fixed-route opera- tors received paid holidays from 14% of the public agencies, individual health care benefits from 29% of the public agen- cies, family health care benefits from 21% of the public agen- cies, long-term disability benefits from 7% of the public agencies, paid sick leave from 14% of the public agencies, and retirement benefits from 36% of the public agencies. In most cases, private companies provided these benefits with slightly less frequency—except for part-time paratransit operators, who received certain benefits more often under private contractors. Full-time paratransit operators received paid vacations from 68% of the private contractors that responded, paid holidays from 93% of the private contrac- tors, individual health care benefits from 75% of the private contractors, family health care benefits from 68% of the pri- vate contractors, long-term disability benefits from 34% of the private contractors, paid sick leave from 54% of the pri- vate contractors, and retirement benefits from 57% of the pri- vate contractors. Part-time operators received paid vacations from 27% of the private contractors that responded, paid hol- idays from 44% of the private contractors, individual health care benefits from 19% of the private contractors, family health care benefits from 19% of the private contractors, long-term disability benefits from 8% of the private contractors, paid sick leave from 27% of the private contractors, and retire- ment benefits from 35% of the private contractors. Fixed-route operators working under private contractors did not fare as well in terms of benefits as their public employee counterparts. Full-time fixed-route operators received paid vacations from 67% of the private contractors that responded, paid holidays from 100% of the private companies, individ- ual health care benefits from 67% of the private contractors, family health care benefits from 56%, long-term disability benefits from 22%, paid sick leave from 56%, and retirement benefits from 56%. Part-time fixed-route operators received paid vacations from 14% of the private contractors that responded, paid holidays from 71% of the private contrac- tors, did not receive individual or family health care benefits from any of the private companies that responded, and long- term disability benefits, paid sick leave, and retirement bene- fits from 14% of the private contractors. Level of Fringe Benefits Provided Tables 3-8 and 3-9 provide more detailed information about the level of benefits provided. Table 3-8 shows the number of paid vacation days and holidays provided to full-time and part-time paratransit and fixed-route vehicle operators. Table 3-9 shows the percent contribution required from employees for individual and family health care coverage. As shown in Table 3-8, few public transit agencies provided paid vacation days to starting part-time paratransit opera- tors—on average, they received about 0.5 days per year. Full- time paratransit operators received, on average, about 5.5 days per year of paid vacation. None of the responding public agencies indicated that starting part-time fixed-route oper- ators receive paid vacations, and starting full-time fixed- route operators received about 5.3 paid vacation days per year. More private contractors provided paid vacation to starting part-time paratransit operators—on average, they received about 1.2 days per year. Private contractors pro- vided an average of 4.0 days per year of paid vacation to starting full-time paratransit operators (slightly lower than public agencies). These same private contractors indicated that few starting part-time fixed-route operators receive paid vacation days—on average, they received only 0.1 paid vacation day per year. Starting full-time fixed-route opera- tors receive about 4.0 paid vacation days (the same as full- time paratransit operators). It is important to note that several private contractors indi- cated that vacation time for vehicle operators does not begin 34 Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time Starting Vacation Range 0-7 1 - 12 n/a 1 - 12 1 - 12 1 - 12 0-1 1 -15 Average 0.5 5.5 0.0 5.3 1.2 4.0 0.1 .0 Maximum Vacation Range 0-15 0-25 0-6 0-30 0-25 0-25 0-5 5 to 25 Average 1.4 15.8 0.5 18.4 3.1 15.2 0.7 4.4 Holidays Range 0-8 0-13 0-9 6 - 12 0-11 0-11 0-8 6-9 Average 0.9 9.2 0.9 9.8 3.2 6.9 4.0 4 1 7.0 23 Responses Received 17 Responses Received 44 Responses Received 9 Responses Received Days of Vacation and Holidays per Year, by Provider, Service Type, and Employment Status Public Transit Agencies Private Providers Paratransit Operators Fixed Route Operators Paratransit Operators Fixed Route Operators Table 3-8. Days of paid vacation and holidays per year for ADA paratransit and fixed-route vehicle operators, public and private entities.

accruing immediately. In some cases, it was noted that vaca- tion time starts to accrue after a 6-month period of employ- ment. In other cases, it was noted that time does not accrue until the beginning of the second year of employment. The “starting” vacation time indicated could therefore be over- stated for private companies. In some cases, the days per year indicated might actually not be available for several months, or in a few cases, up to one year after the start date. The maximum amount of paid vacation time that could be earned by part-time operators was better under private con- tractors, while maximum paid vacation for full-time opera- tors was slightly better under public agencies. Public transit agencies indicated that, on average, part-time paratransit operators could earn a maximum of 1.4 paid vacation days per year, and full-time paratransit operators could earn up to 15.8 days per year of paid vacation. These same public agen- cies indicated that part-time fixed-route operators could earn a maximum of 0.5 days of vacation, on average, and full-time fixed-route operators could earn up to 18.4 paid vacation days (about 2.6 days per year higher than paratransit opera- tors). Private contractors indicated that, on average, part- time paratransit operators could earn a maximum of 3.1 paid vacation days per year, and full-time paratransit operators could earn up to 15.2 days per year of paid vacation. These same private contractors indicated that part-time fixed-route operators could earn a maximum of 0.7 days of vacation, on average, and full-time fixed-route operators could earn up to 14.4 paid vacation days. Relatively good holiday benefits were provided by public agencies to full-time operators, but part-time public operators typically received few paid holiday benefits. On average, full- time paratransit operators receive 9.2 days of paid vacation and full-time fixed-route operators receive 9.8 paid holidays. Pub- lic agencies provided part-time paratransit and fixed-route operators less than one paid holiday per year, on average. Private contractors had better holiday benefits for part- timers but slightly lower holiday benefits for full-time opera- tors. On average, part-time paratransit operators receive 3.2 paid holidays per year, and part-time fixed-route operators receive 4.0 paid holidays per year. Full-time paratransit oper- ators receive 6.9 holidays, on average, and full-time fixed- route operators receive 7.0 paid holidays per year from private contractors. Table 3-9 provides information on the contributions re- quired by vehicle operators toward agency or company health care plans. As shown, contributions required by private con- tractors are significantly higher than those required by public transit agencies. On average, paratransit operators employed by public transit agencies contribute about 9.7% of the cost of individual health care, while their fixed-route counterparts contribute a similar amount (9.8%). Public paratransit oper- ators contribute an average of 18% toward family health care, while their fixed-route counterparts are required to contribute only 12% on average. Paratransit operators employed by private contractors, on the other hand, are required to pay about 33% of the cost of individual health care, and their fixed-route counterparts pay about 30%. Paratransit operators at private contractors pay an average of 50% toward family health care coverage, and their fixed-route counterparts pay an average of 39% for family coverage. Given that the typical family health care plan can run $1,000 per month or more, this type of coverage would typically not be affordable to most paratransit operators. Even the 33% of individual coverage would consume a significant portion of their monthly take-home pay. Relationship Between Paratransit and Fixed-Route Workforces Where survey respondents indicated that they directly operated both ADA paratransit service and fixed-route ser- vice in the same area, information about the relationship between the two workforces was requested. Specifically, the survey asked respondents to indicate if one or more of the fol- lowing situations existed: • Paratransit and fixed-route operators are paid the same wage and all operators can work in either type of service. 35 Paratransit Operators Fixed Route Operators Paratransit Operators Fixed Route Operators 20 Responses 19 Responses 37 Responses 9 Responses Range 0 - 30% 0 - 30% 0 - 100% 0 - 100% Average 9.7% 9.8% 33% 30% Range 0 - 65% 0 - 30% 0 - 100% 0 - 99% Average 18% 12% 50% 39% Family Coverage Public Transit Agencies Private Providers Individual Coverage Table 3-9. Percent of vehicle operator contribution to total health care premium, ADA paratransit and fixed-route vehicle operators, public and private entities.

• Paratransit and fixed-route operators are hired and man- aged separately and there is little crossover between the two groups. • Vehicle operators are typically hired first for paratransit and then can move to fixed-route if there is an opening— but this relationship has not resulted in significant turnover problems for paratransit. • Vehicle operators are typically hired first for paratransit and then can move to fixed-route if there is an opening— and this relationship has resulted in significant turnover problems for paratransit. Respondents were also given a “Not Sure” option in each case, as well as an “Other” option with the chance to provide comments on this topic. The responses received are summa- rized in Table 3-10. Twenty-two public transit agencies and 10 private contrac- tors indicated that they operated both types of service and responded to this question. Ten of the 22 public transit agen- cies that operate both fixed-route and paratransit (45%) indi- cated that the workforces are paid the same wage and can move between both types of services. Seven (32%) indicated that the workforces are separate and there is no cross-over. Three (14%) indicated that operators are hired first for para- transit and can then move to fixed route when openings become available, but that this relationship did not have a sig- nificant impact on paratransit operator turnover. None of the 22 public transit agencies selected the response that move- ment between the two workforces caused significant para- transit turnover, although one respondent checked “Other” and added the following comment: As part of our union contract paratransit operators have trans- fer rights after two years. We do not hire fixed-route operators off the street therefore paratransit operators must be hired and trained first then existing paratransit operators are transferred into fixed route. This is a continual training cost and recruitment problem. This comment does suggest movement between para- transit and fixed route that creates turnover problems in paratransit for this one respondent. The final public transit agency checked “Other” and com- mented: We hire operators and train them for fixed route first. We train and fill open runs in Paratransit as they become available. 36 Public Private Total Same Pay Scale All vehicle operators are at the same pay scale and can work on either fixed route or paratransit. 10 4 14 No Crossover Between Operators Paratransit and fixed route vehicle operators are hired and managed separately. There is little crossover between the two groups. 7 4 11 No Significant Turnover Vehicle operators are typically hired first for paratransit and then can move to fixed route if there is an opening. Movement between paratransit and fixed route HAS NOT created a significant turnover problem for paratransit, though. 3 1 4 Significant Turnover Vehicle operators are typically hired first for paratransit and then move to fixed route if there is an opening. Movement between paratransit and fixed route HAS created a significant turnover issue for paratransit. 0 0 0 Not Sure 0 0 0 Other Comment Provided 2 1 3 Relationship Between Paratransit and Fixed-Route Operators Table 3-10. Relationship between ADA paratransit and fixed-route operator workforces where both types of service are provided by the respondent.

Four of the 10 private contractors that operate both fixed- route and paratransit (40%) services indicated that the work- forces are paid the same wage and can move between both types of services. Another four (40%) indicated that the work- forces are separate and there is no cross-over. One (10%) indicated that operators are hired first for paratransit and can then move to fixed route when openings become available, but this relationship does not have a significant impact on paratransit operator turnover. None of the 10 private contrac- tors selected the response that movement between the two workforces caused significant paratransit turnover. One pri- vate contractor indicated “Other” and provided the following comment: Operators frequently do both services and are able to cross over as openings occur. We have found that paratransit opera- tors enjoy more diversity in their jobs and are willing to accept lower pay for the greater variety and job satisfaction that they receive. There is little movement between the services. This “Other” response was from MV Transportation’s operation in the Monterey-Salinas, California, area. This MV operation reported relatively little wage differential (a $10.54 starting wage for paratransit operators and an $11.04 starting wage for fixed-route operators) and only a 19% annual turn- over among paratransit operators. Equalizing Pay Between Modes Respondents who indicated that they employed both para- transit and fixed-route operators and provide both types of service in the same area were asked for wage information for both modes. If there was a pay differential between paratran- sit and fixed route, they were then asked if they were moving toward equalizing pay for both types of operators. They were then asked for comments on why they were or were not mov- ing toward equal pay. Responses are provided in Table 3-11 and explained in further detail in the following text. Twenty-seven of the public and private entities that indi- cated they directly operate both fixed-route and paratransit services responded to the question about wage information— 19 were public transit agencies and 8 were private contrac- tors. Overall, 17 of the 27 respondents to this question (63%) indicated that pay between the modes was already equal, and another three (11%) were moving toward equal pay. Only 7 of the 27 respondents (26%) did not have equal pay and were not moving in that direction. Twelve of the 19 public transit agencies that directly oper- ate both types of services (63%) indicated that there is equal pay between the workforces. Another two (10%) said they were working toward equalizing pay. Five (26%) said they were not moving toward equal pay. In the two systems where equal pay was a goal, there was an average starting pay differ- ence of $2.54 between fixed route and paratransit. In the five systems that were not moving toward equal pay, the differ- ence in starting pay between the modes was similar ($2.48) but the average paratransit wage was relatively high ($12.13). Five of the eight private contractors (62%) that operated both types of service and responded to this question indicated that pay between the workforces was equal. One additional private contractor indicated that it was moving toward equal pay. Two private contractors (25%) said they were not mov- ing to equal pay. In these two cases, the average paratransit starting wage was again relatively high ($12.05) and the dif- ference in starting wage between paratransit and fixed route was only 32 cents. More detailed information about the experiences of sys- tems that have integrated ADA paratransit and fixed-route vehicle operator workforces and/or equalized pay is pre- sented in Chapter 9. Factors That Impact Vehicle Operator Recruitment Survey respondents were given a list of possible factors that impact ADA paratransit operator recruitment. They were asked to indicate if, in their experience, the factors had “No Impact”, “Little Impact,” “Some Impact,” “Moderate Impact,” or “Significant Impact” on recruitment. Figure 3-9 shows the ratings given. The figure was created by translating all “No Impact” responses to a “1” rating, all “Little Impact” 37 Equal Pay Paratransit Fixed Route Paratransit Fixed Route Public 12 Wage Range $11.23 - $12 $13.68 - $14.63 $9.50 - $14.41 $11.40 - $19.51 Average Wage $11.62 $14.16 $12.13 $14.61 Private 5 Wage Range $10. 54 - $13.55 $11.04 - $13.69 Average Wage $12.05 $12.37 Total 17 3 7 n/a n/a n/a Moving Toward Equal Pay No Moving Toward Equal Pay 52 1 2 Table 3-11. Movement toward equal pay by respondents that directly operate both fixed-route and paratransit services.

responses to a “2,” and so on up to “Significant Impact” being a “5.” Responses were then averaged for all public agency respondents and all private contractor responses. As shown, public transit agencies indicated that pre- qualification requirements (such as minimum age, CDL licenses, background checks, etc.) had the most impact on their recruitment of paratransit operators (3 out of 5). Also rated as influential were general labor market conditions (2.9 out of 5), drug testing requirements (2.9 out of 5), shift structure and hours available (2.8 out of 5), background checks (2.7 out of 5), wages offered (2.7 out of 5), and the nature of the job (2.4 out of 5). No other factor rated higher, on average, than a 2.0. Private contractors, on the other hand, considered the wages being offered as the factor that most impacted recruitment (3.9 out of 5). Fringe benefits were rated second most signif- icant (3.3 out of 5). Other issues that had high ratings in terms of impacts on recruitment were the general labor mar- ket (3.2 out of 5), pre-qualification requirements (3.2 out of 5), and background checks (2.9 out of 5). Other factors rated 2.5 or below. This question also included an “Other” option with respon- dents asked to identify any other factors that impacted recruit- ment that were not on the list. Four respondents offered recruitment factors not on the list or expounded on items on the list. These comments were the following: • “We only hire part-time operators; therefore folks leave if they can get a full-time position with benefits.” • “Starting wages are too low to attract experienced operators. Operators reach prevailing wage with overtime, but the union structure provides a fixed starting wage and we can- not adjust for special case operators that have experience.” • “Workers comp is a significant impact as we have several operators out of service at any given time.” • “North Carolina does not allow a union to collectively bar- gain with local government; however, a union has recently been organizing paratransit operators. This union, however, has had no impact on working conditions, pay, etc., because they cannot collectively bargain. The union has lowered morale of operators by making promises they have not been able to keep. The union also encourages grievances and EEOC complaints, but all grievances and EEOC complaints have been lost by the employees who filed them.” It is interesting to note that the second comment, which cited starting wages that were too low to attract experienced 38 0 1 2 3 4 5 Vehicle Type/Size/Design Union Issues Lack of Career Advancement Opportunities Competition with Other Paratransit/Transit Services Drug Testing Background Checks Job Description/Nature of the Job Shift Structure/Hours Available Labor Market/General Shortage of Workers Pre-Qualification Requirements Fringe Benefits Offered Wages Offered Private Contractors Public Agencies Figure 3-9. Factors that impact vehicle operator recruitment.

operators, was from a system that reported a $9 starting wage for sedan operators and a $10 starting wage for van operators. Efforts Made to Improve Recruitment Respondents were asked to indicate what types of efforts had been made to improve the recruitment of ADA paratransit operators. A list of 13 types of efforts identified in the research were listed and respondents were asked to indicate if these efforts were “Not Used” (coded as a “1”), “Used with Little Suc- cess” (coded as a “2”), “Used with Some Success” (coded as a “3”), or “Used with Good Success” (coded as a “4”). Figure 3-10 shows the responses to this question. Separate responses are reported for public agencies and private contractors. As shown in Figure 3-10, public agencies reported greatest use and success with paid training, which on average was rated 3.5. No other type of effort rated above 3.0 on average. Providing uniforms rated second (2.5), followed by increased hourly wages (2.1). Targeted advertising, use of job fairs, performance/recognition and awards/payments, and GPS and other technologies that assist with the job were all rated a 2.0 out of 4.0. Private contractors also rated paid training as the type of effort that provided the greatest success, with an average 3.0 rating. Second was providing uniforms (2.7), followed by targeted advertising (2.5), increased hourly wages, and performance/recognition awards/payments which both received a 2.3. Referral bonuses paid to other employees and advertising in non-traditional ways were both rated a 39 Signing Bonuses for Recruits Extend Shifts to Increase Take Home Pay Increased Career Advancement Opportunities Improved Fringe Benefits Use of Job Fairs GPS or Other Technologies to Assist with the Job Referral Bonuses to Other Employees Advertise in Non-Traditional Ways Performance/Recognition Awards/Payments Increased Hourly Wages Targeted Advertising Provide Uniforms Paid Training 0 1 2 3 4 Private Contractors Public Agencies Figure 3-10. Efforts made to improve recruitment.

2.2 on average. No other type of effort rated above a 2.0 with private contractors. Five respondents offered “Other” comments on this ques- tion. These comments were the following: • “All types of advertising and job fairs have been used. However, when applicants are polled, these advertisements have not been the reason that individuals applied. Most applicants come through word of mouth, by seeing our vehicles on the road, and by reviewing the City’s vacancy listings.” • “Operators really appreciate the one-on-one time (refer- ring to training). Our classes are small and they do get a lot of attention during those first weeks.” • “Regular safety meetings, improved vehicle reliability.” • “Overtime is available and many operators work extra shifts or extended hours. This is more a need of the service due to increased demand than a perk to attract operators, but it may have the same effect.” • “A poor economy helps.” Respondents who indicated that they had used one or more approaches with good success were also asked to expound on these successful efforts. The following comments were provided: • “The quality of applicants has not been up to par with the applicants who came in a decade ago. Getting a job with the City was an attractive option to many people. Even with the benefits and retirement programs we have in place, we are not attracting the quality of applicants we would like to see. Our operators require CDLs and other opportunities for CDL holders in this area pay more.” • “Clothes don’t get damaged—nobody’s competing for best wardrobe. They save money because they don’t have to buy special clothes with their money.” (This comment was related to efforts to provide uniforms.) • “We offer paid training for all employees. We advertised by media, internet, on bus benches and traveling signs on MTA vehicles. We attend all job fairs. The hourly rates are raised in Union negotiation. All employees that go above and beyond the call of duty are recognized! The company looks within the company when a position comes open to their employees first! All uniforms are provided by the company!” • “We have always provided paid training so there is noth- ing to compare it to.” • “A uniform consisting of shirts, jacket, hat and an Identi- fication Badge are worn by operators. This is a professional service and identification as a professional is important. This helps build team support and operator pride in the service they offer to people with disabilities.” • “We have good operators and they refer good operators. Our referral is $100 after trainee gets out of 4 month pro- bation and $100 if both employees are here when person referred has been here one year.” • “The trainees are often concerned about the $7.00 training pay until they are informed of a $250 signing bonus if they stay for three months; the amount offered offsets the $7.00 training pay by adding another $3.00 an hour for training. Of course, when we increase the starting pay, we also see an increase in trainees/applicants.” • “Job fairs—people are actively looking for a job. Attend fairs that target transportation, attend fairs for people 50 and over. Advertising non-traditional bumper sticker on the bus that have phone # and says looking for operators.” • “We offer paid training. This appeals to a lot of applicants because many ADA paratransit providers in this area don’t. We also provide uniforms to the operators and a cleaning service as well. Applicants like the fact they don’t have to have their uniforms cleaned themselves. We also have an incentive program for employees.” • “Referral Bonus of $300.00 is paid to existing employees if both existing employee and referred employee are still employed after six months.” • “All vehicle operators understand that they are consistently being evaluated for career advancement. The advancements will involve becoming an office staff employee. More than 75% of our office staff are former vehicle operators.” • “Over the past two years, we have increased wages and ben- efits by over 10%. This has helped with retention efforts with some impact to recruitment efforts. Minimum wage increases have ultimately closed the gaps in wages for posi- tions that require higher levels of responsibilities.” • “Since the work is hard, you need to provide a reward sys- tem to appreciate the work force. We implemented this type of system over the past two years and have had good results. We target applicants and we only look for career oriented people.” • “Everyone wants more money. Paratransit operators have never been paid adequately for the service they provide. It’s the most important transit service provided and the group providing the endless hours of service to people who REALLY need the service are not even recognized or rewarded adequately. Uniforms are a minimal perk. They don’t have to spend money on clothes. They barely make enough to eat and feed their family. Unless of course they do overtime.” • “Uniforms are union contract issued.” Responses were also tabulated, rather than averaged, in order to get a better sense of how many respondents had tried each recruitment effort and the relative success of each type 40

of effort. Table 3-12 shows this tabulation. The last three columns of Table 3-12 also indicate the percent of all respon- dents that indicated they had tried each type of recruitment effort, the percent of those who had tried each effort that reported some or good success, and the percent of those who indicated trying each effort who reported good success. As shown in Table 3-12, 97% of all respondents have used paid training as a way to improve recruitment and 90% pro- vide uniforms. Seventy-three percent (73%) reported the use of targeted advertising, and 67% provide performance/ recognition awards/payments. More than half of all respon- dents also reported using the other listed efforts—with the exception of signing bonuses for recruits (used by only 34% of respondents) and extended shifts to increase take home pay (used by 33%). Of those who reported having tried each effort, the great- est success was reported with paid training (36% good suc- cess and 87% some or good success). Relative success was also reported with increasing wages (26% had good success and 79% reported some or good success). Providing uni- forms was also reported to be helpful (21% had good suc- cess and 60% reported some or good success). Less than 18% of those who tried each reported “good success” with other efforts. However, some level of success was reported for several other efforts. Over two-thirds of respondents who had tried other efforts reported “some or good suc- cess” with signing bonuses for recruits (68%), targeted adver- tising (72%), extending shifts to increase total take home pay (67%), and performance recognition awards/payments (69%). Half or more of respondents reported some level of success with each of the other efforts—with the exception of job fairs, which were reported to be used with “some or good success” by only 33% of those who had tried this approach to recruitment. Factors That Impact Vehicle Operator Retention Survey respondents were also given a list of possible fac- tors that impact ADA paratransit operator retention. They were asked to indicate if, in their experience, the factors had “No Impact”, “Little Impact,” “Some Impact,” “Moderate Impact,” or “Significant Impact” on retention. Figure 3-11 shows the ratings given to each factor. The figure was cre- ated by translating all “No Impact” responses to a “1” rat- ing, “Little Impact” responses to a “2,” and so on up to “Sig- nificant Impact” being a “5.” Responses were then averaged separately for all public agency respondents and all private contractors. As shown in Figure 3-11, public agencies that operated ADA paratransit services in-house indicated that dissatisfac- tion with the work shifts assigned was the biggest issue with 41 Recruitment Efforts N ot U se d U se d w ith Li ttl e Su cc es s U se d w ith So m e Su cc es s U se d w ith G oo d Su cc es s % T ha t H av e Tr ie d % T ri ed w ith So m e o r G oo d Su cc ess % T ri ed w ith G oo d Su cc es s Signing bonuses for recruits 42 7 14 1 34% 68% 5% Referral bonus paid to other employees 26 19 15 4 59% 50% 11% Paid training 2 8 31 22 97% 87% 36% Targeted advertising 17 13 30 4 73% 72% 9% Advertising in non-traditional ways 23 16 21 4 64% 61% 10% Use of job fairs 24 27 11 2 63% 33% 5% Increased hourly wages 24 8 21 10 62% 79% 26% Improved fringe benefits offered 31 13 15 3 50% 58% 10% Extended shifts to increase total take home pay 42 7 11 3 33% 67% 14% Provide performance/ recognition awards/payments 21 13 22 7 67% 69% 17% Increased career advancement opportunities 30 16 13 3 52% 50% 9% GPS or other technologies to assist with the job 29 13 16 5 54% 62% 15% Provide uniforms 6 23 22 12 90% 60% 21% Table 3-12. Success with efforts to improve recruitment.

retention (2.9 of 5 rating), followed by demands of the job (2.7). Wages had an average rating of 2.5, followed by lack of opportunities for advancement at 2.2, and lack of recognition and performance incentives at 2.1. Private contractors indicated, on average, that wages were the most significant issue affecting retention (3.9 out of 5). The demands of the job were second for private con- tractors (3.7), followed by poor fringe benefits (3.3), and dissatisfaction with the work shifts assigned (3.0). Lack of dispatch support rated an average of 2.6, lack of opportu- nities for advancement rated an average of 2.5, and lack of recognition and performance incentives rated an average of 2.3. Procedures for resolving operator issues rated 2.1 on average. This question also included an “Other” option with respondents asked to identify any other factors that impacted retention that were not on the list. The following was the only comment that was received: Paratransit operators are paid considerably less than fixed- route operators and light rail operators. They feel that being a paratransit operator is more physically and mentally demanding than bus or rail and that they are not recognized financially for the level of service they provide. Efforts Made To Improve Retention Respondents were asked to indicate what types of efforts had been made to improve the retention of ADA paratransit oper- ators. A list of 17 types of efforts identified in the research were listed and respondents were asked to indicate if these efforts were “Not Used” (coded as a “1”), “Used with Little Success” (coded as a “2”), “Used with Some Success” (coded as a “3”), 42 Procedures for Resolving Issues/Grievances Lack of Recognition and Performance Incentives Lack of Support from Dispatch/Supervisors Lack of Opportunities for Advancement Dissatisfaction with Work Shift Assigned Fringe Benefits Offered Demands of the Job Wages Offered 0 1 2 3 4 5 Private Contractors Public Agencies Figure 3-11. Factors that impact vehicle operator retention.

or “Used with Good Success” (coded as a “4”). Figure 3-12 shows the responses to this question. Public agencies indicated that keeping operators updated on policies and procedures, and improving vehicle condi- tion and working conditions were the two things that had been most successful in improving retention (both rated 2.7 out of 5.0). Increased opportunities for operator feed- back and improved dispatch support were rated second (both at 2.5). Improved complaint investigation/mediation was rated third (2.4) followed by increased training oppor- tunities (2.3). Employee recognition programs and GPS and other technologies to assist with the job were rated fifth (both at 2.2). Team-building, modified/improved operator work shifts, training in personnel management for man- agers, and exit interviews with operators who leave volun- tarily all rated 2.1. Interestingly, increased wages and better fringe benefits were not identified by public agencies as strategies that had been used with success to improve retention. This could be due to the fact that, as noted earlier, many public agencies already pay more competitive wages and have good benefits, particularly health care benefits, for paratransit operators involved in in-house operations. It is also interesting to note that while public entities rated dissatisfaction with work shifts as the top issue in retention (see Figure 3-11) many appear to have not done much to address this issue—as evidenced by the rating of only 2.1 in efforts undertaken. Private contractors rated “keeping operators updated on policies and procedures” as the type of effort that provided the greatest success, and it received an average rating of 2.9. Tied for second were improved dispatch support and improved vehicle condition and work environment (both with a 2.7 rat- ing). Increased opportunities for operator feedback, employee recognition programs, and increased wages were third at 2.6. Improved complaint investigation/mediation ranked 43 Extended Shifts to Increase Take Home Pay Targeted Recruitment on Particular Skills Performance Bonuses Improved Fringe Benefits Modified/Improved Work Shifts Exit Interviews with Drivers Who Leave GPS or Other Technologies to Assist with Job Team-Building Efforts Training in Personnel Management for Managers Increased Training Opportunities for Operators Improved Complaint Investigation/Mediation Increased Hourly Wages Employee Recognition Programs Increased Opportunity for Operator Feedback Improved Dispatch Support Improved Vehicle Condition or Work Environment Keeping Operators Updated on Policies and Procedures 0 1 2 3 4 Private Contractors Public Agencies Figure 3-12. Efforts made to improve retention.

fourth with a 2.5 average rating. Team-building efforts, increased training opportunities, and training in personnel management for managers all were rated at 2.2. Respondents who indicated that they had used one or more approach with good success were also asked to expound on these successful efforts. The following comments were provided: • “We use GPS devices for new operators which has worked well, but remove them after a while so as not to allow their use as a crutch. We use operator surveys for placement of equipment like cupholders, storage bins in vehicle specifi- cations. We are exploring a 4 day 10 hour work schedule, and a 36 hour work week. We are having meetings with operators to allow them to give input.” • “All policies are posted 48 hours before policy changes, or updates! Have extended the training in dispatch to better serve the operators. Have added new vehicles to our fleet in the past couple of years!” • “Team building very important for us. Operators are all on same radio frequency and this keeps each informed on how the day is going. They are always willing to help out dis- patch with a request or an operator that is running late, lost, having a loading problem or experiencing a mechan- ical vehicle problem. Operator feedback is always requested. By having a common lounge for checking in and out, there is a chance for exchange with office, mechanic and other operators. Client notes that would help other operators are added to operator daily roster. Mechanical status of vans is always welcomed from the operators with most giving it directly to the mechanic.” • “Although all employees have yearly scheduled wage increases of at least $1.00, we have also given pay incentives to operators who exhibit exemplary work behavior.” • “We do target applicants with home health care experi- ence, care giver experience, come from health fields—they tend to have better people skills, familiar with people with disabilities, they have better communication skills. Opera- tors enjoy new equipment and equipment that is well maintained.” • “All manager interviews with operators for policy infrac- tions are held with a union shop steward present. We are sending new hires out with GPS units. The initial stress of learning the area is reduced and operators become produc- tive faster. There have been fewer frustration and resigna- tions by new operators.” • “Communication between operators, dispatchers and management is key to retaining employees. It shows the operators count, management and dispatchers care. Issue to a system can only be resolved and/or explained if dis- patch and management is aware and willing to correct them. Management needs to provide tools and resources to all employees for them to achieve to the best of their abilities.” • “Operators appreciate the fact that they are provided qual- ity, reliable equipment to complete their work assign- ments. Our company has focused much of its attention on providing the operators with quality vehicles.” • “Very little additional information is needed here. Improv- ing wage scales and benefits seem to be the negative impact on retaining as well as recruitment efforts.” • “We have very good fringe benefits.” • “Each time there is a procedural or policy change, a copy of the document is provided to each operator and they sign-off for receipt of the document. This allows them to be current with all issues that are part of the system.” • “We experienced a drop in our turnover rate for the six month period after a $1/hour wage increase.” Responses to success with retention efforts were also tabu- lated, rather than averaged, in order to get a better sense of how many respondents had tried each retention effort and the relative success of each type of effort. Table 3-13 shows this tabulation. The last three columns of Table 3-13 also indicate the percent of all respondents that indicated they had tried each type of retention effort, the percent of those who had tried each effort that reported some or good success, and the percent of those who indicated trying each effort who reported good success. As shown, almost all (95%) of respondents indicated that they keep operators updated on policies and procedures as a way of encouraging them to stay. A very high percentage of respondents (80%+) reported using employee recognition programs, increased opportunities for feedback, improved complaint investigation/mediation, improved dispatch sup- port, improved vehicle condition and general work environ- ment, increased training opportunities, and exit interviews with operators who leave as ways to try to reduce turnover. Over half of all respondents reported using the other reten- tion efforts listed—with the exceptions of targeted recruit- ment on particular applicant skills (only 46%), performance bonuses (only 48%), and extended shifts to increase total take-home pay (only 34%). Of those who reported having tried each effort, the great- est success was reported with increased hourly wages (22% had good success, and 72% had some or good success). A rel- atively high rate of “good success” was also reported with GPS or other technologies that can assist with the job (21%) and improved vehicle condition and general work environment (20%). No other effort was reported to have resulted in “good success” by more than 20% of respondents, although improv- ing fringe benefits (15%), improving dispatch support (15%), extended shifts to increase total take home pay (14%), and keeping operators updated on policies and procedures (13%) 44

was reported to have resulted in good success by more than 10% of respondents who tried each. Some level of success was reported with several other efforts. Over two-thirds of respondents who had tried other efforts reported “some or good success” with employee recognition programs (70%), increased opportunities for operator feed- back (75%), updating operators on policies and procedures (75%), improved dispatch support (73%), GPS and other technologies to assist with the job (79%), improved vehicle condition and work environment (76%), modified/improved work shifts (68%), increased hourly wages (72%), and extended shifts to increase total take home pay (73%). More than half of respondents who had tried other efforts also reported some level of success—with the exception of exit interviews (35%)— which respondents probably felt shed light on retention prob- lems but did not actually improve retention without other actions. Innovative Procurement Strategies Public transit agencies that completed the survey and who indicated that they contracted out for some or all of their ADA paratransit service were asked to indicate if they had employed innovative procurement to ensure a full paratran- sit vehicle operator workforce. Five types of procurement strategies were listed, and respondents were asked to indicate if each of these strategies was “Not Used,” “Used with Little Impact,” “Used with Some Impact,” “Used with Moderate Impact,” or “Used with Significant Impact.” Respondents were also asked to indicate any other types of procurement strategies that were not on the list and to describe these strate- gies. Finally, if respondents indicated that they used any one of the listed strategies with some, moderate, or significant impact, they were asked to provide additional information on these efforts. 45 Retention Efforts N ot U se d U se d w ith Li ttl e Su cc es s U se d w ith So m e S uc ce ss U se d w ith G oo d Su cc es s % T ha t H av e Tr ie d % T ri ed w ith So m e o r G oo d Su cc es s % T ri ed w ith G oo d Su cc es s Targeted recruitm ent on particular appli cant skills 34 13 15 1 46% 55% 3% Performance bonuses 33 12 16 3 48% 61% 10% Employee recognition Program s 11 16 34 3 83% 70% 6% Team-building efforts 17 22 21 4 73% 53% 9% Increased opportunities for operator feedback 8 14 38 4 88% 75% 7% Im proved complaint investigation/mediation 9 20 32 3 86% 64% 5% Keeping operators updated on policies and procedures 3 15 38 8 95% 75% 13% Im proved dispatch support 9 15 32 8 86% 73% 15% GPS or other technologies to assist with the job 30 7 20 7 53% 79% 21% Improved vehicle condition and/or work environm ent 9 13 30 11 86% 76% 20% Modified/im proved operator work shifts 25 12 23 3 60% 68% 8% Increased training opportunities for operators 13 23 27 1 80% 55% 2% Training in personnel management for managers 19 17 27 1 70% 62% 2% Increased hourly wages 18 13 23 10 72% 72% 22% Im proved fringe benefits offered 30 14 15 5 53% 59% 15% Extended shifts to increase total take-home pay 42 6 13 3 34% 73% 14% Exit interviews with operators who voluntarily leave 13 33 16 2 80% 35% 4% Table 3-13. Success with efforts to improve retention.

Table 3-14 shows the responses to whether public entities had used one of the listed procurement approaches and the level of success experienced with each. As shown in Table 3-14, 24 of the 35 public transit agencies that responded to this question (69%) indicated that they had included language in their service RFPs indicating that a stable, experienced vehi- cle operator workforce was expected. Three-quarters of those that used this procurement strategy indicated that it achieved some, moderate, or good success. Four of the 24 indicated good success (17%). Eighteen public agencies out of 33 (55%) that responded to the second strategy indicated that they assigned points in the evaluation of proposals to whether the proposers would provide a stable, experienced vehicle operator workforce. This strategy was reported to have at least some success 78% of the time and good success 11% of the time. Only two of the 35 respondents (6%) indicated that they had set a maximum goal in their RFPs for vehicle operator turnover. Little success with this option was reported by one of the agencies and only some success by the other. Relatively few public entities (37%) indicated that they had included a “livable wage” or other minimum wage standard in their RFPs. Of the 13 who did this, 9 (69%) indicated at least some success, and 2 (15%) reported good success. Twenty-one public agencies out of 35 that responded (60%) indicated that they included incentives and/or penalties in their contracts related to maintaining an ade- quate vehicle operator workforce or covering all runs assigned. This strategy was also reported to result in the greatest success, with 16 agencies (76%) saying it was at least somewhat successful and seven (33%) saying it had good success. Eight public transit agencies indicated use of other strate- gies and provided descriptions of these other approaches. They had the following comments: • “We are just awarding contracts so cannot determine the long term impact of changes in our process. Old contract had minimum wage standards, but that seemed to raise issues as two of the contract providers have union repre- sented operators. We also removed penalties and incen- tives related to covering all runs, etc. as they cost more to administer than the incentive themselves and did not seem to make a difference in contractor behavior. We have established a new bid model with flexible start times where the start times can vary 1-2 hours per day. The operator will receive notification the day prior to service as to when they start the following day. We are sending more operators home before end of shift when enough late cancellations allow us to close routes early by mov- ing rides.” • “East Bay Paratransit manager through a brokerage. Bro- ker (Veolia) subcontracts with service providers. Veolia’s contract with service providers includes liquidated dam- ages for failing to cover runs. One service provider is a small in house unit of BART’s bus partner in East Bay Paratransit—Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). The paratransit unit is directed by Veolia and subject to same liquidated damages although there is no subcontract between Veolia and the paratransit unit.” 46 Procurement Strategy N ot U se d U se d w ith Li ttl e Su cc es s U se d w ith So m e S uc ce ss U se d w ith M od er at e Su cc es s U se d w ith G oo d Su cc es s % T ha t H av e Tr ie d % T ri ed w ith So m e M od er at e o r G oo d Su cc es s % T ri ed w ith G oo d Su cc es s Included language in the RFP indicating that a stable, experienced vehicle operator workforce was expected 11 6 8 6 4 69% 75% 17% Assigned points in the evaluation process on whether the proposal would provide a stable, experienced vehicle operator workforce 15 4 6 6 2 55% 78% 11% Set a goal for maximum vehicle operator turnover 33 1 1 0 0 6% 50% 0% Included “living wage” or other minimum wage standards in the RFP 22 4 3 4 2 37% 69% 15% Included incentives and/or penalties in the contract related to maintaining an adequate vehicle operator workforce or covering all runs assigned 14 5 6 3 7 60% 76% 33% Table 3-14. Success with innovative procurement strategies.

• “Required at least status quo on wages and benefits required retention of existing qualified workforce.” • “There are penalties in place that cover completing the daily work schedule.” • “TARC pays contractor a retention bonus of $100/per employee every 3 months.” • “Here’s the real issue here: the union contract that First Transit has with the Teamsters provides for shift and work bidding based on seniority (i.e., oldest operators pick first). As a result, ADA paratransit service generally is staffed with the least qualified employees. The other issue is a general lack of training and cross training for the dispatchers. Finally, these folks are simply not paid enough.” • “We have a union here. . . . that pretty much says it all.” • “80% or so aggregate turnover in SD is an unfortunate reality with coach or paratransit operators. Then one has to get creative so as to not have recruitment incentives directly and conversely impact retainment (e.g. free train- ing leads to folks leaving for positions for even the same pay, for a different type operator job).” Ten of the public transit agencies that indicated some, moderate, or good success with one or more of the strategies also provided more detailed information about these suc- cesses. They had the following comments: • “Performance penalties and incentives seem to have some trickle down impact/incentive for the contractor to have staff tuned in on performance as important issue.” • “The contractor knows that we may ‘audit’ operator qual- ification and training files. We have and may ask to see documentation pertaining to background and driving record checks. The contractor knows we are watching. Still, his turnover is tremendous. It’s very difficult to pay a decent wage and still make a profit in this business!” • “As a rule, happy people make contented workers. A con- tented workforce makes good decisions and they are reli- able. Requiring the contractor to provide a minimum or living wage helps to ensure a more contented workforce. Left to themselves, the contractor will try to keep wages as low as possible. This low rate will eventually cause person- nel to leave. The turnover rate increases and valuable expe- rience and skills are diluted or lost.” • “We use liquidated damages to discourage route turn back and operators being late for routes. There are other dam- ages assessed for missed trips, late report submission, fail- ure to notify etc.” • “Liquidated damages have made the service providers more inclined to cover runs with operators on overtime and be more creative about solving problems. However, during a severe operator shortage such as was experienced in all the Bay Area in FY 07, the LD’s did not make a sub- stantial improvement.” • “More than 50% of previous contractor employees stayed with new contractor.” • “Points are assigned via the evaluation process for a range of issues. Understanding and approach to the RFP, firm, staff experience and costs are evaluated and points are assessed accordingly. While we do not mandate specific wages, we do identify current wage scales. Liquidated dam- ages and Incentives are designed to motivate contractors to perform within acceptable service standards.” • “Many contractors are still focused on submitting the ‘lowest bid’ and operator wages make up the majority of the overall cost (ASI specifies a price per gallon to be used for fuel). In the past we have encouraged that contractors set an operator wage above a minimum ($8.50) but in many cases the wages came in at the figure (but actually started much lower). We are exploring how to actually set the wage without becoming the implied employer of the operators.” • “Incentives and Liquidated Damages tied to performance work somewhat but overall I believe the contracted opera- tors (not just the one here but ALL of them) would rather pay liquidated damages than do the training required to get a 5 star operation in place.” • “Assigned points in the evaluation process focused on the hiring of vehicle operator workforce of the previous ser- vice provider. Those operators from the previous service provider are expected to be stable and experienced. New operators hired beyond those operators are required to be trained to strict training criteria.” • “We make it clear we expect experienced, trained opera- tors; by setting the bar high, we have a better chance of securing such workforce through contract.” • “We emphasized the importance of an experienced work force in the pre-bid meeting and in the RFP. We said oper- ators need to be fairly compensated with competitive wages and benefits. We monitor the contractor to be sure they follow through. We encourage the contractor to have rewards and incentives for well-performing staff. We rec- ognize good performance by individuals and reinforce good behavior to encourage more good behavior. For exam- ple, both District and contractor employees are eligible for the ‘I Made a Difference’ award. Although not in the RFP, bidders realized they had to comply w/union agreement to operate if they were awarded bid. The result was a relatively high operator wage for employees. All existing staff was retained.” • “The Contract language is thoroughly internalized by both MTS and the Contractor. With a contractor an agency 47

obviously has to incentivize/penalize to set some baseline expectation of service. Initially the language and/or the liv- ing wage had impacts. Having operated for 7 years now, the recruitment/retainment issue has assumed a life of its own in San Diego. Be it Paratransit, contracted fixed route, internal bus, Trolley or social service transportation, the number one shared ‘solution’ would be ‘more operators.’ True, San Diego cost of living measures simply have out- paced wages across the employment board. Currently, the contractor exceeds even high expectations for effort on the recruitment/retention ‘effort’ front if not on the measura- ble rate.” Five public transit agencies also indicated that they had written descriptions of their procurement strategies and that they could be contacted for more information. One agency sent actual RFP and contract language. More detailed infor- mation about the experiences of systems that indicated mod- erate or good success with innovative procurement strategies is presented in Chapter 10. 48

Next: Chapter 4 - Model of Factors That Affect Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance »
Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 142: Vehicle Operator Recruitment, Retention, and Performance in ADA Complementary Paratransit Operations provides guidance for understanding the relationships that influence and enhance operator recruitment, retention, and performance in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services.

Appendixes to TCRP Report 142 were published electronically as TCRP Web-Only Document 50: Survey Instrument, Productivity Charts, and Interview Protocol for Case Studies for TCRP Report 142.

  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!