National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs (2011)

Chapter: A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs

Page 1
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14527.
×
Page 62

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.

Research Results Digest 354 July 2011 C O N T E N T S CHAPTER 1 Introduction, 1 Internet Survey, 2 Telephone Survey, 4 FTA Grants Data, 6 Conclusions and Findings, 7 CHAPTER 2 Internet Survey of State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), 9 Summary of Survey Responses, 10 Conclusions, 24 CHAPTER 3 Telephone Survey of State DOTs and Representative Agencies, 25 Selection of States, 25 Interview Process, 26 Summary of Survey Responses, 28 Conclusions, 48 CHAPTER 4 FTA Grants Data, 49 Summary of JARC and NF Programs, 50 JARC Program, 50 NF Program, 51 Conclusions, 54 CHAPTER 5 Conclusions and Findings, 54 Costs Associated with Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs, 54 Successes Associated with Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs, 56 Findings, 58 REFERENCES, 60 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS, 60 APPENDIX A—Blank Internet Survey Form, 61 APPENDIX B—Telephone Interview Questionnaire, 61 APPENDIX C—Detailed Telephone Interview Summaries, 61 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flex- ible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Fed- eral Transit Administration (FTA) insti- tuted a planning requirement as a condition of federal funding for its human services- related grant programs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes. As a result, since 2007, FTA has required the establishment of a lo- cally developed, coordinated public transit/ human services transportation plan (Coor- dination Plan) for all FTA human services transportation programs. The Coordination Plan must be developed through an inclu- sive process that involves representatives from public, private, and nonprofit trans- portation and human services providers, as well as the public. The intent of this require- ment is to bring the right people to the table to discuss human services transportation issues and identify opportunities to assist more people, reduce service gaps and over- laps, and increase the cost effectiveness of the services provided. A brief description of each of the FTA human services transportation programs is provided as follows. • Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly Individuals and Individu- als with Disabilities Grant Program (1). The program was created in 1975, under the National Mass Transporta- tion Assistance Act. The goal of Section 5310 is to improve mobility for elderly individuals and individu- als with disabilities. States are the designated recipients of Section 5310 funds, and the funds are apportioned by a formula based on the number of elderly persons and persons with disabilities in each state. Eligible activities include capital expenses (e.g., vehicles and communication equipment); purchase of transporta- tion services under a contract, lease, or other arrangement; and mobility management. • Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Grant Program (1). Section 5316 was es- tablished in 1998, under the Trans- portation Equity Act for the 21st Cen- tury (TEA-21). Section 5316 seeks to improve transportation services that provide access to employment and employment-related activities for welfare recipients and low-income A REVIEW OF HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND GRANT PROGRAMS This digest presents the results of NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 26, “An Analysis and Evaluation of States’ Implementation of the FTA 5310, 5316, and 5317 Programs.” The research was conducted by AECOM, Arlington, Virginia, with Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning (ITP), Rockville, Maryland, serving as a subconsultant. Sara Carini of AECOM was the Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report are Lora Byala, Shana Johnson, and Eric Randall of Foursquare ITP and Laura Riegel of AECOM. Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm-Smith NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

individuals. Section 5316 also provides for transportation services to suburban or other reverse commute employment opportunities. States are the designated recipients of JARC funds in urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000 and in rural areas. In urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000, the designated recipient may be the designated recipient of Section 5307 Urbanized Area For- mula Program funds, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), state, or another public agency. Eligible activities include capital, plan- ning, and operating expenses. • Section 5317 New Freedom (NF) Grant Pro- gram (1). This program was created in 2005, under SAFETEA-LU, to address the trans- portation mobility options available beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requirements. The focus of the program is to assist persons with disabilities in over- coming transportation-related barriers to em- ployment. States are the designated recipients of NF funds in urbanized areas with popula- tions less than 200,000 and in rural areas. In urbanized areas over 200,000 in population, the designated recipient may be the desig- nated recipient of Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program funds or an MPO, state, or other public agency. Eligible activi- ties include capital and operating expenses that support new public transportation ser- vices or alternatives beyond those required by ADA, including job and job-related services transportation. NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 26, entitled “An Analysis and Evaluation of States’ Implementation of the FTA 5310, 5316 and 5317 Programs,” focused on two key related, but separate, objectives: 1. Determine the level of effort and costs asso- ciated with the development of coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans. 2. Determine the perceived success of the Coor- dination Plans and the perceived success states and other grantees are having in awarding FTA Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF funds and meeting the Coordination Plan objectives. To meet these objectives, tasks included conduct- ing an Internet survey of state Departments of Trans- portation (DOTs); performing more detailed tele- phone interviews with states, local transit agencies, private service providers, MPOs, Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), and access groups; and ana- lyzing FTA and state JARC and NF grant awards. NCHRP RRD 354 presents the findings of these tasks to assist states and grantees in identifying ways to enhance their processes. In addition to state and grantee best practices, suggestions made by respon- dents for improving the accomplishment and effec- tiveness of the human services transportation grant programs, Coordination Plans, and the related re- quirements are reported. No conclusions are ex- pressed regarding any of the suggested changes in the programs or requirements; the state and local agency comments are reported without elaboration. NCHRP RRD 354 is organized as follows. Chap- ter 1 provides an introduction to the research effort. Chapter 2 reviews the approach and findings of the Internet survey of state DOTs. Chapter 3 summa- rizes the selection of states for further interview and the results of the telephone surveys. Chapter 4 high- lights the JARC and NF appropriations and obliga- tions by state and urbanized areas. Chapter 5 pre- sents a comparison of the level of effort and success associated with the development of the Coordina- tion Plans as well as opportunities for improving the success and effectiveness of the plans and grant pro- grams. The Internet survey form, telephone interview questionnaire, and individual telephone interview summaries are contained in the Appendices of this report, which are available online at http://www.trb. org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx. Internet Survey As part of this study, the research team con- ducted an Internet survey of state DOTs. The survey used multiple choice questions and opportunities for additional comments to help: (1) determine the ex- tent to which respondents believe this coordinated planning effort has met FTA goals of enhancing transportation access, minimizing duplication of ser- vices, and facilitating the most appropriate and cost- effective transportation possible with available re- sources; and (2) ascertain the cost of developing and maintaining these Coordination Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that resources are being used wisely and effectively, resulting in the better, more cost-effective and coordinated programs that the plans are expected to foster. 2

The “Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Program” Internet survey completed by 21 state DOTs highlights several areas where the Coordination Plans have been relatively successful, such as enhanc- ing transportation access for target populations, in- creasing commitment/participation in the plan devel- opment at both the state and local levels, improving coordination, and creating a general understanding of eligible JARC and NF grants. However, the respon- dents stated that the federal requirement for the Coor- dination Plans has placed a significant administrative requirement on already short-staffed state and local agencies. Respondents felt that the coordination plan- ning process is time consuming and many agencies stated they are not able to hire new staff or consultants to assist with the process. As a result, agencies feel that the responsibilities often fall on existing staff, many of whom have already been asked to take on additional responsibilities. In addition to the administrative responsibilities placed on state and local agencies, the survey respon- dents highlighted several areas of concern in regards to obligating the JARC and NF grants. The responses indicated that the obligation of these funds generally has not improved with the Coordination Plan require- ment. There frequently is a lag in funding JARC and NF projects, and several respondents have had prob- lems obligating these funds before they expire. In fact, 24 percent of responding agencies reported that they have had JARC or NF funds expire before they could be obligated. The agencies stated that one of the primary reasons that obligating these funds is such a problem for the survey respondents is the difficulty in identifying local matching funds for projects. Local funds are limited and the higher matching require- ments of the JARC and NF grant programs (particu- larly the 50 percent match for operations), coupled with the uncertainty that these funds will be there in the future, make it more difficult to identify local funds for these projects. The majority of survey re- spondents (70 percent) stated that there is reluctance in their states to start new services with JARC and NF funds. The primary reason provided by the re- spondents (79 percent) was the concern that these funds are not sustainable. They stated that they do not want to introduce new services and then have to take them away when/if these grant programs or the ap- portionments received are reduced. Given these concerns, the agencies were asked if they had any suggestions to improve the use and management of the JARC and NF grant programs so that the coordination goals of the FTA, state, and lo- calities continue to be met, while the administrative burden these grant programs place on the state and local agencies is reduced. Nineteen of the 21 survey respondents offered suggestions for improving these grant programs. All of the survey respondent suggestions attempted to improve the management of the grant programs and to find means to fund more projects, whether through proposing consoli- dation with other grant programs, increasing fund- ing, reducing restrictions, lowering operating matching requirements, or increasing flexibility. The suggestions from the survey respondents are summarized in Figure 1. The most frequently suggested improvement for the JARC and NF grant programs by the survey re- spondents was the consolidation of the Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF grant programs with other federal grant programs such as Section 5310, 5311, and 5307. With consolidation, the respondents indicated that the individual grant program goals could still be reflected in program and planning re- quirements, including dedicating percentages of funding to each program goal. Section 5310, Trans- portation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, was the most frequently mentioned program for consolidating the JARC and NF grants, and several respondents indicated that these grant programs could also be consolidated with Section 5311, the Rural and Small Urban Areas grant pro- gram. By consolidating the JARC and NF grants with Section 5310 and/or 5311, the respondents felt that the states could manage the program more effi- ciently, while still developing a Coordination Plan (as required for Section 5310) and serving similar target populations. Several respondents also felt that consolidating Section 5316 and 5317 into one grant program would allow more flexibility in transferring funds and meeting the greatest transit needs. They be- lieved that this would allow the funds to be used to serve any one of the target populations and fund proj- ects that best meet the transit needs of the state. Ad- ditionally, it was suggested by some that the obliga- tion by population size requirement be eliminated for the new consolidated grant program. The survey respondents indicated that combining the JARC and NF grant programs would allow greater flexibility in awarding projects and moving funds from one area to another, and would be more efficient for states to manage. 3

Telephone Survey As part of this study, the research team conducted telephone surveys with contacts in six states. Based on the results of the Internet survey conducted in late 2009, six states were selected to participate in follow- up discussions via telephone interviews. Only state DOT representatives that indicated a willingness to discuss their responses further were contacted, and the six states were selected with the goal of having a mix of geographic locations, urbanized versus rural states, and states indicating varying levels of satisfac- tion with the human services Coordination Plan process and results. The states selected for further dis- cussion were: Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. Each state DOT representative was contacted for the purpose of further discussion of their responses to the Internet survey, clarification of their responses (if needed), and identification of agencies and contact persons within the state for further discussion. The ob- jective was to identify a set of agencies within the state to interview for their perspectives on the human ser- vices Coordination Plans and the associated grant pro- grams. Within each state, the study team attempted to contact a cross-section of agency types, including MPOs, RPOs, transit agencies, human services trans- portation providers, and Non-Governmental Organi- zations (NGOs). The purpose of the interviews was two-fold: 1. Determining the extent to which the respon- dents believe coordinated public transit/human services transportation plans have met FTA goals of enhancing transportation access, min- imizing duplication of services, and facilitat- ing the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation possible with available re- sources; and 2. Ascertaining the cost of developing and main- taining these Coordination Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that resources are being used wisely and effectively, resulting in the better, more cost-effective and coordinated programs that the plans are expected to foster. A cross-state comparison highlighting some of the key differences between the states is described in the following section. It is important to note that the cross-state comparisons are based on generaliza- 4 Consolidate with 5307, 5311 End the local coordinated plan Eliminate obligation by population size Lessen restrictions Lower the operating match Consolidate with 5311 Consolidate with 5310 and 5311 Combine 5316 and 5317 Increase funds Consolidate with 5310 What suggestions do you have to improve the use and management of the Section 5316 and 5317 grant programs that could be considered as part of Reauthorization? 0 1 2 3 4 Allow moving funds from area to area Better coordination between 5316 and 5317 Consolidate with 5309, 5310, 5311 Combine 5317 and 5310 Consolidate with 5307, 5310, 5311 Number of Respondents Figure 1 Responses on improving the use and management of JARC and NF grant programs.

tions made about each state that were derived from the four or five interviews conducted in each state. Perceived Effectiveness of Plans One key finding that was fairly consistent across all six states interviewed is that, on the whole, all found the Coordination Plans to be ef- fective. While some states had individual agencies that reported mixed or negative feelings about the plan requirement, the overall assessment by all states interviewed was positive. Plan Development and Costs The methods used to develop the Coordination Plans varied from state to state. Except for Washing- ton State, most agencies did some combination of in-house plan development along with the use of consultants, and in some cases the level of assistance used by the agencies varied by whether the agency was in an urban or rural area. In addition, many local agencies had a difficult time quantifying the Coor- dination Plan development costs, particularly if the plan was developed in-house and the main expense was staff time. Often the best cost estimate avail- able was an estimate of the number of staff people or the percentage of a person or team’s time devoted to the Coordination Plans. As a result, the overall costs associated with the development of the Coor- dination Plans at the local level vary significantly in level of detail, ranging from $10,000 to $85,000 or one to six staff members working on all aspects of the human services transportation grants, including Coordination Plans, sub-recipient agreements, con- tracts, legal, and engineering. Perceived Coordination Plan Results Most of the states interviewed emphasized im- proved relationships between public and private agencies as a result of the Coordination Plan, par- ticularly Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Penn- sylvania, Virginia, and Washington indicated that the plans built upon existing coordination that they were already doing regarding human services trans- portation. Finally, many of the states noted either that they believe human services transportation did not necessarily improve because of the plan, or it was difficult to tell if it had. One reason for this was the respondents’ concern for the lack of asso- ciated funding and the lack of desire by most states to use available funds to establish new services, for fear of not being able to continue funding them when the grant money ran out. The Missouri, Penn- sylvania, and Virginia DOTs all indicated that their preferred projects do not include new operating services. Indication of Redundant or Burdensome Elements of Plan Development There were a wide variety of issues raised with re- gard to parts of the Coordination Plan or planning process that the states find redundant or burdensome. The challenges discussed by the respondents ranged from how projects are prioritized at the local versus state level to concerns about the public meeting and Spanish translation requirements. Some states felt that the administration of the plan is burdensome, and some did not; there was no real consensus between the states on this issue. Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection A few states noted that while prioritization is done at the local level, the state makes the final decision on what to fund, taking away some of the control from the locals. Respondents indicated that this is done more often in rural areas for which the state DOT is the designated recipient for grant funds, whereas in urban areas the designated recipient is more likely to be a local agency or government. Most states noted that the prioritization of projects is based on gaps in service and where the proposed grant fits into the goals and objectives of the Coordination Plan. Perceived Project Continuation Needs/ Impediments to Using the Grant Programs A common theme across all states interviewed was that the lack of money available for local matches becomes a burden in the continuation of projects funded through the grant programs, as well as an im- pediment to using the grant programs in the first place. The lack of money for the local match seemed to be more of an issue in rural areas than it was in urban areas. Finally, the NF regulation that it be used for new service was also an impediment to using the Section 5317 grant program for many respondents, because these agencies did not feel that they would be able to continue to sustain new service when the grant money ran out. 5

Sources of Matching Funds Sources of the local match requirement for the grant programs varied by the state interviewed and by area within these states, with some states providing the local match and some agencies relying on local governments or even local organizations. Often urban areas were required to find a local match, while the state provided the match in rural areas. Pennsylvania and Washington, however, were two states that pro- vided the local match to recipients regardless of their location in the state. In a few creative cases, such as in Ohio, agencies used other federal grants to match the Section 5316 and 5317 FTA grant programs. Other states found it was not possible to coordinate between the human services transportation grant pro- grams and other federal grant programs. Performance Measures Some states interviewed were more diligent than others in utilizing performance measures for deter- mining grant funding allocations. Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina seemed to have the most consistent processes for utilizing perfor- mance measures. These states primarily use standard service indicators to gauge performance of the pro- grams funded by the grants. Major Concerns/Desired Changes Expressed A consistent area of concern expressed by the states interviewed was the desire to remove the local match requirement due to the difficulty in identify- ing and sustaining local matching funds. Another common concern expressed was the lack of under- standing regarding the requirements for NF grants. A few states also indicated they are unhappy with the grant administrative process, including the length of time it takes to apply for and receive the grant money. In addition, some respondents indicated that they are uncomfortable about reviewing new proj- ects and the continuation of old projects simultane- ously, and that the grant awards do not necessarily account for project sustainability beyond the initial grant funding. Numerous states interviewed expressed a desire to have the same criteria and rules for both JARC and NF, with some respondents suggesting that the programs be combined. However, one state, namely Ohio, suggested that rather than combine the two very similar programs, the NF program could be dif- ferentiated further to make it more applicable to se- niors who do not have physical limitations that keep them from driving but simply do not feel comfort- able doing so. Finally, several states expressed a desire for more standardized, outcome-based perfor- mance measures to review the programs. FTA Grants Data Using data from the FTA website, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and FY 2007 FTA Statistical Summaries (the FY 2008 FTA Statistical Summary was not available at the time of the analysis), and the U.S. Government Accounting Office’s (GAO) Report: Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Eval- uating the JARC Program (May 2009), the follow- ing tables examine the portion of JARC and NF funds that have been appropriated to and obligated by the states. These tables help identify the extent to which states and their grantees are having difficulty obligating the appropriated funds before they expire, as these grants must be obligated within 3 years of appropriation. Any funds not obligated after 3 years will be reapportioned among all recipients in the next FY appropriations, e.g., lapsed FY 2006 funds are reapportioned as part of FY 2009. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the total appropri- ated funds (for all states and urbanized area designated 6 FY Appropriated Obligated in FY 06 Obligated in FY 07 Obligated in FY 08 Transferred Out (as of 9/30/08)1 Remaining % Unobligated 2006 $136,620,000 $5,291,004 $22,731,680 $87,374,069 $2,621,612 $18,603,175 13.6% 2007 $144,000,000 $7,204,231 $47,596,190 $1,909,878 $87,289,701 60.6% 2008 $156,000,000 $22,376,472 $859,596 $132,763,932 85.1% Total $436,620,000 $5,291,004 $29,935,911 $157,346,731 $5,391,086 $238,656,808 54.7% 1 States are allowed to transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula grant program and Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance Program. Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_9293.html. Table 1 Summary of total JARC funds appropriated and obligated between FY 2006 and FY 2008.

7FY Appropriated Obligated in FY 06 Obligated in FY 07 Obligated in FY 08 Total Obligated % Unobligated 2006 $77,200,000 $1,269,027 $6,786,605 $59,556,856 $67,612,488 12.4% 2007 $81,000,000 $2,537,311 $28,079,915 $30,617,226 62.2% 2008 $87,500,000 $12,233,883 $12,233,883 86.0% Total $245,700,000 $1,269,027 $9,323,916 $99,870,654 $110,463,597 55.0% Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7188.html. Table 2 Summary of total NF funds appropriated and obligated between FY 2006 and FY 2008. recipients) for the JARC and NF grant programs for FY 2006 through FY 2008. They reveal that nearly 45 percent of the FY 2006 through FY 2008 JARC and NF appropriations have been obligated; however, nearly 14 percent of FY 2006 JARC appropriations lapsed and more than 12 percent of FY 2006 NF ap- propriations lapsed. Additionally, roughly 40 percent of FY 2007 JARC and NF funds have been obligated and 15 percent of FY 2008 JARC and NF funds have been obligated. While the tables indicate that there were some initial delays in obligating JARC and NF funds, they also demonstrate that the amount of JARC and NF funds obligated in the appropriation year is increasing and the amount obligated in each successive year is also increasing as states and grantees gain familiarity with the required coordi- nated planning process and grant administration associated with the new NF program and the new formula-based allocation of JARC funds under SAFETEA-LU. Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) As shown in Table 1, the states and urbanized areas have obligated (or transferred out) $118 mil- lion of FY 2006 JARC appropriations (approxi- mately 86 percent), $57 million of FY 2007 appro- priations (approximately 39 percent), and $23 million of FY 2008 appropriations (approximately 15 per- cent). While the obligation percentages increased during the 3-year obligation period after appropri- ation, FY 2006 still had $18.6 million (or 13.6 per- cent) in JARC appropriations lapse at the end of FY 2008. However, based on discussions with FTA staff, the amount of JARC funds lapsing con- tinues to decline as states and grantees become better acquainted with the process, have identified appropriate grant recipients, and have gained com- fort with the Coordination Plan development. New Freedom (NF) As shown in Table 2, by the end of FY 2007, only 6.6 percent of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appro- priations had been obligated. However, it is impor- tant to note that by the end of FY 2008, an additional $87.6 million of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appro- priations were obligated, bringing the percentage of FY 2006 and FY 2007 appropriations that had been obligated up to 62 percent. The relatively recent in- troduction of the Section 5317 program and the changes in requirements that have taken place have caused some confusion among planning organiza- tions and transportation providers. As experience with the programs and coordinated planning process continues to grow, more applications are likely to be submitted, further reducing the amount of lapsed funds. Conclusions and Findings The findings from the Internet survey of state DOTs and the telephone interviews with local coor- dinated planning participants in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wash- ington helped identify the perceived costs and bene- fits associated with the human services transportation Coordination Plans and grant programs. An evalua- tion of these costs and benefits resulted in the devel- opment of several findings in regards to the respon- dents’ perceived accomplishment and effectiveness of the Coordination Plans and the related require- ments for states. The findings from respondents iden- tified in the following section revolve around three central themes: flexibility, administrative burden, and transparency. • Several respondents suggested the conso- lidation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs. The most frequently sug- gested improvement for the human services

transportation grant programs was the consoli- dation of the Section 5316 JARC and 5317 NF programs with other grant programs such as Section 5310, 5311, and 5307. Respondents noted that with consolidation, the individual grant program goals could still be reflected in program and planning requirements, including dedicating percentages of funding to each pro- gram goal. Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Dis- abilities was the most frequently mentioned program for consolidation with JARC and NF and was viewed as the most logical by respon- dents, given the similar target populations and requirement for the Coordination Plan. Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program and 5311 Rural and Small Urbanized Area Pro- gram provide funding for more traditional tran- sit services for general populations, contradict- ing the intentions of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs. As a result, there was general agreement by those surveyed and inter- viewed that the planning requirements for Sec- tion 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs are very similar, and that a combination of these grant programs would make planning and adminis- tration easier for all concerned. The respondents stated that by consolidat- ing the three grant programs, state administra- tors would have greater flexibility to meet local customer needs without the multiple re- quirements associated with each of the indi- vidual grant programs. Many respondents in- dicated that they believe the administration of multiple funds that are relatively small in funding levels is time-consuming and requires significant staff resources for state and local agencies that are already short-staffed. Since many agencies are unable to hire additional staff or consultants to assist with the process, the responsibilities often fall on existing staff, many of whom have already been asked to take on additional responsibilities. While the Internet survey and telephone in- terview respondents highlighted the benefits associated with the consolidation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs, other or- ganizations have indicated that there could be potential drawbacks to consolidation as well. A recent AARP study on Policy Options to Im- prove Specialized Transportation noted that several aging and disability organizations have expressed concerns that the consolidation of these programs could have unintended con- sequences, including reducing the quality of Section 5310 services because the target popu- lations of these grants programs do not neces- sarily have the same transportation needs (2). In addition, the AARP study highlights that there are some major issues associated with the consolidation of these grant programs that have not been evaluated sufficiently, including the identification of designated recipients and how the grant money would get to providers. Under the current grant programs, the designated re- cipient is the state for Section 5310 and either the state or local agency in large urban areas for JARC and NF. As a result, the suggestion to consolidate these grant programs would need to be evaluated more closely. • Suggested federal grant process improve- ments. The study respondents indicated that they felt the federal grant process could be im- proved to be more transparent, timely, sustain- able, and flexible. Planning organizations ob- served that the multiple levels of prioritization and project selection may interfere with trans- parency to local officials and stakeholders, which would adversely impact the commit- ment and perceived benefits of the coordinated planning process. These respondents suggested that more guidance from FTA on the grant se- lection and prioritization process could im- prove the understanding of all stakeholders (local and state) in what the federal priorities are and how grant awards match up with the in- tention of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs. In addition, respondents stated that im- provements to the administrative process, par- ticularly the length of time it takes to apply for and receive grant money, are desired. They noted that the year it can take between grant application and receipt of funds also impacts the link between planning efforts and the pro- jects. In addition, they believe annual com- petition for funding of long-term, ongoing projects is redundant and wasteful; several re- spondents felt that distribution of funds on a longer schedule (i.e., funding for 4 years) or on a programmatic basis would be more effec- tive for these types of projects. Many respon- 8

dents added that greater flexibility for state and local recipients to redirect at least portions of the grant money to meet emergent needs or redirect funds from projects that no longer need or cannot use the funding in a timely manner could also improve the grant administration process. • Requests for additional federal guidance on performance measures. Study respon- dents expressed a strong desire and need for additional federal guidance on performance measures that look beyond basic service in- dicators and consider the effectiveness of funded projects in promoting job sustainabil- ity; effectiveness of the providers in supply- ing these services against the baseline condi- tions (such as unemployment, senior/disabled population, and distribution of customers and destinations); and measuring the number of customers graduating from the need for JARC transportation. Quantitatively, relatively few interviewees mentioned performance measures playing a significant role in evaluating the ef- fectiveness of projects, primarily because they believe customer-focused measures have been lacking. Those states interviewed that did utilize performance measures in some manner primar- ily relied on standard transportation service in- dicators to gauge the performance of the pro- grams funded by the grants. However, many respondents believe the use of standard perfor- mance measures fails to sufficiently measure the human services aspect of the projects and often favors urban areas over rural because often rural areas have higher transportation costs due to longer distances, dispersed cus- tomers and destinations, and little other infra- structure to support human services customers, which may make rural transportation appear in- effective or inefficient. • Requests for additional federal guidance that strengthens the link between the plan- ning process and grant funding. There was concern expressed by some planning organi- zations interviewed that providers do not always see the benefit of coordinated planning efforts, given the distinction between the planning process and the grant approval and disbursement process. Those interviewed felt that federal guidance that strengthened the link between the planning process and the grants would be appreciated by both the plan- ning organizations and the service providers; this could be accomplished by providing more technical advice, tying grant money to perfor- mance measures, and rewarding cooperative efforts. Many respondents suggested that some funding could be tied to the planning process and performance measures, preferably those identified at the federal level to help improve the perceived transparency and equity of fed- eral grant distribution. This could include consideration of the existing conditions and backgrounds of areas. Some respondents indi- cated that performance measures should also go beyond basic service indicators or cost data to be more results-oriented or outcomes- based. They felt that data should be collected on the success of projects in getting customers to the services they need and in the effective- ness of the providers in supplying these ser- vices against the baseline conditions. The respondents’ support for performance measures and the perceived opportunity for an improved federal grant process comes back to the effectiveness of the coordinated planning process. These respondents believe that by using performance measures and data, and link- ing federal funds to the results of this process, coordinated planning could make better use of quantitative information and link plans to re- sults more closely. They believe that stakehold- ers making use of a performance-driven coordi- nated planning process would get even more out of the process of developing and working to implement the Coordination Plan. CHAPTER 2 INTERNET SURVEY OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION (DOTs) As part of the research effort, the research team conducted an Internet survey of state DOTs. The sur- vey used multiple choice questions with opportunities for additional comments. The purpose of the survey was to help: (1) determine the extent to which respon- dents believed their coordinated planning effort had met FTA goals of enhancing transportation access, minimizing duplication of services, and facilitating the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation 9

possible with available resources and (2) ascertain the cost of developing and maintaining these Coordina- tion Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that resources are being used wisely and effectively, result- ing in the better, more cost-effective and coordinated programs that the plans are expected to foster. The questions in the survey were divided into four sections: 1. Perceived Success of the Public Transit/ Human Services Coordination Plans 2. Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coor- dination Plan Development 3. Awarding Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF Grants 4. Please Tell Us About Yourself Once a survey was created using SurveyMonkey. com, an e-mail invitation to the survey was sent to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Com- mittee on Public Transportation members by Shayne Gill, the AASHTO Public Transportation Program Manager. The e-mail invitation described the pur- pose of the study and the Internet survey, and pro- vided a web link to the survey. The web link could be forwarded to others within the agency for assistance with the survey; however, the link created a new sur- vey response for each person. This chapter summarizes the findings of the “Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs” Internet survey. The results and responses for each section of the survey are summarized in the following section, “Summary of Survey Responses.” The final section in this chapter, titled “Conclusions,” highlights the coordination planning successes and challenges reported by survey respondents and iden- tifies respondent suggestions that might alleviate or reduce these challenges. The blank survey form is contained in Appendix A, which is available online at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx. Summary of Survey Responses Please Tell Us About Yourself Of the agencies contacted, 21 state DOTs com- pleted the survey, for a response rate of 42 percent. Responses represented a valuable mix of regions throughout the country. Table 3 summarizes the re- sponses received by region. While the sample size of the survey was slightly smaller than the desired 50 percent response rate, the variety of responses from states throughout the coun- try provided a good pulse on the major issues encoun- tered with the human services transportation plans and grant programs. The results of the survey pro- vided a solid starting point for the more detailed tele- phone interviews conducted during late 2009 and early 2010. The responses for each of the three remaining sections of the Internet survey are summarized as follows: (1) Perceived Success of the Public Trans- portation/Human Services Coordination Plans, (2) Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coordina- tion Plan Development, and (3) Awarding Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF Grants. Perceived Success of the Public Transportation/ Human Services Coordination Plans The first section of the Internet survey focused on the perceived success of the Coordination Plans, specifically in meeting FTA goals, as well as state and/or local goals. The survey attempted to identify lead participants in the Coordination Plans, the level of success achieved, and whether this level of suc- cess could have been achieved without the plans. All 10 Northeast 4 Connecticut Delaware New Hampshire Vermont Midwest 5 Michigan Minnesota Ohio Pennsylvania South Dakota South 5 Arkansas Kentucky Missouri South Carolina Virginia Southwest 3 Arizona New Mexico Nevada West 3 Alaska Oregon Washington Unknown1 1 Total Responses 21 1 One survey respondent declined provi- ding any information about the state in order to remain anonymous. Table 3 Survey responses by region.

Little Success Average Success Moderate Success Significant Success Have the Coordination Plans been successful in enhancing transportation access to target populations? 0 2 4 6 8 10 No Success Number of Respondents Figure 2 Perceived enhancement of transportation access for target populations. 11 Have Coordination Plans been successful in minimizing duplication of transportation services for target populations? Average Success Moderate Success Significant Success 0 2 4 6 8 10 No Success Little Success Number of Respondents Figure 3 Assessment of duplication of transportation services for target populations. 21 survey respondents completed this section of the survey. A few questions were skipped, but there were no fewer than 19 responses to any question in this section of the survey. FTA Goals. In general, the majority of survey re- spondents (62 percent) felt that the Coordination Plans were achieving average to moderate success in meet- ing FTA’s goal of enhancing transportation access for the target populations (the collective group of persons with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes) in their state. However, respondents indicated that the plans have achieved average to little success in meeting FTA’s goals of minimizing the duplication of transportation services (81 percent) and facilitating the most cost-effective transportation possible with available resources (76 percent). Figures 2, 3, and 4 highlight the respondents’ opinions on how well the Coordination Plans have met FTA goals. State or Local Goals. In determining whether addi- tional state or local goals were met as a result of the federally required Coordination Plans, the survey first explored whether states had any local and/or state planning requirements already in place that were used to satisfy the federal requirement. Over one-half of the respondents (57 percent) already had some local and/or state planning requirements, indi- cating that the federal requirement did not represent a completely new process for all states. Figure 5 summarizes the type of state and/or local planning requirements already in place for some of the re- sponding states. It should be noted that not all states provided an explanation or description of their state and/or local planning requirements. Even with more than one-half of respondents in- dicating that they had similar state or local planning re- quirements already in place, 52 percent of respondents

12 Have Coordination Plans been successful in facilitating the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation possible? Little Success Average Success Moderate Success Significant Success 0 2 4 6 8 10 No Success Number of Respondents Figure 4 Perceived facilitation of most appropriate and cost-effective transportation possible. Job Access Plan Multimodal Planning State Fund Planning MPO Planning Local Planning 0 1 2 3 4 5 Medicaid Planning Coordination for Appropriations Number of Respondents Figure 5 State and/or local planning requirements used to satisfy federal Coordination Plan requirement. indicated that additional state or local goals had been met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement. For some states the federal requirement tied their local Co- ordination Plans to funding or brought the coordina- tion effort up to the state level. These varied additional goals included the following (one response each): • State coordination, rather than local • Tied coordination plans to funding • Mobility Management projects in areas with- out transit • Developed regional coordination councils • Interagency Committee on Special Transporta- tion goals • Governor created transportation committee • Did not have state/local specific goals • Demand response state-funded program • 5317 provides alternative to paratransit While additional state and local goals have been met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement, only 26 percent of respondents indicated that the plans have led to additional state funds being allocated to public transit. Of the five respondents who stated that additional funds were allocated, two indicated that the additional funding was an indirect result of having the right people involved in the planning process, which fostered the identification of other sources of match- ing funds. Additionally, two respondents stated that the plans made better use of JARC/NF funding, and one did not provide an explanation. Participation in Coordination Plans. In general, a wide variety of agencies and groups were involved in the coordination planning process. The most com- monly listed lead participants in the process were the state DOT (33 percent), MPOs (25 percent), and

13 Which state and local agencies are taking the lead on the Coordination Plans? Transit agencies MPOs State transit office 0 5 10 15 20 Interest/community groups Other Number of Respondents Figure 6 Lead agencies for the Coordination Plans. What level of commitment/participation has been seen in the Coordination Plans at the state level? Little Participation Average Participation Moderate Participation Full Participation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 No Participation Number of Respondents Figure 7 Reported state commitment/participation in the Coordination Plans. transit agencies (21 percent). Figure 6 highlights the lead participants in the planning process for the re- sponding states. The agencies identified by the respondents as “other” included regional planning agencies (three respondents) and 5310 recipients, counties, Native American tribal governments, private sector, public transit provider, state planning bureau, and transit districts (each mentioned by one respondent). The survey respondents acknowledged that the level of commitment/participation in the develop- ment of the Coordination Plans has been relatively strong at both the state and local levels. Over 70 per- cent of the survey respondents indicated that the level of commitment/participation at the state and local levels was average or better, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. When asked to provide an explanation of the ratings for state and local commitment/participation, respondents used the opportunity to describe the situ- ation in their states. The two most common explana- tions (with two responses) were that the state paid for and supported the planning, resulting in higher levels of commitment and participation, and that it was impossible to include all participants in the process, particularly in terms of attracting new agen- cies to the process. Respondents felt the funding level and restrictive federal requirements for the JARC and NF grant programs often make it difficult to attract participants to the process. To increase par- ticipation of Section 5310 participants, one state of- fered an incentive for the participating agencies’ ap- plications for vehicle grants. The explanations for levels of commitment and participation at the state and local level are summarized in Figure 9. Perceptions of Level of Coordination Achieved. The last two questions of this section asked whether the

14 What level of commitment/participation has been seen in the Coordination Plans at the local level? Little Participation Average Participation Moderate Participation Full Participation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Participation Number of Respondents Figure 8 Reported local commitment/participation in the Coordination Plans. State provided template Some conflict of interest with local agencies and funding Not enough funding to engage locals Non-transportation agencies informed but not involved FTA guidelines too specific for local agencies Impossible to include all stakeholders State paid for and supported planning 0 1 2 3 Consultant helped local agencies Varies by region State personnel reviewed the plans for compliance Number of Respondents Figure 9 Explanation of levels of commitment/participation at the state and local levels. state achieved the same level of coordination on transportation for the target populations before the federal requirements were introduced and whether the same program objectives could be achieved without the Coordination Plans. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents believed that the level of coordi- nation was not the same as before the federal re- quirement, as shown in Figure 10. Of the 11 respon- dents that provided an explanation for their answer, six (55 percent) indicated that the coordination is better now, two (18 percent) indicated that there is now increased awareness and additional stakeholder participation, and two (18 percent) stated that the federal requirement duplicates or overlaps existing state requirements. Additionally, one respondent ex- planation indicated that, to date, the achievement of the plan primarily has been pointing out what ser- vices are lacking. While most of the respondents indicated that the level of coordination had improved after the federal requirement for Coordination Plans, 62 percent of respondents believed that the same objectives could be met without the plans, as shown in Figure 11. Of the 10 respondents that provided an explanation for their answer, five indicated that their state already had the same type of planning requirement in place, but not the funds to pay for it; two stated that the fed- eral requirement sped up the process; two responded

15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Number of Respondents Did your state achieve the same level of coordination on transportation for the target populations before the requirements came into being? Figure 10 Reported change in level of coordination achieved. Could the same program objectives be achieved in your state without the Coordination Plans? No 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes Number of Respondents Figure 11 Estimated achievement of program objectives without the Coordination Plans. that they did not have a similar state planning re- quirement; and one stated that coordination requires mandates. Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coordination Plan Development This section of the Internet survey focused on the cost of developing the Coordination Plans, specifi- cally in terms of a dollar amount and/or time spent on the initial plan development and maintaining the plans. The survey attempted to identify where the money and time for the Coordination Plan develop- ment is coming from, whether other projects have been curtailed or eliminated to fund the plans, and whether any additional costs have been incurred, in- cluding hiring new employees or consultants. All 21 survey respondents completed this section of the sur- vey. A few questions were skipped, but there were no fewer than 19 responses to any question in this sec- tion of the survey. Cost of the Coordination Plans. While the cost may vary by region/locality, the questions in this portion of the survey were focused on the total cost for the development of all Coordination Plans throughout the state. The intent of the questions was to arrive at a total dollar amount (including both state and local money); however, many respondents could only re- port how much the state spent on the plans (exclud- ing local expenses) because they did not know how much the MPOs and regions spent. As a result, the cost of the plans of responding states was largely less than $250,000 (57 percent) as shown in Figure 12. For those states spending more money on the initial plan development, many indicated that the state was providing a significant portion of the money for the Coordination Plan development.

16 How much money is being spent for the initial public transit/human services Coordination Plans in your state (statewide total)? $250,001–$500,000 $500,001–$750,000 $750,001–$1,000,000 More than $1,000,000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Less than $250,000 Number of Respondents Figure 12 Cost of initial Coordination Plans (statewide total). What is the projected annual cost for maintaining the public transit/human services Coordination Plans in your state (statewide total)? $250,001–$500,000 $500,001–$750,000 $750,001–$1,000,000 More than $1,000,000 0 5 10 15 20 Less than $250,000 Number of Respondents Figure 13 Cost of maintaining Coordination Plans (statewide total). Similarly, Figure 13 demonstrates that most of the projected annual state costs for maintaining the Coordination Plans are expected to be less than $250,000 (86 percent). As mentioned previously, many respondents could only indicate how much the state is expected to spend on the maintenance of the Coordination Plans because they were not aware of how much the MPOs and regions expect to spend. Many respondents indicated that the Coordina- tion Plans have a “shelf life” of 4 years for non- attainment areas and 5 years for attainment areas, and they do not anticipate that the costs will be in excess of $250,000 (at least for the state). Additionally, while some states paid for the cost of initial Coordi- nation Plan development, no state responded that the state would pay for the maintenance of the plans, which likely contributed to the lower projected costs for plan maintenance. Source of Funding for Coordination Plans. The primary sources of funds for the development of the Coordination Plans for the responding states were federal planning/administrative funds (48 per- cent) and state funds (30 percent). Figure 14 sum- marizes the funding sources mentioned by survey respondents. In addition, five of seven survey respondents in- dicated that these revenue sources are not sustainable for Coordination Plan development. The respondents concerned with sustainability of the revenue source(s) primarily depended on state grants. Respondents in- dicated that many of the state funds came from a one- time source (such as an Executive Order) or were taken from funds (both state and federal) that would have gone toward providing services. These responses indicate that funding for the plans may become increas- ingly a local responsibility.

17 Where is the money to develop these plans coming from in your state? UWR Grant Executive Order Local State Federal 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Planning Funds Number of Respondents Figure 14 Sources of funds for Coordination Plan development. Mobility Manager Consultants 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 County Association Number of Respondents Figure 15 Additional hiring to meet requirement for Coordination Plan. While some respondents were concerned about sustainability of funding sources for the Coordina- tion Plans, only two respondents (10 percent) indi- cated that other projects had been curtailed or elim- inated to fund the plans. One respondent stated that services were cut or curtailed to fund the plans; the other respondent did not describe the project(s) that had been reduced or eliminated. Additional Costs or Issues with Preparation of the Co- ordination Plans. The majority of survey respondents (68 percent) did not identify additional implementa- tion costs or issues with the preparation of the Coor- dination Plans. Of the six respondents that identified additional costs or issues, four were cost related (find- ing consultants, insurance, additional staff time, and workshops for MPOs and regional planning commis- sions) and two were issues with receiving adequate participation from either planning commissions or service providers. However, when the Internet survey probed fur- ther into the additional implementation costs, nine respondents (43 percent) had hired consultants or additional employees to help meet the Coordination Plan requirements at the state level, and 53 percent had hired consultants or additional employees at the local level. In addition, one respondent indicated that they are not allowed to expand staff, even if the position is 100 percent grant funded. As shown in Figure 15, most of the additional hiring has been for consultants. In addition to hiring consultants or new employ- ees, the responsibilities for preparing the Coordination Plans have fallen largely on existing staff. Eighteen respondents (86 percent) indicated that the plans have placed an additional burden on the state transit office.

The explanations for the additional administrative bur- den varied, but the common responses were that the agency is already short-staffed (one respondent has a hiring freeze and another has had reductions in staff) and the process is time consuming. Figure 16 summa- rizes the additional administrative burdens described by the respondents. Awarding Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF Grants This section of the Internet survey focused on the success states have had in awarding/obligating the Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF grants. The survey attempted to identify the level of success in awarding the grants, the type of projects receiving the grants, how/if the Coordination Plans have im- proved grant awards, and concerns associated with the grant programs. All 21 survey respondents com- pleted this section of the survey. A few questions were skipped, but there were no fewer than 20 re- sponses to any question in this section of the survey. Successes and Challenges in Awarding JARC and NF Grants. In general, the survey respondents indi- cated that they have had success in awarding both the JARC and NF funds. Ninety percent of all re- spondents felt they had at least average success in awarding JARC funds, while only 75 percent of re- spondents felt they had at least average success in awarding NF funds. Based on the responses, the greatest problems in awarding the grants have been the lack of funds available in the program and find- ing a local match. Respondents indicated that there is not enough money in these programs (particularly JARC) because the need is significantly larger than the funds. As a result, they report that the funds frequently are used for existing/on-going services (preservation) rather than new projects. Several re- spondents also indicated that awarding of NF grants has been hindered by the restrictions on eligible proj- ects and lack of understanding of the beyond ADA requirement by potential recipients. There is some hope by respondents that the recent clarification on NF projects will make awarding the grants easier. Figure 17 and Figure 18 summarize the challenges faced by the survey respondents in awarding JARC and NF grants, respectively. The recipients of JARC and NF grants were quite varied for the survey respondents. The most common JARC grant recipients were transit agencies (27 per- cent), non-profit agencies (15 percent), and rural agencies (12 percent), while NF grants were received primarily by transit agencies and non-profit agencies (27 percent each). Figure 19 and Figure 20 sum- marize the types of JARC and NF grant recipients, respectively. Additionally, survey respondents provided a di- verse list of projects that have been funded by JARC and NF grants. JARC grants largely help pay for ex- panded services, operating costs, work-related, and capital purchases, while NF grants primarily funded mobility management, capital purchases, operating costs, and ADA services. Figure 21 and Figure 22 summarize the type of projects funded by JARC and NF grants, respectively. Obligating JARC and NF Grants. A review of the FTA data for FY 2006–2008 revealed that nation- wide, there was general difficulty in obligating all 18 Travel expenses Monitoring plan Ensuring federal requirements Time consuming Short staffed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 State record kept differently than FTA requirements Want a block grant approach Number of Respondents Figure 16 Perceived additional administrative burdens.

19 Few eligible projects Segregated urban and rural money Short staffed RFP process should be replaced Money is not guaranteed Not enough local match Not enough funding 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Decrease in funds with SAFETEA-LU Difficult to prioritize Number of Respondents Figure 17 Reported challenges in awarding Section 5316 JARC Grants. Difficult to prioritize Too much work for little money Funds not guaranteed Monitoring Obligate funds by population size Plans adopted before funds awarded Lack of funding Limiting in match and use Beyond ADA requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Protest from rival grant applicant Slow to start Diversity of projects Number of Respondents Figure 18 Reported challenges in awarding Section 5317 NF Grants. What types of recipients have received Section 5316 JARC funding? Private Contractors Regional Transportation Partnership Urban Transit Agency Tribes Human Services and Public Transportation Agencies Rural Agency Non-Profit Agency Transit Agency 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5311 Agencies Cities County Action Agencies For Profit Agency Number of Respondents Figure 19 JARC grant recipients.

20 What types of recipients have received Section 5317 New Freedom funding? For Profit Agency Human Services and Public Transportation Agencies Tribes Cities Non-Profit Agency Transit Agency 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Area Agencies on Aging Rural Agency County Transportation Departments Number of Respondents Figure 20 NF grant recipients. What types of projects have received Section 5316 JARC funding? Medical Purchase of Rides Vanpool Rural Connectivity Mobility Management Low-income Capital Purchases Operating Funds Work-related Expanded Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Entertainment Demand Response Educational Number of Respondents Figure 21 JARC projects. What types of projects have received Section 5317 New Freedom funding? Dial-a-Ride Expanded Service Travel Training Flex Route Bus Service ADA Service Capital Purchases Operating Funds Mobility Management 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Volunteer Transportation Feeder Service Demand Response Number of Respondents Figure 22 NF projects.

21 Splitting projects by population difficult Selection process too long Segregating Small Urban and Rural money Plans must be adopted before funds awarded Difficulty with beyond ADA requirement Lack of local match 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Administrative burden Award biennially Number of Respondents Figure 23 Reported challenges in obligating JARC and NF grants. Inability to move funds from metropolitan to rural area New FTA descriptions make obligated funds unworkable Limited project requests Lack of eligible projects Lack of matching funds 0 1 2 3 Funds were not worth the work on the plan Difficulty with beyond ADA requirement Number of Respondents Figure 24 Reported reasons for expiring JARC and NF grants. appropriated JARC and NF funds. Of the FY 2006 appropriations, between 84 and 88 percent of the JARC and NF funds were obligated by FY 2008 (ex- piration date of the funding). Similarly, for FY 2007 appropriations, between 38 and 40 percent of the funding had been obligated by FY 2008 (only 1 year remaining before expiration in FY 2009); and of the FY 2008 appropriations, only 12 to 14 percent had been obligated by the end of FY 2008. The majority of survey respondents (71 percent) indicated that this delay in obligations is typical in their state. Fig- ure 23 describes some of the reasons for the diffi- culty in obligating these funds, the most common of which are the lack of local match and difficulty with the beyond ADA requirement for NF projects. Due to these difficulties, states often end up selecting many smaller projects, which is hard for states to administer. While many responding states indicated that they have had difficulty in obligating JARC and NF grants, only five respondents (24 percent) have actually had JARC or NF grants expire before they could be oblig- ated. Some recipients provided multiple explanations for the expiration, but the most common reasons for the lapses were limited project requests, lack of eli- gible projects, and lack of matching funds, as shown in Figure 24. Lastly, survey respondents were asked whether the percentage of JARC funds obligated had improved with the Coordination Plan requirement. Of the 21 re- spondents, only two stated that the obligation of JARC funds had improved with the federal requirement.

For those respondents that did not think the obliga- tion of JARC funds had improved with the Coordi- nation Plan requirement, several felt the obligation process actually has become more difficult, while others stated that the JARC funding was larger when the program was provided through competi- tive application designations rather than a formula. Only one respondent felt that the obligations and types of projects had not changed, but rather the plan al- lowed the services to be implemented for a broader range of individuals. Figure 25 summarizes the re- spondents’ explanations for why the percentage of JARC funding obligated has not improved with the Coordination Plans. Expressed Concerns/Issues with JARC and NF Grants. Research indicated that there are some gen- eral concerns with the JARC and NF grant programs that are perceived to make it more difficult to oblig- ate these funds, including: • Lack of understating what types of projects are eligible for these grants • Difficulty in designating entities to administer the grants • Competitive selection process requirement • Local matching requirements • Limited size of the programs • Reluctance to start new services with these funds The survey results, however, revealed that in gen- eral there is an understanding of the types of projects that are eligible for these grants and that the states have not had great difficulty in designating entities to administer the grants. Of the 21 respondents, 86 per- cent felt that there is an understanding of the types of projects eligible for JARC funding and 71 percent felt that there is a similar understanding for NF projects. The 2009 clarification of NF projects published in the Federal Register (74 FR 19624, April 29, 2009) may have helped to improve this response rate. Addition- ally, only two respondents (10 percent) indicated that there have been difficulties in designating entities to administer the grants, one of which indicated that there has been a lack of participation by the MPOs be- cause not all feel that they should have to participate. The survey respondents also did not indicate that there is a widespread concern about the competitive selection process requirement for the JARC and NF grant programs. Only five respondents (24 percent) stated that the competitive selection process impacts their state’s ability to obligate JARC and NF funds. The primary concerns with the competitive selection process expressed by the respondents were that there is a lack of eligible applicants (two respondents), it is difficult to run an open, helpful and non-biased program (one respondent), and that the process is time consuming (one respondent). The survey respondents’ greatest concern with the grant programs was the matching requirements (20 percent for capital and 50 percent for operat- ing). Of those who responded, 76 percent indicated that these matching requirements impact their proj- ect selections because many projects do not have the required local match, or there is concern that these matching funds may not be available after the first year. When asked about their state’s greatest concern with the JARC and NF matching requirements, 18 22 Already spent more than received from FTA Much larger funding when earmarked Plan made it more difficult to obligate funds Plans were completed prior to first solicitation 0 1 2 3 Broader range of recipients Number of Respondents Figure 25 Perceived reasons JARC obligations have not improved with Coordination Plans.

23 What is your state's greatest concern with the matching requirements for the Section 5316 and 5317 grants? Potential restrictions on the use of matching funds from other federal programs Need to reprogram matching funds from existing uses Ability of the state and/or local agency to provide matching funds 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Other Number of Respondents Figure 26 Greatest concern with JARC and NF matching requirements. Looking for more sustainable projects Match requirement limits Not guaranteed revenue Funds too small for regional/statewide projects 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Struggle to obligate funds before they expire Number of Respondents Figure 27 Additional concerns with the NF program. of 21 respondents (86 percent) stated it was the abil- ity of the state and/or local regions to provide match- ing funds. One respondent selected “other,” but ex- plained that the ability to find state/local matching funds and the need to reprogram matching funds from existing uses were equally important. Accord- ing to respondents, many local agencies have run out of local funds for matching, and non-DOT agencies do not always believe that their federal funds may match the JARC and NF grants. Figure 26 depicts the responding state agencies’ greatest concern with the matching requirements for JARC and NF. An additional concern expressed by the respon- dents is the limited size of the Section 5317 NF program. Just over one-half of the respondents (57 percent) indicated that the limited size of the NF program does hinder the ability of their state (or the localities in their state) from undertaking large projects. Of the reasons for the impact, the most com- mon response was that the NF funding levels are too small for regional or statewide projects. Additionally the small size combined with the segregated funds for rural and small urban areas results in smaller projects. The concerns with the NF program are summarized in Figure 27. In addition to the limited size of the programs, the majority of survey respondents (70 percent) stated that there is reluctance in their states to start new ser- vices with the JARC and NF funds. The primary rea- son provided by the respondents (79 percent) was the concern that these funds are not sustainable. Agen- cies stated that they do not want to start new services with JARC or NF funds when there is no guarantee that these projects will receive awards in future years or that any of their matching funds for the project are sustainable. As a result, agencies have indicated that

they do not want to start new services unless they are sure that they can continue the services. The two other reasons provided by respondents were lack of available matching funds (two respondents) and the complexity of the programs and FTA compliance (one respondent). Conclusions The “Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Program” Internet survey completed by 21 state DOTs highlights several areas where the Coor- dination Plans have been relatively successful, such as in enhancing transportation access for target popu- lations, increasing commitment/participation in the plan development at both the state and local levels, improving coordination, and creating a general under- standing of eligible JARC and NF grants. However, the respondents stated that the federal requirement for the Coordination Plans has placed a significant ad- ministrative burden on already short-staffed state and local agencies. Respondents felt that the coordination planning process is time consuming and many agen- cies stated they are not able to hire new staff or con- sultants to assist with the process. As a result, agen- cies feel that the responsibilities often fall on existing staff, many of whom have already been asked to take on additional responsibilities. In addition to the administrative requirements placed on state and local agencies, the survey respon- dents highlighted several areas of concern in regards to obligating the JARC and NF grants. The responses indicated that the obligation of these funds generally has not improved with the Coordination Plan require- ment. There frequently is a lag in funding JARC and NF projects, and several respondents have had prob- lems obligating these funds before they expire. In fact, 24 percent of responding agencies reported that they have had JARC or NF funds expire before they could be obligated. The agencies stated that one of the primary reasons that obligating these funds is such a problem is the difficulty in identifying local matching funds for projects. Local funds are limited and the higher matching requirements of the JARC and NF grant programs (particularly the 50 percent match for operations) and the uncertainty that these funds will be there in the future make it more difficult to iden- tify local funds for these projects. The majority of sur- vey respondents (70 percent) stated that there is reluc- tance in their states to start new services with JARC and NF funds. The primary reason provided by the re- spondents (79 percent) was the concern that these funds are not sustainable. They stated that they do not want to introduce new services and then have to take them away when/if these grant programs or the appor- tionments received are reduced. Given these concerns, the agencies were asked if they had any suggestions to improve the use and man- agement of the JARC and NF grant programs so that the coordination goals of the FTA, state, and locali- ties continue to be met, while the administrative bur- den these grant programs place on the state and local agencies is reduced. Nineteen of the 21 survey re- spondents offered suggestions for improving these grant programs. All of the survey respondent sugges- tions attempted to improve the management of the grant programs and to find means to fund more proj- ects, whether through proposed consolidation with other grant programs, increasing funding, reducing restrictions, lowering operating matching require- ments, or increasing flexibility. The suggestions from the survey respondents are summarized in Figure 28. The most frequently suggested improvement for the JARC and NF grant programs by the survey re- spondents was the consolidation of the Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 New Freedom grant pro- grams with other federal grant programs such as Sec- tion 5310, 5311, and 5307. The respondents indicated that with consolidation, the individual grant program goals could still be reflected in program and planning requirements, including dedicating percentages of funding to each program goal. Section 5310 Trans- portation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities was the most frequently mentioned pro- gram for consolidating the JARC and NF grants, and several respondents indicated that these grant pro- grams also could be consolidated with the Section 5311 Rural and Small Urban Areas grant program. Respondents felt that by consolidating the JARC and NF grants with Section 5310 and/or 5311, the states could manage the program more efficiently, while still developing a Coordination Plan (as required for Section 5310) and serving similar target populations. Several respondents also felt that consolidating Section 5316 and 5317 into one grant program would allow more flexibility in transferring funds and meet- ing the greatest transit needs. They believed that this would allow the funds to be used to serve any one of the target populations and fund projects that best meet the transit needs of the state. Additionally, it was suggested by some that the obligation by popu- lation size requirement be eliminated for the new 24

consolidated grant program. The survey respondents indicated that combining the JARC and NF grant programs would allow greater flexibility in awarding projects and moving funds from one area to another, and would be more efficient for states to manage. CHAPTER 3 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF STATE DOTs AND REPRESENTATIVE AGENCIES Based on the results of the Internet survey con- ducted in late 2009, six states were selected to par- ticipate in follow-up discussions via telephone interviews. Only state DOT representatives who in- dicated a willingness to discuss their responses fur- ther were contacted, and the six states were selected with the goal of having a mix of geographic loca- tions, urbanized versus rural states, and states indi- cating varying levels of satisfaction with the Human Services Coordination Plan process and results. The states selected for further discussion were: Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. Selection of States The Internet survey sent to AASHTO Standing Committee on Public Transportation Members in October 2009 resulted in the completion of 21 sur- veys. After a review of the 21 survey responses, a draft list of six states to contact for further interviews was developed for the panel’s review based on the following: • Willingness to participate • Mix of rural and urban areas • Level of success of Coordination Plans • Whether the state already had state/local re- quirements for Coordination Plans • Level of participation in the planning process • Ability to achieve the same level of coordina- tion without the federal requirement • Ability to achieve the same program objec- tives without the requirement • Amount of money being spent on the plans • Issues in awarding JARC funds • Issues in awarding NF funds • Expiration of any JARC or NF funds • Reluctance to start new services with JARC and NF funds Every attempt was made to include a mix of states that represented a diversity of geographic locations, urban and rural areas, varying levels of success in de- veloping Coordination Plans, states where state/local requirements were already in place, states where 25 What suggestions do you have to improve the use and management of the Section 5316 and 5317 grant programs that could be considered as part of Reauthorization? Consolidate with 5307, 5311 End the local coordinated plan Eliminate obligation by population size Lessen restrictions Lower the operating match Consolidate with 5311 Consolidate with 5310 and 5311 Combine 5316 and 5317 Increase funds Consolidate with 5310 0 1 2 3 4 Allow moving funds from area to area Better coordination between 5316 and 5317 Consolidate with 5309, 5310, 5311 Combine 5317 and 5310 Consolidate with 5307, 5310, 5311 Number of Respondents Figure 28 Responses on improving the use and management of JARC and NF grant programs.

state/local requirements were not in place, diversity in the amount of money spent on the initial plans, and varying levels of success in awarding JARC and NF funds. Table 4 highlights the recommended states and their general survey responses, as well as those states that were considered but not selected. Please note that only the states responding to the survey were considered for additional interviews. Some additional areas of interest for the selected states are summarized as follows. • Missouri. Missouri experienced success in developing Coordination Plans, but it occurred slowly. Missouri did not have any state/local Coordination Plan requirements in place before SAFETEA-LU; as a result, the state developed and conducted workshops to help develop the plans. In addition, the state received more dis- cretionary JARC funding during TEA-21 than under SAFETEA-LU’s formula; therefore, there are more JARC projects than funds. Mis- souri has struggled with awarding NF funds. • Ohio. Ohio did not have any state/local Co- ordination Plan requirements in place before SAFETEA-LU. As part of the development of the Coordination Plans, the state provided fund- ing for local communities to begin the process, technical support, and assistance with multi- jurisdictional planning. Ohio has had aver- age success in awarding JARC and NF funds; matching funds is an issue. • Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania provides a match for the non-federal share for large urban, small urban, and non-urban areas. The Coordination Plans have not been entirely successful be- cause they have focused on identifying proj- ects for JARC and NF rather than minimizing duplication of services or most appropriate/ cost-effective services. As a result Pennsylva- nia has had difficulty prioritizing local rankings at the state level. In addition, some FY 2007 NF funds did expire. The state is concerned about the sustainability of JARC and NF. • South Carolina. South Carolina indicated that it had a late start on the process, but the state planning efforts have been successful and par- ticipation levels strong. However, this planning success hasn’t transferred to the awarding of JARC and NF funds. The state’s biggest chal- lenge with JARC funds is the required 50-50 match for operations. In addition, NF funds have been challenging for the state given the restrictive nature of the program beyond the ADA requirements. • Virginia. Virginia provides the local match for NF program, but not JARC. As a result, the NF grant program has been quite successful, while the JARC program has had more difficulty in finding projects with a local match identified. In addition, unlike many states, Virginia has hired a part-time person at the state level to help with coordinated planning requirements and local areas have hired Mobility Managers. • Washington. Washington had coordinated planning requirements in place at the state level before the federal requirement in SAFETEA- LU. As a result, the state has rural or regional versions of MPOs in place to develop the plans. In addition, the state provides funding to each county (and additional funding if there is a small urban MPO) to help with the develop- ment of the plans. Washington has had success with JARC funds but only moderate success with NF. The state’s concerns with the NF pro- gram are not the planning requirements but the tight restrictions on what projects are eligible as well as dividing the funds available for small urban and rural areas. Of the states considered but not recommended, three of the states (Alaska, Connecticut, and Ore- gon) were not selected for recommendation because they were case studies in NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 14 “Current Practice and Future Guidance on the Development of SAFETEA-LU-Required Coor- dinated Public Transit-Human Services Transporta- tion Plans.” In an attempt to obtain a broader per- spective, the research team did not think it prudent to select states that had already been the subject of case studies for human services transportation planning. In addition, New Hampshire and Minnesota’s concerns were similar to other states selected and were not rec- ommended in order to include states that had a better mix of urban and rural areas and/or that had spent more money developing the Coordination Plans (two states recommended also spent less than $250,000). Interview Process Each state DOT representative was contacted for the purpose of further discussion of their responses to the Internet survey, clarification of their responses (if needed), and identification of agencies and contact 26

States Mix of rural and urban areas Think Plans are at least moderately successful in meeting FTA goals Already had state/local requirements Perceive at least a moderate level of participation Believe the same level of coordination achieved without the federal requirement Believe they achieve the same program objectives without the plans Amount of money being spent on initial plans Perceive additional administrative burden Issues in awarding JARC funds Issues in awarding NF funds Have had JARC or NF Funds Expire Reluctance to start new service with JARC and NF funds Case study in previous NCHRP Coordinated Plans Study Willingness to participate R e c o m m e n d e d Missouri Yes Yes No No No No $500,001- $750,000 Yes Reduced grants with SAFETEA- LU Yes No Yes No Yes Ohio Yes No No Yes No Yes $500,001- $1,000,000 Yes No No No No No Yes Pennsylvania Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Less than $250,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes South Carolina Yes No Yes Yes No No Less than $250,000 Yes Yes Yes No, but close No No Yes Virginia Yes Yes No Yes No No $500,001- $1,000,000 Yes Yes No No No No Yes Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $500,001- $750,000 No No A few No No No Yes O t h e r s C o n s i d e r e d Alaska More rural No Yes No No No $250,001- $500,000 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Connecticut Yes No No No Yes Yes Less than $250,000 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes New Hampshire More rural No No Yes No Yes Less than $250,000 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Minnesota Yes No No Yes No No Less than $250,000 No No No No Yes No Yes Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $500,001- $1,000,000 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Table 4 States considered for telephone interviews.

persons within the state for further discussion. The objective was to identify a set of agencies within the state to interview for their perspectives on the Coor- dination Plans and the associated grant programs. Within each state, the study team attempted to contact a cross-section of agency types, including MPOs, RPOs, transit agencies, human services transportation providers, and NGOs. The purpose of the interviews was two-fold: 1. Determining the extent to which the respon- dents believe coordinated public transit/human services transportation plans have met FTA goals of enhancing transportation access, min- imizing duplication of services, and facilitat- ing the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation possible with available re- sources; and 2. Ascertaining the cost of developing and main- taining these Coordination Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that resources are being used wisely and effectively, resulting in the better, more cost-effective and coordi- nated programs that the plans are expected to foster. The state DOTs, and subsequently the recom- mended agencies, were contacted between Decem- ber 2009 and March 2010. Each agency was con- tacted to set up a time for a telephone interview, with the aim of conducting the discussion within 45 min- utes to 1 hour. An interview questionnaire was de- veloped to aid the discussion with each agency; it was expected that some of the questions would get answered in the course of answering a previous question, and some may not be applicable to the or- ganization at hand. The interview questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. Summary of Survey Responses Interviews Held The questions in the survey were divided into five sections: 1. Planning Process 2. Program Management 3. Perceived Success and Benefits of the Plans and Funds 4. Coordination 5. Supplementary Questions (e.g., discussion of successful/unsuccessful projects) Two slightly different versions of the question- naire were developed to ensure that applicable ques- tions were asked of each agency type, given that the interviews were conducted with agencies ranging from small human services agencies to large urban transit agencies. The two sets of questions were geared toward: 1. State DOTs, Metropolitan Planning Organi- zations, and County and City Governments 2. Local Organizations: Transportation Pro- viders, Human Services Providers, and Public Interest Groups Table 5 shows the agencies that were interviewed within each of the six states. State-by-State Interview Results The next sections provide an overview of the re- sults obtained by state. The interviews covered a range of agency types, including each state’s DOT, which had previously been surveyed at a more cur- sory level as part of the web-based survey for this study. At least three other agencies were interviewed in each state, including transit agencies, human ser- vices transportation providers, MPOs, and RPOs. Overall, most agencies felt that the Coordination Plan requirements have helped their agency and re- gion to provide a higher quality and more effective level of service for meeting human services trans- portation needs. Tables 6–11 show summaries, by state, of the interview responses. The detailed inter- view summaries for all 25 interviews can be found in Appendix C. Missouri. Missouri agencies have found the Coor- dination Plans required for Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding effective in improving human services transportation statewide. Creation of the plans has included new participants such as nonprofit and pri- vate companies and has brought about improved co- ordination among agencies. Customer outreach and improved information through service marketing and promotion have enabled the programs to meet customer needs. However, there is a concern by the Missouri re- spondents that the ability of agencies to continue to apply for grant money is lacking, both from a need for matching funds and from a lack of administrative and planning capability. There was agreement among the state’s respondents that combining or streamlining the programs would minimize the burden. In addition, 28

29 Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Missouri DOT December 15, 2009 Ohio DOT December 15, 2009 Pennsylvania DOT January 7, 2010 South Carolina DOT February 5, 2010 Virginia DOT December 15, 2009 Washington DOT December 16, 2009 Meramec Regional Planning Commission, a rural regional planning commission. January 13, 2010 Licking County Area Transportation Study, a small urban MPO. February 2, 2010 Lycoming County Planning Commission, a Metropolitan Planning Organization. February 12, 2010 Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments, an RPO. February 17, 2010 RADAR1– a rural NGO Human Services Transportation provider. December 29, 2009 People For People – a rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider. January 7, 2010 Mr. Goodcents Foundation, a Public Interest Group/Mid- America Regional Council of Governments (Kansas City), a nonprofit MPO.2 January 15, 2010 Lima–Allen County Regional Planning Commission, a small urban MPO. February 8, 2010 Lycoming-Clinton Counties Commission for Community Action3, a private, non-profit community action agency. February 1, 2010 Lower Savannah Council of Governments, a Rural Planning Organization. February 24, 2010 Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission – a rural planning district commission. January 7, 2010 Puget Sound Regional Council – an urban MPO. January 13, 2010 Southeast Missouri Transportation Services Inc., a non-profit general public transportation service. February 3, 2010 Delaware Area Transit Agency, a rural transit agency. February 22, 2010 Town & Country Transit, a transit agency in Armstrong County. January 26, 2010 Central Midlands Council of Governments, a regional planning organization and urban MPO. March 9, 2010 Hampton Roads Transit – an urban transit agency. January 29, 2010 Thurston Regional Planning Council – a small urban MPO. February 16, 2010 – – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), a large urban transit system. March 4, 2010 – – – 1Not an acronym. 2Interviewee was affiliated with both organizations. 3Known as STEP (Success Through Engagement and Partnership). Table 5 Organizations interviewed by state. 1The interviews of Mr. Goodcents Foundation and the Mid-America Regional Council of Governments were conducted by interviewing one person who is affiliated with both organizations. Interview Topic Area Meramec Regional Planning Commission A rural regional planning commission Mr. Goodcents Foundation1 A public interest group Mid-America Regional Council of Governments1 A nonprofit urban MPO Southeast Missouri Transportation Services A non-profit general public transportation service Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; coordination did not exist prior to the plan. Effective Effective Effective; aided in the marketing of services. Role in Coordination Plan Development Lead; supported by local transit providers; funding for planning process provided by state DOT. Supporting; collected and analyzed data for local MPO, provided other research assistance. Lead; supported by local universities, non-profits; plan developed as a part of Outlook 2040: Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan. Supporting; reviewed plans provided by five regional planning commissions and participated in stakeholder outreach events. Plan Development In-house In-house In-house N/A Perceived Coordination Plan Results Created a greater awareness of the need for transit services and transit funding. Contributed to the understanding of all of the components of the local human services transportation system. Developed a constructive dialogue between the public and private nonprofit and for-profit stakeholders. Coordination process has enabled the organization to promote their activities. Grant Programs Utilized 5316, 5317 5316, 5317 5316, 5317 5310, formerly had 5316 Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection Prioritization and selection is done at the state level, but locally the main priority is on the continuation of existing services. All project applicants required to demonstrate how their project fits into the Coordination Plan. All project applicants required to demonstrate how their project fits into the Coordination Plan. N/A Perceived Project Continuation Needs Once the grants are expended, there is no way to continue services. Finding a local match has never been an issue for local organizations. Need sustainable funding sources to meet growing service demands. When a local JARC match was lost in 2006, services funded by JARC ended. Major Concerns Expressed The funding is very limited, so the projects do not reach many new populations. Difficulties in meeting strict grant requirements. Older existing agencies have had difficulty in meeting the requirements for NF. The organization lacks the capacity and resources to meet current demand. Desired Changes Expressed Would like to stay involved in the prioritization and outcomes of funded projects. Use the same process and criteria for both JARC and NF. Plan can be improved by educating stakeholders about its relation to other plans. The plan needs to apply to non- FTA human services transportation grants. Table 6 Missouri interview summaries.

Town & Country Transit A rural transit agency in Armstrong County STEP, Inc. A rural non-profit in Lycoming and Clinton Counties Lycoming County Planning Commission An MPO SEPTA A large urban transit agency serving the Philadelphia region Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; plan process illuminated service gaps and brought together stakeholders. Effective; provides a place for comprehensive discussion of needs and program planning. Effective; the plan enhanced their ability to expand services in a strategic way. Ineffective; coordination already existed, and SAFETEA-LU reduced their JARC funding. Role in Coordination Plan Development Lead Supporting; the local MPO leads the process. Lead; local transit stakeholder advisory board reviews. Supporting; local MPO is the lead. Plan Development In-house N/A In-house In-house Perceived Coordination Plan Results Deepened relationships with other government agencies and community non-profits, improving coordination. Improved relationship between non-profits and the government sector. Eliminated the duplication of services. Redundant with existing coordination process and plan, no new coordination achieved. Grant Programs Utilized 5310, 5316 5316 5310, 5316 5316, 5317 Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection The Coordination Plan identified a gap in late-night service to the local hospital. A JARC grant was used to add this service to the hospital, leading to a consistent ridership increase on this route. The plan identified a need for a targeted effort to involve disabled users of transit and paratransit services in the decision-making process through a standing advisory council. The organization prioritizes projects based on where they anticipate employment growth. The transit advisory board aids the agency in project prioritization. Preference is given to applications from agencies already in the coordination system; applications for non- coordinated system agencies must prove why their services are not redundant with the coordinated system. The agency submits their list of needs to the MPO’s Human Services Committee that scores and ranks all applications. Applications recommended by the MPO’s Human Services Committee are then considered by the MPO’s Board of Directors for final selection. The final list is returned to the agency for submission to FTA. Perceived Project Continuation Needs Persons with Disabilities program has ongoing funding; the state provides 85 percent of the funding, and the agency the remaining 15 percent. All of the projects have become self-sustaining after the grant money was expended. State provides grant matches, so no local funding is needed. JARC projects selected are sustainable, and matched by state funding. NF used only for capital projects. Major Concerns Expressed Lack of local matching funds. Need to consolidate public meetings. Success of the programs is difficult to quantify. Agency’s role as a direct recipient is burdensome. Desired Changes Expressed Eliminate local match requirements. Would like advanced notice of when the grants are due, and greater financial support for the grant application administrative work. Desires standardized performance measures to reduce time spent on performance evaluation but ensures that performance is well tracked. Agency wants the MPO to become the direct recipient or to eliminate all sub-recipients and have all applicants apply directly to FTA or PennDOT. Table 8 Pennsylvania interview summaries. Interview Topic Area Licking County Area Transportation Study A small urban MPO east of the Columbus metropolitan region Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Council A small urban MPO in Northwestern Ohio Delaware Area Transit Agency (DATA) A rural transit agency north of the Columbus metropolitan region Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Ineffective; redundant with coordination mechanisms already in place and no JARC or NF grant projects have been realized. Effective; identified existing local coordination that most were unaware of, and illustrated possibilities for more coordination. Effective; there were no prior attempts at coordination and the need for transportation coordination to manage high growth in demand was crucial. Role in Coordination Plan Development Lead; local transit board coordination sub- committee assisted. Lead Lead; developed in conjunction with a group of 10 key stakeholders. Plan Development In-house; consultant assistance was offered by the state, but not used. In-house Consultant led; consultant services paid for by the state DOT. Perceived Coordination Plan Results The region already had a strong coordination process in place prior to the plan, but relationships were strengthened. Helped non-profit and government agencies better understand each organization’s funding sources. A new group of coordination stakeholders, the Transportation Collaborative, was created to oversee coordination efforts. Grant Programs Utilized 5310 5316, 5317 5316, 5317 Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection Through their stakeholder involvement process and surveys of the general public and relevant agencies, they developed a set of prioritized project types. Priority projects identified through extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis of current services and gaps in the Coordination Plan. The Transportation Collaborative prioritizes projects based on the needs identified in the Coordination Plan. Perceived Project Continuation Needs N/A Local match funding difficult to find. County will continue to fund plan updates and provide matching funds. Major Concerns Expressed There is no local matching funding available. The region did have a single NF application that they would like to submit, but they cannot find the required matching funds. Nothing new was learned in developing the Coordination Plan. 5310 vehicle inventory in the plan has made it appear that there are excess vehicles; however, that is not true and it has made it impossible to get new 5310 vehicles. Local matching requirements are difficult to meet. Time and funds were wasted translating materials into Spanish; in Allen County there isn’t a community needing the translated materials. There needs to be a special focus within NF, or in another grant program, on meeting the needs of seniors that are not disabled, but prefer not to drive. This population is a rapidly growing portion of the users of DATA’s system. Desired Changes Expressed Increase the federal match to 80-90%. None. The agency hopes that the program is continued. Table 7 Ohio interview summaries. 30

31 Interview Topic Area Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG) An RPO Lower Savannah Council of Governments (LSCOG) An RPO Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG) A small urban MPO and regional planning organization Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Modest; planning is secondary to availability of funds. Providers do not see benefit of planning. Good; funds and the planning process have brought new credibility to planning efforts. Modest; planning has brought improved coordination, but providers are skeptical of mandated requirements. Role in Coordination Plan Development Lead Lead Lead as both a regional planning organization and MPO, in cooperation with transit agency. Plan Development One of the first plans developed in the state. All planning now done in-house. One of the first plans developed in the state. All planning now done in-house. Working to upgrade with more information; scoping study to identify needs and resources. Perceived Coordination Plan Results Effective in bringing together stakeholders and ensuring coordination. Already had established stakeholders; only minor process changes to meet federal requirements. Improved, on-going coordination is seen as a real benefit of the coordinated planning process. Grant Programs Utilized 5310 only to date. Section 5316 applications have been rejected. 5310, 5316, and 5317 5310, 5316, and 5317. Section 5316 and 5317 received both through state and as a direct recipient. Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection Priority is funding contracted service operations. Local prioritization often overruled at state and federal level. Would like to see greater weight given to local priorities. Priority is funding contracted service operations. Providers must coordinate services and provide transportation to any customers, or receive only the lowest priority from LSCOG. CMCOG focuses on short-term capital projects, largely vehicle procurement. Perceived Project Continuation Needs Affected by local cutbacks. Would like to see a funding process that takes into account existing conditions and factors in allocating funds, i.e., allowing greater costs per passenger mile in rural areas. Local match difficult to identify and services are being cut back. One urban connection just had Saturday service eliminated, leading to the loss of jobs by some customers. Providers are responsible for local match, limiting them to small, short-term projects. Major Concerns Expressed Inability to use federal funds from different sources (e.g., Health and Human Services, Veteran’s Affairs) along with FTA grants due to different timelines and processes. Lack of timeliness and flexibility in federal funding process is tying up needed funds. Feel state process does not take into account local conditions. Little information collected to date on performance and outcomes of projects. CMCOG plans to improve this, but would like federal guidelines. Desired Changes Expressed Combine separate program requests into a larger whole, i.e., disabled to work. Performance measures that focus on outcomes and results, along with an application and program monitoring process tied to those measures. Would like coordination and cooperation at the local level to be rewarded. State needs more guidance from FTA in making funds flexible and further enabling coordination. A partial programmatic distribution of funds, i.e., by needs population, would provide continuity of funding and sustain longer/larger projects, as well as giving more authority to local planners. Table 9 South Carolina interview summaries. Interview Topic Area Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) An urban transit agency Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission A rural planning district commission RADAR A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans “Very positive” outcomes for interagency collaboration and service provision. “Big benefit” to the regional commission, plan requirements and the NF funding critical to improving human services transportation. Difficult to assess at this time, as the plan has only been in place for 18 months. Role in Coordination Plan Development Lead; the local MPO and a smaller transit agency assisted. Lead; a multi-organization working group created to guide plan development assisted. Supporting lead; worked closely with public agencies and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Plan Development In-house Mostly in-house; some consultant assistance provided by state. Mostly in-house; some consultant assistance provided by state. Perceived Coordination Plan Results Coordination and knowledge sharing between HRT and the other agencies greatly improved. Coordination among the partner organizations has improved. Useful in raising awareness of the availability of grant funding (JARC, NF, and 5310). Grant Programs Utilized 5310, 5316, 5317 5317 5310, 5316, 5317 Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection Projects selected based on their conformity with the goals, strategies, and project types in the Coordination Plan. Plan goals used to prioritize strategies and guide program selection. Projects selected based on Coordination Plan requirements. Perceived Project Continuation Needs Most projects accepted (with one exception) do not involve starting operating services, due to the concern of a lack of ongoing funding. Exploring other funding sources for JARC/NF-supported programs. State provides the local match, but may not be able to continue to do so. Outside of state funding, there is no other source of local match funding available. Considering curtailing some 5310 funded services due to lack of local funding. It would be challenging to continue JARC and NF funded services without the grants. Major Concerns Expressed Sustainability of funding. Difficulty of allocating NF funding. Cannot continue current coordination program without NF funding. Inability to meet JARC/NF matching requirements in future years. Desired Changes Expressed Combine JARC and NF, but dedicate a percentage of the funding for NF projects. Eliminate publication requirement and the documentation of need for the plan. Decrease the local matching requirement for JARC and NF. Table 10 Virginia interview summaries.

the respondents indicated that other federal funding for human services should be integrated into planning for human services transportation. In Missouri, project prioritization is done at the state level, but locally applicants must show how their project fits into the Coordination Plan. In gen- eral, Missouri Section 5310 funding is strictly for ve- hicle procurement, while Section 5316 is directed to continuation of existing service over the provision of new service. The Section 5317 NF program opportu- nities have been challenging for Missouri to develop, but recent changes in eligibility (74 FR 19624, April 29, 2009) increase the likelihood that they will be able to make full use of federal funds available in the future. However, all agencies interviewed expressed concern about continuation of grant-funded service once the grants have been expended and also about finding local matches for the grants. Ohio. Agencies in Ohio reported mixed opinions on whether they felt the Coordination Plans were effec- tive. In some parts of the state, coordination mecha- nisms were already in place, so the federal plan re- quirements duplicated existing efforts. In other areas, the creation of the plan resulted in a better understand- ing between government and non-profit agencies or represented a first attempt at coordination. Ohio agencies utilize all types of funding: Section 5310, 5316, and 5317, although some parts of the state have not been able to secure any JARC or NF funds and rely solely on the 5310 funding. Through- out the state, 5310 funds are used only to purchase ve- hicles for human services non-profits. The biggest concern of Ohio agencies, and one of the reasons for their lack of use of the JARC and NF grant programs, is that local funds for the match have been unavail- able. In only one community interviewed were match- ing funds available at the local level. In addition, the respondents expressed concern that the Coordination Plan, when taken at face value, has decreased the avail- ability of 5310 funds in Ohio due to a misunderstand- ing about the existing human services transportation fleets. 32 Interview Topic Area People For People A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Puget Sound Regional Council A large urban MPO Thurston Regional Planning Commission A small urban and regional MPO Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; increased coordination; JARC and NF funded programs successful. Effective; plans increased coordination and programs funded by JARC and NF have been successful. Effective; built upon previous local efforts, but federal requirements and funding created incentives for greater participation and coordination. Role in Coordination Plan Development Supporting; planning process lead by local MPO and regional transportation planning organization. Lead; responsible for the plan, its updates, and the competitive process; not a grant administrator. Lead; responsible for regional planning efforts and works closely with the state DOT. Plan Development Coordinates plan with two regional planning organizations, and also acts as a consultant to Indian tribes applying for other FTA funds. Developed collaboratively with consultant assistance. In-house with state assistance; also cooperatively with local transit agency. Perceived Coordination Plan Results Brought in new participants and created a new and more inclusive dialogue, leading to improved identification of needs and resources. Increased integration of human services needs into transportation plans and programs, though the exact amount is hard to quantify. Brought together wide range of groups: senior services, Indian tribes, food banks, community services organizations, and the United Way. Grant Programs Utilized 5310, 5316 5316, 5317 5310 Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection Local planning organizations rank projects and submit to the state, which does its own prioritization. State process and decisions are not always transparent and the outcomes sometimes appear inconsistent. Selection process prioritizes the continuation of existing projects over new programs or services. Concentration on information services and volunteer assistance programs. Process to date has concentrated on funding basic transportation services. Would like more programs for information and mobility management funded; requests to date have been denied. Perceived Project Continuation Needs Continuation of federal funds is critical. Matching funds come from state; local sources are not available. Matching funds come from state, but local support is so great that funds could be raised locally. Matching funds from state used. Would like to see use of in-kind benefits process simplified. Major Concerns Expressed Public forums were unproductive vis-à-vis individual group meetings. Requirement that NF projects be new services is an impediment to NF use. Change requirements and goals for NF have caused confusion. Need plans that coordinate rural-urban access for customers who need long- distance transportation to major cities (e.g., medical centers, other special services). Lack of integration of other federal programs with transportation, including human services, veterans’ affairs, and Medicaid. Desired Changes Expressed Separate the selection and funding process for existing vs. new projects, with a 4-year re- competition for existing projects. Simplify the reporting requirements for the administrative funds. Require other federal programs to consider transportation and allow for transportation expenses in support of human services. Table 11 Washington interview summaries.

Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has had a statewide human services transportation program for over 30 years, providing medical assistance transporta- tion and reduced fares to elderly and disabled pa- trons. However, agencies in Pennsylvania agreed that the coordinated planning required for FTA programs has been an effective tool in expanding human services transportation. In particular, the process of developing the Coordination Plan has improved relationships between all agencies in- volved, particularly between non-profits and the government sector. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is in its third year of JARC and NF ap- plications, and has improved its capacity in coordi- nating submissions with regional planning commis- sions. Only in the first year of the NF program were allocated federal funds not fully expended, and Penn- DOT intends to ensure that all future FTA funds are applied for and used. Within Pennsylvania, the DOT is the lead for project selection and prioritization, though applicants conduct local prioritization when submitting propos- als. All local matching is also provided at the state level, though applicants are requested to demonstrate future self-sustainability. PennDOT focuses primar- ily on capital needs; projects that can become self- supporting and information technology (IT) projects are also strong candidates. Operating projects do not rank highly in Pennsylvania, and it appears likely that some current projects will face reduced funding in the future. Grantees’ concern over the continuity of funding for operating projects also reduces appli- cations in the state. South Carolina. Development of human services transportation has only taken place in South Car- olina over the last decade, stemming from a state legislature initiative in 1998. Coordination Plans were developed by the 10 Regional Councils of Government (COGs) in the state with consulting as- sistance provided by the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). SCDOT continues to play a central role in human services transporta- tion, completing and filing the FTA grant requests on behalf of the regional COGs once the latter have provided their Coordination Plans and prioritized requests for funding. The Coordination Plan development is acknowl- edged as having significantly improved the coordina- tion of human services transportation within each re- gion of the state; however, the availability of funds is clearly the driving force for this planning. Regional COGs play a dominant role in human services trans- portation, with most FTA funding being used to con- tract transportation services. In rural areas respon- dents felt that there is little scope for involvement in the planning process by transportation providers; human services agencies participate in the planning primarily to demonstrate their need for services. In urban areas the human services providers have more capabilities, but respondents indicated these providers are also wary of federal requirements and protective of their current roles and processes. Ac- cordingly, the local and regional human services agencies interviewed perceive that only minor bene- fits come from the required federal planning process. Virginia. The Virginia organizations interviewed view the required Coordination Plans as highly ef- fective, bringing together new participants and pro- viding new services to customers. Development of the plans has required assistance, which has been obtained from academia as well as from the state. In Virginia, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) has supplied some local match, but continuing projects must find local match on their own. Respondents expressed concern over the sustainability of local funds for many projects, leading to a bias toward capital projects rather than operating assistance in grant proposals for Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding in the state. The agencies inter- viewed believe that the requirements for NF and JARC projects, and the dim forecast for local match, is leading to many projects being scaled back and pro- posals not being submitted. Accordingly, Virginia is facing challenges in being able to apply for allocated Section 5316 and 5317 funding. Washington. Washington is another state in which there was strong pre-existing human services trans- portation planning across the state. Agencies in Washington have been swift to adopt federal plan- ning requirements, and the state in turn now requires that similar plans be developed and submitted in ap- plying for state grants. Respondents felt that the new Coordination Plans have been effective in improving inter-agency coordination and in helping the state to make full use of available JARC and NF funds. Washington State has a formal prioritization process, with both local rankings and independent state rankings. As in other states, continuation of ex- isting projects generally takes precedence over fund- ing new projects. This factor limits the applicability 33

Interview Topic Area Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; high-level coordination did not exist prior to the plans. Mixed; an MPO with just three staff members reported the plan was redundant with local efforts and burdensome; a slightly larger MPO reported the plans effective and a good exercise, as did a rural transit agency. Effective plan process illuminated service gaps and brought together stakeholders from rural areas that lacked prior attempts at coordination. However, in one urban area studied, the new Coordination Plans were redundant with existing Coordination Plans. Largely effective at bringing in all stakeholders and encouraging participation. However, benefits of planning viewed as secondary to need for funds; local providers do not see any results or significant value added from planning process. Effective; planning process allowed regions to build strategically off of previous local coordination studies. Effective; increased coordination; JARC and NF funded programs successful. Plan Development In-house Rural: State DOT provided funding. Urban: General planning funds used. State DOT offered consultant help to rural areas, and while some planning lead organizations took advantage of this, not all did. In-house • In-house • In the initial phase, consultants were hired by the state and assigned to each region. Consultants seen as invaluable in providing expertise and federal experience. Rural: State provided funds, consultant assistance, but some in-house work was also done. Urban: In-house Rural: Developed with state assistance. Urban: Developed collaboratively with consultant assistance. Perceived Coordination Plan Results Enhanced relationships between human services transportation providers in the public and private for-profit and non- profit sectors. Due to the limited amount of funding available, the focus is on continuation of services, so new populations or service areas are not reached. Relationships between public and private organizations strengthened. However, in at least one case, services did not improve. Deepened relationships with other government agencies and community non- profits, improving coordination. Improved relationship between non-profits and the government sector. An urban transit agency reported that the Coordination Plan was redundant with existing coordination framework. Have increased visibility of human services transportation needs with county and state officials. Coordination has led to better information on and use of transportation resources by all providers and customers. Rural: Built on coordination efforts began prior to plan. Urban: Increased inter-agency understanding. Increased integration of human services needs into transportation plans and programs, though the exact amount is hard to quantify. Brought in new participants and created a more inclusive dialogue, leading to improved identification of needs and resources. Indication of Redundant or Burdensome Elements of Plan Development It is difficult but necessary to get all of the stakeholders involved in the planning process. Data collection for plan. Required public meetings. Spanish translation. Need to consolidate public meetings. For the urban transit agency interviewed, serving as the direct recipient was problematic; the agency expends too much effort and time aiding sub- recipients and doesn’t like serving as a “mini state DOT.” Planning administration not seen as burdensome, though needs improvement. Most significant issue has been state and federal overruling of priorities developed by local officials in cooperation with their state legislators. Adversely affects political support for planning process. Prioritized project types identified in the plan by group consensus. Changes in requirements and goals for NF have caused confusion. Public forums were unproductive vis-à-vis individual group meetings. Requirement that NF projects be new services an impediment to NF use. Table 12 Cross-state comparison. of NF funds in Washington given the federal re- quirements that these grants must be used for new services. Though the state provides all local match funding, respondents are concerned about continued funding for projects when annual re-competition for the funds takes place. Cross-State Comparison of Interview Results While Tables 6–11 provide a good overview of the responses within each state, Table 12 shows a cross-state comparison highlighting some of the key differences between the states. It is important to note that the information shown in Table 12 and described in the following sections is based on generalizations made about each state that were derived from the four or five interviews conducted in each state. Perceived Effectiveness of Plans. One key finding that was fairly consistent across all six states inter- viewed is that, on the whole, all found the Coordi- nation Plans to be effective. While some states had 34

35 Interview Topic Area Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection Rural: Prioritization and selection is done at the state level. Urban: Applicants required to demonstrate how their project fits into the Coordination Plan. Prioritized project types identified in the plan by group consensus and data collection efforts. Projects prioritized on where they expect a growth in demand or where a gap in service has been identified. Almost all funding in rural areas used to contract transportation services through RFP process. Regional Coordination Plans submitted to state DOT, which completes federal grant applications. Urban plans have funded capital projects, but limited to small/short projects due to sustainability concerns. Some projects will end without further grant funding. Rural: State may not continue to provide matching funds, locals have no way to replace. Selection process prioritizes the continuation of existing projects over new programs or services. Local planning organizations rank projects and submit to the state, which does its own prioritization. State process and decisions are not always transparent, and the outcomes sometimes appear inconsistent. Perceived Project Continuation Needs Grant funding sustainability is crucial to project continuation. Without grant funding, projects cannot continue in two of the three localities studied and a third had the local capacity to continue to fund projects without federal support. State provides a stable source for matching grant funding for capital projects, but there is a lack of local grant matching funds for operating projects. Local match required, and recipients are considering cutbacks in service. Concern about continuing programs without grant funding. Loss of match funds could cause a problem for continuation of services. Continuation of federal funds is critical. Matching funds come from state; local sources are not available. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs Lack of local matching funds. Small urban/rural areas cannot meet the matching requirements. A lack of awareness about what NF could be used for slowed its initial adoption, but that issue is now resolved. Inability to apply for or use funds from multiple sources, both FTA and across federal government, i.e., Health and Human Services. Lack of understanding about what types of programs qualify for NF. Lack of local matching funds. Confusion around the changing NF requirements. Requirement that NF projects be new services. Source(s) of Matching Funds Local governments Local organizations No source for matching funds for one region studied. Dept. of Education and Dept. of Energy funds Transit agency funding provided locally by the jurisdiction. State Provided by local governments in rural areas. Still some political resistance to using government funds for transportation services. Urban providers must come up with local match on their own. DOT provides matching funds for small urban and rural areas. Large urban areas must use local matching funds. State Performance Measures Number of people and communities served Ridership Jobs actually accessed compared with projections Levels of service measures for a number of operational variables Ridership Ridership Customer satisfaction surveys Collect standard service indicators. Primary budget measure is cost per passenger mile, which is challenging to manage over the year due to changing customer base and needs. Data collected on grant funded project performance, but no overarching performance review. Performance data (including some previously external) now consolidated. Table 12 (Continued)

individual agencies that reported mixed or negative feelings about the plan requirement, the overall as- sessment by all states interviewed was positive. This support for the plans was a bit surprising given that three of the six states interviewed did not consider the plans to be effective, based on their responses to the online survey. Plan Development and Costs. The process used to develop the Coordination Plans varied across the states. Except for Washington State, all agencies did some combination of in-house plan development along with the use of consultants, and in some cases the level of assistance used by the agencies varied by whether the agency was in an urban or rural area. In addition, many local agencies had a difficult time quantifying the Coordination Plan development costs, particularly if the plan was developed in-house and the main expense was staff time. Often the best cost estimate available was an estimate of the num- ber of staff people or the percentage of a person or team’s time devoted to the Coordination Plans. As a result, the overall costs associated with the develop- ment of the Coordination Plans at the local level vary significantly in level of detail, ranging from $10,000 to $85,000 or one to six staff members working on all aspects of the human services transportation grants, including Coordination Plans, sub-recipient agree- ments, contracts, legal, and engineering. Perceived Coordination Plan Results. Most of the states interviewed emphasized improved relation- ships between public and private agencies as a result of the Coordination Plan, particularly Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wash- ington indicated that the plans built upon existing co- 36 Interview Topic Area Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Major Concerns Expressed Changing NF requirements caused confusion. Funding is very limited, projects don’t reach new populations or meet demand for services. Different application processes and funding at the federal level for human services transportation funds and FTA funds create extra work, even though these funds will all benefit the same projects. 5310 vehicle inventory in the plan has made it appear that there are excess vehicles. However, that isn’t true and it has made it impossible to get new 5310 vehicles. Time and funds were wasted translating materials into Spanish when not all communities need the translated materials. Eliminate local match requirements. Would like advanced notice of when the grants are due, and greater financial support for the grant application administrative work. Lack of funding flexibility; need ability at both state and local level to re-direct as needs change. Lack of transparency in project prioritization and selection for funding process at state and federal level. More visibility needed to improve political commitment to process. Faster process from application to grant approval. Currently takes up to a year. Increase the federal share for the JARC and NF matching requirements. Simplify the reporting requirements for the administrative funds. Provide funds for technical and mobility management projects. Desired Changes Expressed Would like to stay involved in the prioritization and outcomes of funded projects. Use the same process and criteria for both JARC and NF. Plan can be improved by educating stakeholders about its relations to other plans. The plan needs to apply to non-FTA human services transportation grants. Increase the federal share for the JARC and NF matching requirements. Modify the NF program to have a more explicit focus on the needs of seniors that do not have physical disabilities but do not feel comfortable driving. In urban areas, make the MPO the direct recipient or eliminate all sub- recipients and have all applicants apply directly to FTA or the state DOT. Standardized performance measures would reduce time spent on performance evaluation but ensure that performance is well tracked. Eliminate local match requirements. Improve administrative coordination among federal funds for human services and for transportation to enable combined grants that reward collaboration and innovation. Benchmarks that look at both existing conditions (and allow for greater challenges of rural areas) and that are outcome- based. Reward good performance. Partial programmatic distribution of funds to provide sustainability for longer/larger projects and to enable greater local authority. Separate the selection and funding process for existing versus new projects, with a 4- year re-competition for existing projects. Integrate other customers, including veterans, domestic violence victims, and other customer groups in need. Table 12 (Continued)

37 ordination that they were already doing regarding human services transportation. Finally, many of the states noted either that they believe human services transportation did not necessarily improve because of the plan, or it was difficult to tell if it had. One rea- son for this was the respondents’ concern for the lack of associated funding and the lack of desire by most states to use available funds to establish new ser- vices, for fear of not being able to continue funding them when the grant money ran out. The Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia DOTs all indicated that their preferred projects do not include new operating services. Indication of Redundant or Burdensome Elements of Plan Development. There were a wide variety of issues raised regarding parts of the Coordination Plan or planning process that the states find redun- dant or burdensome. The challenges discussed by the respondents ranged from how projects are prior- itized at the local versus state level to concerns about the public meeting and Spanish translation require- ments. Some states felt that the administration of the plan is burdensome, and some did not; there was no real consensus between the states on this issue. Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection. A few states noted that while prioritization is done at the local level, the state makes the final decision on what to fund, taking away some of the control from the locals. Respondents indicated that this is done more often in rural areas for which the state DOT is the designated recipient for grant funds, whereas in the urban areas the designated recipient is more likely a local agency or government. Most states noted that the prioritization of projects is based on gaps in ser- vice and where the proposed grant fits into the goals and objectives of the Coordination Plan. Perceived Project Continuation Needs/Impediments to Using the Grant Programs. A common theme across all states interviewed was the lack of money available for local matches becoming a burden to the continuation of projects funded through the grant pro- grams, as well as an impediment to using the grant programs in the first place. The lack of money for the local match seemed to be more of an issue in rural areas than it was in urban areas. Finally, the NF reg- ulation that it be used for new service was also an im- pediment to using the Section 5317 grant program for many respondents, as these agencies did not feel that they would be able to continue to sustain new service when the grant money ran out. Sources of Matching Funds. Sources of the local match requirement for the grant programs varied by the state interviewed and by area within these states, with some states providing the local match and some agencies relying on local governments or even local organizations. Often urban areas were required to find a local match, while the state provided the match in rural areas. Pennsylvania and Washington, how- ever, were two states that provided the local match to recipients regardless of their location in the state. In a few creative cases, such as in Ohio, agencies used other federal grants to match the Section 5316 and 5317 FTA grant programs. Other states found it was not possible to coordinate between the human ser- vices transportation grant programs and other federal grant programs. Performance Measures. Some states interviewed were more diligent than others in utilizing perfor- mance measures for determining grant funding allocations. Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina seemed to have the most consistent processes for utilizing performance measures. These states primarily use standard service indica- tors to gauge performance of the programs funded by the grants. Major Concerns/Desired Changes Expressed. A consistent area of concern expressed by the states in- terviewed was the desire to remove the local match requirement due to the difficulty in identifying and sustaining local matching funds. Another common concern expressed was the lack of understanding re- garding the requirements for NF grants. A few states also indicated that they are unhappy with the admin- istrative process, including the length of time it takes to apply for and receive the grant money. In addition, some respondents indicated that they are uncomfort- able about reviewing new projects and the continu- ation of old projects simultaneously, and that the grant awards do not necessarily account for project sustainability beyond the initial grant funding. Numerous states interviewed expressed a desire to have the same criteria and rules for both JARC and NF, with some respondents suggesting that the programs be combined. However, one state, namely Ohio, suggested that rather than combine the two very similar programs, the NF program could be dif- ferentiated further to make it more applicable to se- niors who do not have physical limitations that keep them from driving but simply do not feel comfort- able doing so. Finally, several states expressed a

Topic State DOTs Transit Agencies MPOs Local Non- Profit Transportation Providers Believe the Coordination Plans are effective > Feel the cost involved is warranted > > Feel plans result in wide range of funded programs > > Find it easy to utilize the grant programs > > > Feel that the grant funding is sustainable N/A Are able to reliably obtain matching funds > Feel they have the capacity to conduct the Coordination Plans > N/A Desire changes to requirements Strongly Agree > Partially Agree (Mixed Responses) Disagree Table 13 Overall comparison by agency/organization type. desire for more standardized, outcome-based perfor- mance measures to review the programs. Responses by Agency Type Overall Responses. Table 13 provides an overview of the survey results at a qualitative level for the dif- ferent types of agencies interviewed. Following Table 13 is a more detailed review of the interview results by agency type. State DOTs. While the state DOTs were not inter- viewed at the same level of detail as the other agen- cies within the state because their thoughts had been gathered via the Internet survey, some key points were gathered during the course of discussions with the state DOT representatives. The level of detail col- lected via telephone with the DOT varied depending on their availability and on whether they had informa- tion that they wanted to add above what they had al- ready provided in the Internet survey. Detailed sum- maries of the telephone interviews held with the DOT representatives are located in Appendix C, and infor- mation on the DOTs that provided sufficient addi- tional information is shown in Table 14. In the allocation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grants, state DOTs primarily serve as intermediaries between regional or local planning organizations and transportation providers and the FTA. However, large urban MPOs and transit agencies develop their own plans and work directly with the FTA. Among the states interviewed, most DOTs have gone beyond simply supervising the application and allocation process by also supplying technical assis- tance to regional planning organizations, particularly those in rural areas. In general, this assistance has been carried out with only limited use of consultants: Missouri DOT observed that initially consultants did not have more capability or information than the state, so DOT staff coordinated and facilitated workshops across the state. Once a state DOT has developed these capabilities, with or without using consultants, the tendency is to keep providing these advisory ser- vices. State DOTs also publicize the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs, contacting both transporta- tion providers and human services organizations to inform them of the programs. In addition, the United We Ride (UWR) program was indicated as useful by several state DOTs, for both technical advice and oc- casional grants. A critical aspect of the state DOT role is whether the agency also provides matching funds for the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grants. In Pennsylva- nia and Washington, the state DOT provides local matching funds, enabling the grant recipients to focus on the public outreach requirements for plan- ning. In South Carolina, where the state DOT does not provide funding, the regional organizations spend a considerable part of their effort in raising matching funds, not always successfully. Pennsylvania notes that without the state matching funds, many local or- ganizations would not even apply for Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grants. The improvements made in human services transportation services have to be considered in the context of previously existing services operated in each state. Pennsylvania’s programs date back some 30 years; accordingly, the DOT primarily views the purpose of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding as providing better service to existing cus- tomers. In their oversight role, state DOTs have to carry out significant review of planning results, doc- umentation, verification of capital and operating performance, and many other concerns. Standard- ization for federal projects helps the state DOTs to 38

focus on the key requirements that the FTA is seek- ing to meet. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). Given the relative newness of the Section 5316 and 5317 pro- grams, several organizations interviewed noted that in the initial stage there were many proposals; there- fore, the initial identification, prioritization, and sub- mittal preparation of project proposals was less than simple. Now in the subsequent phases, the prepara- tion process has been smoothed out and the success of the programs can be better evaluated based on empirical information. Many planning organizations have developed formal processes by which to select and prioritize grant requests. Most metropolitan and regional organizations interviewed were involved in human services trans- 39 Interview Topic Area Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; coordination did not exist prior to the plan. Effective; prior to the Coordination Plans there was an “Ohio Coordination Program” that would have been discontinued had the federal requirements not been implemented. Effective; expanded the work of local planning organizations that previously focused on highways. Effective; gave state more leverage to work with human services transportation organizations. Effective Effective; improved coordination and the provision of human services transportation. Plan Development Used funds from a UWR grant to aid local organizations by conducting six workshops on plan development and providing $21,000 to each lead agency for plan development. The DOT offered consultant assistance to small urban and rural areas. The DOT provided funds for plan development from FTA and Federal Highway planning grants. The DOT provides both technical assistance and planning funds. For rural and small urban areas, the DOT provided consultant assistance. Provides both planning funds and technical assistance on the grant applications, as well as all matching funds for accepted applications. Types of Programs Funded by Grants Preferred projects do not include new operating services. Preferred projects do not include new operating services. Many JARC programs, but few NF programs by comparison. Preferred projects do not include new operating services. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs The “Beyond ADA” requirements of NF were an issue when they were first enacted, but are now well understood. Grant sustainability doubts discourage applications; agencies reluctant to start services without reliable funding. It is difficult for applicants to use NF and define new needs when many existing programs are underfunded. Source(s) of Matching Funds Local Local, the state does not provide any matching funds. The DOT provides matching funds, but it is more willing to accept applications that procure local matching funds and are locally sustainable. Local; the state purposely does not provide matching funds to ensure that all projects are sustainable on the local level. DOT provides matching funds for small urban and rural areas. Large urban areas must use local matching funds. Reported Organizational Capacity Needs The DOT was involved in the federal rule-making process for the plans, so they had enough in- house knowledge to provide direct assistance to the MPOs and RPCs. 5310, JARC, and NF each have an individual employee at the DOT that manages the grant process and aids local organizations with grant applications. Reviewing plans is time consuming; some are hundreds of pages and there is no uniform plan template. Used consultants during initial year, with one per region. Now performed in-house. Performance Measures Federal performance reporting standards. Developed at the local level. Major Concerns Expressed Unsure if/how the plan requirements may change after reauthorization. Anything that can be done to streamline the grant application process would be helpful. It is hard for the MPOs and RPOs to “buy-in” to the process and its multimodal nature. Identifying projects for NF that are new in approach is a challenge. Desired Changes Expressed Combine 5316 and 5317 into 5307 and 5311 as eligible activities in those programs. A consolidation of 5310, JARC, and NF would be helpful from an administrative standpoint. FTA should introduce uniform performance measures for JARC and NF. Combine several of the existing grant programs into a single program. 1The level of detail collected via telephone with the DOT varied depending on their availability and on whether or not they had information that they wanted to add above what they had already provided in the Internet survey. Table 14 Agency comparison table (state DOTs).1

Interview Topic Area Mid-America Regional Council of Governments An urban MPO Kansas City, KS, and Kansas City, MO Puget Sound Regional Council An urban MPO Seattle/Tacoma, WA Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; brought about new public- private partnerships and forced some communities to give more consideration to public transportation in their plans. Effective; plans increased coordination and programs funded by JARC and NF have been successful. Plan Development In-house Developed collaboratively with consultant assistance. Types of Programs Funded by Grants Transportation program to help connect rural residents to jobs. A Mobility Management Plan for three counties. 211 telephone program centralizes all human services calls (not just transportation). Bus Buddy program to acquaint new users with the public transportation system. Shuttles for health care services and for JARC recipients. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs Confusion/difficulties meeting NF requirements. Confusion surrounding the change requirements of NF. Source(s) of Matching Funds Local organizations State Reported Organizational Capacity Needs Plan developed as a part of Outlook 2040: Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan. Plan development, updates, and grant applications plan are cyclical and can be managed with a schedule. Performance Measures For each program, the number of people served and the communities served are tracked. Performance data (including some previously external) now collected. Major Concerns Expressed Older existing agencies have had difficulty in meeting the requirements for NF. Changed requirements and goals for NF have caused confusion. Desired Changes Expressed Plan can be improved by educating stakeholders about its relationship to other plans. Simplify the reporting requirements for the administrative funds. Table 15 Agency comparison table (large urban MPOs). portation planning prior to the new federal require- ments; however, there is general, though not unani- mous, agreement among those interviewed that the new rules on coordinated planning and the availabil- ity of the federal funds have been a significant boost to providing new human services transportation. In Virginia, the Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission had documented the need for such ser- vices with approximately 100 NGOs, but only with the coordinated planning process and FTA funds was the service implemented. Respondents indicated that initial development of Coordination Plans at the urban and regional level often required additional planning resources, whether state, academic, or private consultant. However, once the initial plans were developed, these planning orga- nizations have been able to continue the management of the coordinated planning process using in-house resources, with occasional technical assistance from state or other government offices. In contacting private and non-profit human ser- vices and transportation providers, urban and re- gional planning organizations often work with either an umbrella consortium or a local advisory council to conduct outreach. Several respondents believe that the participation of such groups makes some of the requirements for public meetings and publication of material redundant at the regional level, as the pub- lic’s views have already been incorporated at the local level by the participating human services trans- portation organizations. The requirement for formal documentation of need and the collection of data is a concern ex- pressed by many urban and regional planning orga- nizations interviewed. In Washington State, Puget Sound Regional Council has recently developed a new data warehouse to collect this information, and plans to make use of it in evaluating current ser- vices and planning new services. In contrast, in Vir- ginia the Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Com- mission does not have the capacity to collect such data, with most information during initial develop- ment and in projects to date collected anecdotally. Tables 15, 16, and 17 highlight specific responses for each large urban MPO, small urban MPO, and RPO interviewed, respectively. 40

41 Interview Topic Area Licking County Area Transportation Study A small urban MPO just north of the Columbus, Ohio, metropolitan region Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Council A small urban MPO in Northwestern Ohio Thurston Regional Planning Council A small urban MPO in Western Washington State Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG) A small urban MPO in South Carolina Lycoming County Planning Commission A small urban MPO in Pennsylvania Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Ineffective; redundant with coordination mechanisms already in place and no JARC or NF grant projects have been realized. Effective; identified existing local coordination that most were unaware of and identified possibilities for more. Effective; built upon previous state efforts, but federal requirements and funding created incentives for greater participation and coordination. Modest; planning has brought improved coordination, but providers are skeptical of mandated requirements. Effective; the plan enhanced their ability to expand services in a strategic way. Plan Development In-house; consultant assistance was offered by the state, but not used. In-house; local transit provider and non-profits provided ongoing input. In-house with state assistance; also cooperatively with local transit agency. Working to upgrade with more information; scoping study to identify needs and resources. In-house Types of Programs Funded by Grants Replacement 5310 vehicles for non-profits. Fixed route service between the cities of Lima and Delphus and between a rural town and Lima. Operating support for a rural community connector is primary program. Focus on short-term capital projects, largely vehicle procurement. Used JARC to expand service to shifting employment centers in outlying communities that lack access to fixed-route transit. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs A complete lack of matching funds. Difficulty in identifying local matching funding. Lack of flexibility in considering creative proposals. Concern over unsustainability of funding. Inability of local providers to find local match. None provided. Source(s) of Matching Funds None Depts. of Energy, Education funds State, Tribal Governments Done by providers, CMCOG not involved. State provides for capital, but not operating projects. Reported Organizational Capacity Needs Staff had the expertise to do the plan, but with a staff of only three people the plan development took a significant amount of organizational resources over the course of a year. Staff had the capacity to do the Coordination Plan without adding an undue burden on the agency. Over $37,000 in federal funding was used to develop the plan. Staff has capability to develop Coordination Plan and submit grant requests to state. State prioritizes requests and submits combined applications to FTA. Staff has capability to conduct planning and is conducting several efforts to improve outreach, collect more data, and better identify needs and resources. Not a concern. Performance Measures Not used. Ridership. Trips provided, cost per trip. Not used. No performance measures are currently in place; the degree of success for each project is difficult, and too time consuming to attempt to quantify. Major Concerns Expressed Nothing new was learned in developing the Coordination Plan. 5310 vehicle inventory in the plan has made it falsely appear that there are excess vehicles, making it impossible to get new 5310 vehicles. Local matching requirements difficult to meet. Time and funds were wasted translating materials into Spanish unnecessarily. Would like more programs for information and mobility management funded. Lack of integration of other federal programs with transportation, including human services, Veterans’ Affairs, and Medicaid. Little information collected to date on performance and outcomes of projects. CMCOG plans to improve, but would like federal guidelines. Success of the programs is difficult to quantify. Desired Changes Expressed Increase the federal match to 80-90%. Decrease the proportion of local match required to access grants. Require other federal programs to consider transportation and allow for transportation expenses in support of human services. A partial programmatic distribution of funds, i.e., by needs population, would provide continuity of funding and sustain longer/larger projects, as well as giving more authority to local planners. Desire standardized performance measures to reduce time spent on performance evaluation but ensure that performance is well tracked. Table 16 Agency comparison table (small urban MPOs).

Transit Agencies and Other Government Providers. Transit agencies and other government providers of transportation services interviewed regard Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 as useful additions to other federal programs, enabling them to extend their ser- vices to human services customers specifically. In general, these agencies already had the capacity to apply for federal programs, and the development of the Coordination Plans for the human services trans- portation grants has been accomplished with few concerns. Similar to planning organizations, transit agencies work with consortiums of human services groups to develop Coordination Plans and conduct the necessary public outreach to stakeholders and customers. The transit agencies interviewed concentrate on capital projects in applying for funding: vehicles, infrastructure, and technological improvements. In planning, their emphasis is on developing networks, sharing information, and coordinating plans for human services customers. Respondents felt the di- vision between JARC, NF, and other funds adds extra work when many of the customers are similar. As a result, several respondents suggested that the application process for these programs could be com- bined into one, with a percentage of funding set aside for each specific purpose. Local government transportation operators are dependent on government funding for operation. Local matching funds must therefore be provided by 42 Interview Topic Area Meramec Regional Planning Commission A rural regional planning commission St. James, Missouri Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission A rural planning district commission Culpeper, Virginia Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments (SLRCOG) A rural planning organization in South Carolina Lower Savannah Council of Governments (LSCOG) A rural planning organization in South Carolina Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; coordination did not exist prior to the plan. “Big benefit” to the regional plan requirements, and the NF funding is critical to improving human services transportation. Has improved coordination and allowed common needs and resources to be identified, but secondary to simply having funds available. Funds and planning process have brought new credibility to the work of LSCOG and of the need for human services transportation. Plan Development In-house. Mostly in-house; some consultant assistance provided by state. State assistance during initial development critical; state-funded consultants brought much expertise. In-house, following initial development. Types of Programs Funded by Grants A taxi-to-work service, which ended when funding ceased. Developed a feasibility study for a shuttle to a military base that resulted in a private operator developing the service. Mobility Management program funded two part-time positions: Researcher/Grant Administrator and Public Liaison who assists individuals needing transportation services. Funds to date almost wholly used to contract transportation service. One grant application for a volunteer assistance program is in development. Funds used primarily to contract transportation services. Mobility Management program funded with 5316. Using some 5316/5317 money to fund new scheduling software and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs Concerns about the sustainability of the grant programs. Dependent on the state providing local match, and that may end. Local match a challenge. Inability to apply for combined grants (i.e., using both Section 5310 and 5317 for one project). Lack of timeliness and flexibility in process. Time it takes from application to funds is too long. Needs change too quickly. Source(s) of Matching Funds None identified. State Local Local Reported Organizational Capacity Needs The planning process is not a problem. Plan development costs (approx. $20,000) provided by state DOT. Could not do the documentation of need because they lacked the data collection and analysis capability. Not an issue once state assisted in initial development. Not a concern. Performance Measures Number of people served. The Mobility Management program’s Researcher/Grant Administrator now collects and integrates external data. Basic service indicators collected. Would like to see more outcome- based measures and comparisons against baseline of service and infrastructure. Collect basic service indicators and hope to use new technology to improve/expand to new indicators, e.g., wait time. Major Concerns Expressed The funding is very limited, so the projects don’t reach many new populations. Difficulties in meeting strict grant requirements. Cannot continue current coordination program without NF funding. Need better combination of federal programs, both transportation and human services, to enable coordinated funding and services to take place. Need more transparency at state and federal level in project prioritization and approval decisions. Overruling of local officials’ choices adversely impacts political support. Desired Changes Expressed Would like to stay involved in the prioritization and outcomes of funded projects. Eliminate publication requirement and the documentation of need for the plan. Collaboration and innovation at the local level should be rewarded with demonstration grants that can enable new efforts. Faster, more flexible award process that is based more heavily on needs of regions and customers. Table 17 Agency comparison table (rural planning organizations [RPOs]).

the government, which respondents believe casts doubt on the future operation of some human services transportation projects. In today’s financial climate, these agencies are concerned over the sustainability of funding, even while acknowledging that the FTA grants are intended for the development of new ser- vices rather than as ongoing operating subsidies. Tables 18 and 19 highlight specific responses for each urban transit agency and rural transit agency in- terviewed, respectively. Private and Non-Profit Organizations. Much of human services transportation is performed by non- profit, non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Typically these organizations are primarily human services providers, with transportation representing only one area of their broader operations. Prior to the federal planning requirements for Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding, those NGOs providing human services transportation had pre- existing plans and networks of stakeholders involved in the development of services. However, there is general agreement among interviewees that the fed- eral requirements and the funding attached to them have been instrumental in improving and expanding coordination. On the other hand, these NGOs also felt that federal planning coordination and adminis- trative requirements are onerous, requiring much documentation. The Mr. Goodcents Foundation, a non-profit in Missouri, notes that the challenge for human services transportation is not a coordination problem; it’s a capacity problem. The NGOs interviewed have been able to take on the planning coordination task after some ini- tial state or other agency assistance, and generally now have the internal capability to carry out the planning and public outreach required for grant submissions. However, they feel that these specific planning efforts remain challenging. NGOs have indicated that they find general public forums to be unproductive forms of outreach, and that collabo- ration with other human services’ outreach efforts and interaction with specific stakeholders are more effective. Lack of local matching funds is an issue for NGOs located in states that do not supply the local match. Some respondents indicated that apprehen- sion over the sustainability of local matching funds has led to service reductions and decisions against applying for FTA grants. Non-profits noted that the administrative costs of preparing grant applications are significant and 43 Interview Topic Area Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) An urban transit agency Hampton/Norfolk, VA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) An urban transit agency Philadelphia, PA Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans “Very positive” outcomes for interagency collaboration and service provision. Ineffective; coordination already existed, and SAFETEA- LU reduced their JARC funding. Plan Development In-house In-house Types of Programs Funded by Grants Infrastructure improvements making bus stops more accessible to disabled persons. A 24-hour on-demand shuttle service for low-income workers. A Global Positioning System (GPS) for a senior center van fleet. Taxicab voucher pilot program. Travel Training program to acquaint new users with the public transportation system. Website Improvements. Travel instruction projects and workshops to acquaint new users with the public transportation system. Added late-night and weekend service to existing fixed-route service to serve those needing transportation to work. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs There is a lack of understanding about NF among local non-profits. There was an initial lack of understanding about what NF could be used for, but those issues have been resolved. Source(s) of Matching Funds Local organizations. State provides for capital projects. Most operating projects must find a local matching source. Reported Organizational Capacity Needs Plan development led by HRT staff member with ADA expertise. Agency finds it very difficult to assist and monitor sub- recipients, does not want to be a “mini state DOT.” Performance Measures Data is collected on ridership or individuals reached by program. Cost per passenger (all programs), new employment sites reached (JARC). Major Concerns Expressed Sustainability of funding. Difficulty of allocating NF funding. Agency’s role as a direct recipient is burdensome. Desired Changes Expressed Combine JARC and NF, but dedicate a percentage of the funding for NF projects. Agency wants the MPO to become the direct recipient or to eliminate all sub-recipients and have all applicants apply directly to FTA or PennDOT. Table 18 Agency comparison table (urban transit agencies).

that they believe having a higher percentage of the grant available to offset such costs would be helpful. In addition, a few human transportation services are now provided by for-profit private companies that have received FTA funds, either for procuring vehicles or in designing services. These private companies act as stakeholders in the coordinated planning process, but do not take the lead. They also perform some of the administrative tasks of grant application, but generally a local or regional govern- ment organization provides significant assistance in making the actual FTA grant application. Table 20 highlights responses for each rural NGO interviewed. The only urban NGO interviewed was the Mr. Goodcents Foundation, whose findings were summarized in Table 15, Large Urban MPOs, be- cause the interviewee for the Mr. Goodcents Founda- tion also represented the Mid-America Regional Council of Governments. Summary of Comments Received from Telephone Interviews Perceived Concerns/Issues with JARC and NF Grants. Few major concerns were expressed by re- spondents with the Section 5316 JARC program. Most of their comments were constructive, such as wanting to see a formula for distribution that looks at existing conditions, outcomes, and results rather than simply costs. The respondents felt that the key to this would include federal guidance on performance mea- sures that would look beyond basic service indicators to consider the effectiveness of funded projects in promoting job sustainability and measuring the num- ber of customers graduating from the need for JARC transportation. Some organizations interviewed would also like to be able to combine JARC and Section 5310 or 5317 funding, noting that disabled and elderly customers also need jobs. Respondents believe that the relatively recent in- troduction of the Section 5317 NF program and the changes in requirements that have taken place (74 FR 19624, April 29, 2009) have caused some confusion among planning organizations and transportation providers. As experience with the program grows, they believe more applications are likely to be sub- mitted. However, the current financial climate does not favor the introduction of new projects when sup- port for existing programs is facing retrenchment, so while longer term growth is likely, growth in Section 5317 requests is unlikely to be significant over the next several years. 44 Interview Topic Area Town & Country Transit A rural transit agency Armstrong County, PA Delaware Area Transit Agency A rural transit agency Delaware County, OH Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective. Plan process illuminated service gaps and brought together stakeholders. Effective; there were no prior attempts at coordination and the need for transportation coordination to manage high growth in demand was crucial. Plan Development In-house Consultant led; consultant services paid for by the state DOT. Types of Programs Funded by Grants JARC used to fund a late-night bus service to the local hospital. Created a Persons With Disabilities (PWD) program, which includes a new advisory board for the transit board. The PWD program is now one of the agency’s most successful, and its paratransit operations have experienced ridership increases. JARC used to fund a taxi voucher program to transport low-income individuals to and from work. NF used to fund a Mobility Management program that includes an integrated call center to connect human services transportation clients with the most appropriate service provider. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs Lack of local matching funds. None identified. Source(s) of Matching Funds State Agency funds used. Reported Organizational Capacity Needs Staff members with planning expertise led the plan development. Staff had the knowledge to oversee the plan development, but they did not have the required manpower; a consultant was used to do lead plan development. Performance Measures Ridership, customer satisfaction surveys. No formal performance measures; the group of 10 key stakeholder organizations that oversaw the development of the plan will meet to assess programs. Major Concerns Expressed Lack of local matching funds. There needs to be some special focus within NF or in another grant program on meeting the needs of seniors that are not disabled, but prefer not to drive. This population is a rapidly growing portion of the users of DATA’s system. Desired Changes Expressed Eliminate local match requirements. None; the agency hopes that the program is continued. Table 19 Agency comparison table (rural transit agencies).

Respondents indicate that Section 5317 grants appear to be less utilized by rural organizations. Sev- eral organizations noted that—given the generally lower level of services and other infrastructure for the NF customer target group in rural areas—they believe the opportunities to meet Section 5317 goals are much more challenging than for more urban and developed areas. In addition, respondents stated that some designated recipients have been unable to ob- ligate all of their NF funding due to lack of aware- ness about what NF can be used for potential local recipients, or their inability to design programs to meet the NF criteria. Several respondents noted that the changing NF requirements have inhibited local organiza- tions from applying for the grant. There are other factors as well; one organization noted that NF projects are more difficult to identify in rural loca- tions, where services often struggle to meet ADA requirements in the first place, making identifica- tion of useful projects beyond ADA challenging. In urban areas, they felt that this is less of an issue, as more improvements for disabled mobility and accessibility are possible at the boundaries of current services. MATCH CONCERNS. In general, most local agencies interviewed reported some success in awarding JARC and NF grants, but were limited in how they could use the programs most often due to a lack of local matching funds. They indicated that both the newness of and changes in the programs have been issues in awarding, obligating, and expending JARC and NF funds. The respondents’ major concern for NF and JARC programs is meeting local match require- ments in the future, even in states where this fund- ing is provided by the state. Local communities can be constrained by a lack of local matching funds. In one Ohio community a complete lack of any local matching funds led to them being unable to submit any NF or JARC applications. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS. There is considerable demand among the target populations for JARC and NF, and the identification of new, useful projects continues. Some services by responding agencies have been implemented on a trial basis and found to be less successful than hoped, but they indicated that the cancellation of a few programs allows other worthy projects to be funded. Many organizations 45 Interview Topic Area Southeast Missouri Transportation Services A non-profit general public transportation service Fredericktown, MO STEP, Inc. A rural non-profit Lycoming and Clinton Counties, PA People For People A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Yakima, WA RADAR A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Roanoke, VA Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; aided in the marketing of services. Effective Effective; increased coordination and JARC and NF funded programs were successful. Difficult to assess at this time; the plan has only been in place for 18 months. Plan Development N/A N/A N/A N/A Types of Programs Funded by Grants Operate 5310 vehicles for sheltered workshops. Formerly had a JARC- funded program. When the program was discontinued due to a lack of local match funding, thousands lost jobs. Provides transportation to work for low-income workers. A community connector that links nine jurisdictions and has provided access to health care and benefited low-income and shift workers. Taxi-cab vouchers. New fixed-route service to state services center. Two new demand-response programs, expansion of a third. Augmented paratransit funding. Perceived Impediments to Utilizing the Grant Programs Lack of local match funding. None identified. Requirement that NF projects be new services. Lack of local match funding. Source(s) of Matching Funds None None identified. State State Reported Organizational Capacity Needs Only reviewed the plans; has a working knowledge of the grants and how to apply. Knowledgeable about the planning and grant process. Working relationship with two local planning agencies existed prior to plan. Contributed significantly to the plan, local university provided technical help. Performance Measures N/A N/A N/A N/A Major Concerns Expressed The organization lacks the capacity and resources to meet current demand. Need to consolidate public meetings. Public forums were unproductive vis-à-vis individual group meetings. Inability to meet JARC/NF matching requirements in future years. Desired Changes Expressed The plan needs to apply to non- FTA human services transportation grants. Would like advanced notice of when the grants are due and greater financial support for the grant application administrative work. Separate the selection and funding process for existing vs. new projects, with a 4-year re- competition for existing projects. Decrease the local matching requirement for JARC and NF. Table 20 Agency comparison table (rural non-governmental organizations).

also reported projects that have been more success- ful than projected. TYPES OF PROJECTS. The interviewed applicants and recipients for JARC and NF generally have avoided new operating projects and concentrated on existing services, capital, and information projects. Recent projects introduced by the respondents include: • Mobility Management programs • Infrastructure improvements or limited infor- mation/educational projects, things that do not require ongoing operating funds. • Travel Training programs to acquaint new users with the public transportation system. • Taxicab vouchers • Expanded late-night or 24-hour shuttle ser- vice for low-income workers, on-demand and fixed route. • New shuttle services to medical facilities. Planning Process. With regard to the planning requirements for Section 5316 and 5317 funding, interviewees generally considered the commitment for human services transportation planning to be time consuming, but comparable to most other political processes. There was general agreement among respondents that the planning requirements for the three programs are very similar, and they believed that a combination of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grants would make planning and administration easier for all con- cerned. It was also noted by respondents that Section 5310 and 5317 target the same customer base, which they believe makes them somewhat redundant. Mis- souri DOT even proposed that the Section 5316 pro- gram be incorporated into the Section 5307 and 5311 programs. Missouri DOT noted that it distributes planning assistance funds for the development of the Coordi- nation Plans as the plans are being developed, but it requires submission of a completed plan before the recipients receive their final planning grant install- ments. One organization noted that federal funds for human services (non-FTA) do not have stringent planning requirements attached to them, and they believe FTA human services transportation pro- grams should be coordinated with such federal fund- ing from other agencies. Inclusion of other organi- zations was also encouraged by those interviewed; in both Missouri and Virginia, Coordination Plans were developed with assistance from universities. Program Management. Respondents feel that changes in federal requirements for funding, particu- larly in the Section 5317 program, have caused some uncertainty among applicants. While the less stringent requirements for Section 5317 will enable new proj- ects to be developed for funding, the respondents ex- pressed concern over the sustainability of such pro- grams if federal requirements change once again. However, it should be noted that those inter- viewed stated that the relaxation of Section 5317 re- quirements has led to new projects. Missouri DOT has found that rural areas in particular benefited from the changes, enabling more projects to be put forward. This is due to the differences between urban and rural providers; rural providers more commonly already offer flexible, demand-response service, so that new opportunities are few. In urban areas, new services beyond fixed-route transportation can be identified more easily. There was general agreement by those inter- viewed that uncertainty in funding is a significant issue, both uncertainty of the federal funds and local matching funds. In Missouri, the non-profit group Southeast Missouri Transportation Services (SMTS) recounted an example of a successful service being terminated after the local match could no longer be met. In Virginia, the RADAR NGO is considering reductions in services funded by Section 5310 in an- ticipation of future local funding reductions. Given current finances for state and local governments, the agencies fear similar difficulties for organizations that must develop matching funds at the local or re- gional level. Regarding the annual nature of federal program applications, one interviewee noted that project re- cipients like the 1-year timeframe as it eases the management of their own cash flow and operations. However, other recipients noted that this contributes to uncertainty about sustained funding, with one re- spondent suggesting a 4-year grant process for ex- isting projects to ensure services will have sustain- able funding. Prioritization and Program Monitoring. The major issue impacting the identification and prioritization of projects for Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant applications reported by interviewees is the issue of existing versus new services. Washington State providers noted an inherent bias in their selection process, with more points given to continuation of existing projects. Pennsylvania DOT makes a point 46

of looking at gaps in existing service, and project re- quests that fill those gaps receive priority. Missouri DOT notes that it uses Section 5310 funding solely for vehicle procurement. Pennsylva- nia DOT also concentrates on capital funding proj- ects, because operating projects require sustainable funding, yet Section 5316 and 5317 funds are not re- garded as guaranteed by respondents. The interviews revealed that prioritization is car- ried out somewhat differently among the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs. In Missouri, all pri- oritization is done at the state level. Pennsylvania DOT prioritizes all Section 5310 applications at the state level, but Section 5316 and 5317 applications are prioritized regionally and then reviewed by the state. In Washington State, projects are prioritized regionally; the state then conducts an independent prioritization, which may result in a different recom- mendation or grade for an application. Quantitatively, relatively few interviewees men- tioned performance measures playing a significant role in evaluating the effectiveness of projects. Stan- dard indicators such as number of customers versus cost and service provided were mentioned, but were not used in any rigorous analysis. In part, respon- dents believe this is because customer-focused mea- sures have been lacking; Pennsylvania DOT pro- poses that in the future a key measure of the success of JARC projects could be the number of riders reaching and keeping employment. Coordination. There is widespread agreement among the interviewees that the planning requirements of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs have been effective in developing new relationships and ex- panding the provision of human services transporta- tion. Respondents talked of the coordination process bringing in new organizations and improving infor- mation among all participants about the resources available and the needs of customers. Several states noted having previous requirements, including Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Washington; however, federal specifications generally required greater out- reach and coordination. In addition, Washington State now has state programs that make use of the same planning requirements as the federal programs. Pennsylvania DOT commented that they be- lieve the new programs have changed some of the focus of metropolitan and regional planning organi- zations from highway to transit. Respondents feel that mobility and accessibility have become impor- tant issues more generally, which encourages partic- ipation in human services transportation planning coordination. Outreach efforts to the public vary by respondent. Many organizations interviewed make use of public forums, but some have been disappointed by the response, especially given the effort necessary to arrange these. For example, People For People in Washington State finds it more effective to participate in other forums that involve target audiences, such as workshops for senior citizens, health services, veter- ans, and other subjects or groups. Finally, a few inter- viewees noted that the requirement to translate the Coordination Plan into Spanish placed an unneces- sary burden on them, given that they do not serve a significant Spanish-speaking population. Success and Benefits of the Plans and Funds. Penn- sylvania DOT noted that the largest benefit from human services transportation funding has been the ability to purchase new vehicles and expand service, because the state already had a well-developed human services transportation plan. Pennsylvania also noted that they believe most of the benefits are at the margins, including providing service later into the evening and route extensions. More importantly, the availability of the funding has allowed them to meet new needs and providers to test new services, continuing and expanding successful programs. However, it was noted that the emphasis placed on continuity and sustainability by most grant recipi- ents minimizes flexibility to meet emerging needs and test new services. Based on the interviews conducted, successful projects accomplished under Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding include: • Sponsoring taxis for commuters without other means of transportation (JARC). • Developing a plan for shuttle service to a mil- itary base, which led to a private operator implementing the service (JARC). • Contracting with taxis for door-to-door de- mand response service to elderly and disabled (NF). • Providing a new fixed-route service to a work- force development and state services center (NF). • Purchasing a new bus for a workforce devel- opment board (JARC). • Purchasing a GPS system to improve the coor- dination of demand-response service (5310). 47

• Improving website information on services available (NF). • Developing a “Bus Buddy” program, to intro- duce elderly and disabled citizens to public transit (5310). • Providing a demand-response service for re- turn trips for hospital users, enabling them to arrive via fixed-route services for appointments but have flexibility for return trips given varia- tions in appointment duration (5310). • Creating Mobility Management programs to connect customers with services, providing information and collecting data (5310). • Sponsoring volunteer-operated transportation services (5310). • Providing bus stop accessibility improvements for wheelchair users (NF). • Improving access to shopping for low-income customers (5310). Many organizations commented that programs have been more successful than expected. Customer demand has been high; in the words of Town & Country Transit in rural Pennsylvania, ridership “has grown exponentially, far beyond what the state had projected.” In addition, respondents indicated that human services transportation has also increased use of general mass transit, as customers can combine services that meet their needs. They also believe that improved information and greater familiarity with the transportation options available has also increased general transit ridership. Some projects of the respondents have admittedly proved unsuccessful. They indicated that a year-long trial is usually sufficient to identify these, though some have been re-designed or placed under new management in an effort to make them more success- ful. In general, however, most projects implemented by those interviewed have become relatively perma- nent, in some cases being incorporated into fixed- route service or taken over by private operators. Conclusions Many general conclusions about the perceived success of the Coordination Plans, the level of effort that it takes to create them, the types of programs that are funded with the grant programs, and the concerns held by the interviewees are addressed throughout this document, particularly in the following sec- tions: Cross-State Comparison of Interview Results, Responses by Agency Type, and Summary of Com- ments Received from Telephone Interviews. This section provides further comparison of the results of the interviews by pointing out some key contrasts between various agency types and reviewing some additional key themes that were found repeatedly during the course of the interviews. Contrasts and Issues Rural versus Urban. In general, the rural organiza- tions interviewed appeared to be both more enthusi- astic and more critical of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs. This enthusiasm is due to the human services transportation these organizations can now provide to needy customers; in many cases there were no existing public transportation services prior to fed- eral funds becoming available. At the same time, rural organizations are critical of the distribution of these funds because of their concerns that the higher cost of transportation in such areas—longer distances, dis- persed customers and destinations, and little other in- frastructure to support human services customers— may make rural human services transportation appear ineffective or inefficient. Rural organizations noted that they would like to see funding arrangements that take background or baseline conditions into consider- ation in distributing federal funds. Finally, because the state is often the designated recipient for the funds for rural areas, they feel their project prioritization is often undermined when the final decision on funding is made at the state level. State DOTs versus Recipients. Grant recipients in- terviewed generally indicated they would like more transparency in the project prioritization and selec- tion process at the state DOT level. Several respon- dents indicated that they felt the products of state de- cisions were challenging to understand or to explain to local officials involved in the local prioritization process. These respondents suggested that more guid- ance from FTA on the grant selection and prioritiza- tion process would be appreciated and would improve the understanding of all stakeholders in what federal priorities are and how grants match up with the pur- pose of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs. Finally, while three of the six state DOTs inter- viewed by the web-based survey indicated that they did not perceive a great benefit from the Coordina- tion Plan requirements, most of the recipients inter- viewed felt differently. They felt that the plan devel- opment process resulted in a much more coordinated approach to the provision of human services trans- 48

portation and that the process yielded a more open line of communication, particularly between public and private agencies and service providers. Planning Organizations versus Providers. There was concern expressed by some planning organizations that providers do not always see the benefit of coor- dinated planning efforts, given the distinction be- tween the planning process and the grant approval and disbursement process. Those interviewed felt that federal guidance that strengthened the link be- tween the planning process and the grants would be appreciated by both the planning organizations and the service providers; this could be accomplished by providing more technical advice, tying grant money to performance measures, and rewarding coopera- tive efforts. Key Themes Program Management. A general suggestion from those interviewed is that a federal grant process that is more transparent, timely, sustainable, and flexible would be beneficial. Planning organizations ob- served that the multiple levels of prioritization and project selection may interfere with transparency to local officials and stakeholders, which would ad- versely impact commitment and perceived benefits of the coordinated planning process. Respondents noted that the year it can take between grant appli- cation and receipt of funds also impacts the link be- tween planning efforts and the projects. Annual competition for funding of long-term, ongoing proj- ects is viewed by these agencies as redundant and wasteful; respondents indicated that distribution of funds on a longer schedule (such as funding for 4 years) or on a programmatic basis could be more effective for these types of projects. On the other hand, respondents also feel that needs do change, and that more flexibility should be allowed at the state and local levels to redirect at least portions of the grant money to meet emergent needs or redirect funds from projects that no longer need or cannot use the funding in a timely manner. Performance Measurement. Many respondents felt that, optimally, some funding should be tied to per- formance measures, preferably those identified at the federal level to help improve the transparency and equity of federal grant distribution. These mea- sures could include both consideration of the exist- ing conditions and the backgrounds of areas, such as unemployment, senior/disabled population, and dis- tribution of customers and destinations. Respon- dents also indicated that these performance mea- sures could go beyond basic service indicators or cost data to be more results-oriented or outcomes- based. Respondents suggested that data could be collected on the success of projects in getting cus- tomers to the services they need and in the effective- ness of the providers in supplying these services against the baseline conditions. Coordinated Planning. The respondents’ support for performance measures and the perceived opportunity for an improved federal grant process come back to the perceived effectiveness of the coordinated plan- ning process. These respondents believe that by using performance measures and data and linking federal funds to the results of this process, coordinated plan- ning could make more use of quantitative information and link plans to results more closely. They believe that stakeholders making use of a performance-driven coordinated planning process would get even more out of the process of developing and working to imple- ment the Coordination Plan. CHAPTER 4 FTA GRANTS DATA Under the SAFETEA-LU, FTA Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF grant program funds are allocated to large urban areas and state DOTs by for- mula. In this chapter, the JARC and NF grant appro- priations and obligations for the first 3 years of SAFETEA-LU, FY 2006 through FY 2008, are eval- uated with data and reports available from FTA’s web- site to help quantify any difficulties states and their grantees are having in selecting projects and obligat- ing JARC and NF funds. This evaluation includes the comparison of annual appropriations to annual oblig- ations, both at the program level and at the state level. In both the JARC and NF grant programs, 60 per- cent of the funds are allocated to designated recip- ients in urbanized areas with populations over 200,000; 20 percent to state DOTs for urbanized areas under 200,000; and 20 percent to state DOTs for non-urbanized areas. Generally speaking, most of the designated recipients are transit agencies or organizations with established finance staff that un- derstand and know the intricacies of drawing down allocated federal funds. Therefore, the primary focus of this summary is on how the states draw down and obligate the 40 percent of JARC and NF funds that 49

have been allocated to them. After states select ser- vice providers through a competitive process, states can either: 1. Transfer the claim on funds to a service pro- vider and allow the provider to apply directly to FTA for program funds, which may expedite the time it takes for the provider to receive fed- eral funding, or 2. Apply to FTA for the funds apportioned to it and pass through the funds to subrecipi- ents serving small urbanized areas or non- urbanized areas. Using data from the FTA website, FY 2006 and FY 2007 FTA Statistical Summaries (the FY 2008 FTA Statistical Summary was not available at the time of the analysis), and the U.S. Government Accounting Office’s (GAO’s) Report: Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Evaluating the JARC Program (May 2009), the following tables examine the portion of JARC and NF funds that have been appropriated to and obligated by the states. These tables help identify the extent to which states and their grantees are hav- ing difficulty obligating the appropriated funds before they expire, because these grants must be obligated within 3 years of appropriation. Any funds not oblig- ated after 3 years will be reapportioned among all re- cipients in the next FY appropriations, e.g., lapsed FY 2006 funds are reapportioned as part of FY 2009. Summary of JARC and NF Programs Tables 21 and 22 summarize the total appropri- ated funds (for all states and urbanized area desig- nated recipients) for the JARC and NF grant pro- grams for FY 2006 through FY 2008. They reveal that nearly 45 percent of the FY 2006 through FY 2008 JARC and NF appropriations have been oblig- ated; however, nearly 14 percent of FY 2006 JARC appropriations lapsed and more than 12 percent of FY 2006 NF appropriations lapsed. Additionally, roughly 40 percent of FY 2007 JARC and NF funds have been obligated and 15 percent of FY 2008 JARC and NF funds have been obligated. While the tables indicate that there were some initial delays in obligating JARC and NF funds, they also demonstrate that the amount of JARC and NF funds obligated in the appropriation year is increas- ing and the amount obligated in each successive year is also increasing as states and grantees gain famil- iarity with the required coordinated planning process and grant administration associated with the new NF program and the new formula-based allocation of JARC funds under SAFETEA-LU. JARC Program For details on the JARC obligations of individ- ual states and urbanized areas, data from the FTA Statistical Summaries for FY 2006 and FY 2007 and GAO Report to Congressional Committees 09-496, Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Eval- uating the Job Access and Reverse Commute Pro- gram (May 2009) were analyzed. Since the JARC program was in place prior to SAFETEA-LU, and funds appropriated under the JARC program can be obligated within 3 years of appropriation, the analy- sis of FY 2006 and FY 2007 FTA Statistical Sum- maries data on JARC obligations by population group and urbanized areas (UZA) was not at an ap- propriate level of detail for determining how much of the FY 2006 and FY 2007 appropriations had been obligated by the end of FY 2007. Many states had significantly larger obligations than appropria- tions, likely due to appropriations made prior to FY 2006. As a result, the analysis of JARC obligations in comparison to appropriations relied on data avail- able in the GAO Report, which does not include the 50 FY Appropriated Obligated in FY 06 Obligated in FY 07 Obligated in FY 08 Transferred Out (as of 9/30/08)1 Remaining % Unobligated 2006 $136,620,000 $5,291,004 $22,731,680 $87,374,069 $2,621,612 $18,603,175 13.6% 2007 $144,000,000 $7,204,231 $47,596,190 $1,909,878 $87,289,701 60.6% 2008 $156,000,000 $22,376,472 $859,596 $132,763,932 85.1% Total $436,620,000 $5,291,004 $29,935,911 $157,346,731 $5,391,086 $238,656,808 54.7% 1States are allowed to transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula grant program and Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance Program. Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_9293.html. Table 21 Summary of total JARC funds appropriated and obligated between FY 2006 and FY 2008.

state detail for each year, but rather talks about the obligations in general and includes data on those states and UZAs that had FY 2006 JARC funds lapse. As shown in Table 21, the states and urbanized areas have obligated (or transferred out) $118 million of FY 2006 JARC appropriations (approximately 86 percent), $57 million of FY 2007 appropriations (approximately 39 percent), and $23 million of FY 2008 appropriations (approximately 15 percent). While the obligation percentages increased during the 3-year obligation period after appropriation, FY 2006 still had $18.6 million (or 13.6 percent) in JARC appropriations lapse at the end of FY 2008. Table 23 summarizes the urbanized areas and states that had FY 2006 JARC funds lapse and the amount of funding lapsed. The largest amounts of lapsed funding occurred in large urbanized areas ($10.9 million) and small ur- banized areas ($5.2 million); approximately 13 per- cent of FY 2006 JARC appropriated funds to large urban areas and approximately 19 percent of FY 2006 JARC appropriated funds to small urban areas ex- pired. However, in large urbanized areas, 20 of the 28 areas with lapsed funds (71 percent) allowed 100 per- cent of their FY 2006 funds totaling $9.4 million to lapse; while, in small urbanized areas, six of 12 areas with lapsed funds (50 percent) allowed 100 percent of their FY 2006 funds totaling $2.9 million to lapse. In non-urbanized areas, two of five areas with lapsed funds (40 percent) allowed 100 percent of their FY 2006 funds totaling $0.42 million to lapse. NF Program For details on the NF obligations of individual states, data from the FTA Statistical Summaries for FY 2006 and FY 2007 were analyzed to determine the appropriations and obligations of the state portion of the NF grant program and are shown in Table 24. Since the NF program was a new program under SAFETEA-LU, the FTA Statistical Summaries for FY 2006 and FY 2007 provided reliable data on obligations of these grants prior to the end of FY 2007 because there were no appropriations prior to FY 2006. Table 24 demonstrates that by the end of FY 2007, only 6.6 percent of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appropriations had been obligated. However, it is important to note that by the end of FY 2008, an ad- ditional $87.6 million of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appropriations were obligated, bringing the percent- age of FY 2006 and FY 2007 appropriations that had been obligated up to 62 percent. Due to the obligation data available in the FTA Statistical Summaries, the apportionments and oblig- ations shown for each state in Table 24 include the sum of the large urbanized areas, small urbanized areas, and non-urbanized area portions. The NF funds for urbanized areas that are located in multiple states are included in each state shown in Table 24; this means that the total apportionments for each of the states with urban areas that cross state lines and the total for all states include duplicate entries. As a result, the ap- portionments are overestimated. The table attempts to correct this in the total apportionments; however, it is difficult to correct for the double counting within states as it is not known how the urbanized area funds are distributed to projects within each state. As shown in Table 22, the states and urbanized areas have obligated $67.6 million of FY 2006 NF ap- propriations (approximately 88 percent), $30.6 mil- lion of FY 2007 NF appropriations (approximately 40 percent), and $12.2 million of FY 2008 NF appro- priations (approximately 12 percent). Of these FY 2006 and 2007 obligations, Table 24 indicates that the obligations were made by only 20 states (or territo- ries) by the end of FY 2007. At the end of FY 2007, 31 states had not obligated any of their FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF funds. Only one state, Wyoming, had obligated all of its FY 2006 and 2007 NF grants, while three states (Iowa, Oregon, and Washington) had obligated at least one-third of their FY 2006 and 51 FY Appropriated Obligated in FY 06 Obligated in FY 07 Obligated in FY 08 Total Obligated % Unobligated 2006 $77,200,000 $1,269,027 $6,786,605 $59,556,856 $67,612,488 12.4% 2007 $81,000,000 $2,537,311 $28,079,915 $30,617,226 62.2% 2008 $87,500,000 $12,233,883 $12,233,883 86.0% Total $245,700,000 $1,269,027 $9,323,916 $99,870,654 $110,463,597 55.0% Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7188.html. Table 22 Summary of total NF funds appropriated and obligated between FY 2006 and FY 2008.

52 Service Area Allocated Amount Lapsed Amount Lapsed % Large Urbanized Areas Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian, PR $ 530,843 $ 530,843 100% Austin, TX $ 406,084 $ 406,084 100% Bakersfield, CA $ 318,265 $ 238,265 75% Barnstable Town, MA $ 75,115 $ 14,105 19% Columbia, SC $ 191,671 $ 191,671 100% Columbus, GA-AL $ 487,856 $ 149,168 31% Daytona Beach-Port Orange, FL $ 136,539 $ 136,539 100% Durham, NC $ 152,453 $ 18,975 12% Fayetteville, NC $ 152,079 $ 152,079 100% Greenville, SC $ 154,803 $ 154,803 100% Gulfport-Biloxi, MS $ 116,718 $ 116,718 100% Harrisburg, PA $ 118,352 $ 118,352 100% Honolulu, HI $ 296,056 $ 296,056 100% Jackson, MS $ 188,181 $ 188,181 100% Lexington-Fayette, KY $ 125,080 $ 125,080 100% Miami, FL $ 2,798,658 $ 2,798,658 100% Milwaukee, WI $ 586,353 $ 307,613 52% Mission Viejo, CA $ 110,760 $ 110,760 100% Palm Bay-Melbourne, FL $ 162,591 $ 162,591 100% Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD $ 2,177,282 $ 156,161 7% Port St. Lucie, FL $ 134,102 $ 134,102 100% Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY $ 138,244 $ 138,244 100% Reading, PA $ 108,520 $ 108,520 100% Richmond, VA $ 325,063 $ 292,557 90% Riverside-San Bernadino, CA $ 1,025,531 $ 347,894 34% San Juan, PR $ 3,175,710 $ 3,175,710 100% Spokane, WA-ID $ 178,704 $ 178,704 100% Victorville-Hesperia-Apple Valley, CA $ 130,784 $ 130,784 100% Total Large Urbanized Areas with Lapsed Funds $ 14,502,397 $ 10,879,217 75% Total All Large Urbanized Areas $ 81,972,000 $ 10,879,217 13% Small Urbanized Areas (State) California $ 2,846,331 $ 1,050,607 37% Delaware $ 47,028 $ 47,028 100% Hawaii $ 51,652 $ 51,652 100% Indiana $ 672,488 $ 18,627 3% Louisiana $ 793,743 $ 250,000 31% Mississippi $ 142,431 $ 142,431 100% Nevada $ 37,708 $ 37,708 100% New York $ 513,343 $ 426,704 83% North Carolina $ 871,922 $ 550,122 63% Puerto Rico $ 2,571,505 $ 2,571,505 100% Utah $ 126,160 $ 1,535 1% Wyoming $ 97,515 $ 97,515 100% Total Small Urbanized Areas with Lapsed Funds $ 8,771,826 $ 5,245,434 60% Total All Small Urbanized Areas $ 27,324,000 $ 5,245,434 19% Non-urbanized, Rural Areas (State) California $ 1,392,047 $ 880,209 63% Delaware $ 60,739 $ 60,739 100% Indiana $ 547,252 $ 312,252 57% North Carolina $ 1,377,832 $ 862,267 63% Puerto Rico $ 354,265 $ 354,265 100% Total Non-Urbanized Areas with Lapsed Funds $ 3,732,135 $ 2,469,732 66% Total All Non-urbanized Rural Areas $ 27,324,000 $ 2,469,732 9% Source: Appendix II from the GAO-09-496 Report, Federal Transit Administration: Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Evaluating the Job Access Reverse Commute Program, May 2009, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/GA0_09_496(1).pdf. Table 23 Urbanized areas and states with lapsed FY 2006 JARC funds.

53 Apportionments Obligations Total Obligations % Obligated State 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006-2007 2006-2007 Alabama2 $ 1,428,410 $ 1,549,415 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Alaska $ 104,035 $ 116,682 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Arizona $ 1,361,883 $ 1,412,997 $ - $ 803,237 $ 803,237 28.9% Arkansas2 $ 1,004,603 $ 1,103,232 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% California $ 9,674,000 $ 10,241,457 $ 352,141 $ 1,608,351 $ 1,960,492 9.8% Colorado $ 1,058,292 $ 1,088,537 $ 472,048 $ - $ 472,048 22.0% Connecticut2 $ 6,963,755 $ 7,012,164 $ - $ 580,703 $ 580,703 4.2% Delaware2 $ 1,606,049 $ 1,581,231 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Florida2 $ 5,187,295 $ 5,697,223 $ 314,866 $ - $ 314,866 2.9% Georgia2 $ 2,463,121 $ 2,337,923 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Hawaii $ 289,784 $ 310,637 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Idaho2 $ 395,970 $ 434,827 $ - $ 10,552 $ 10,552 1.3% Illinois2 $ 4,112,410 $ 3,902,883 $ - $ 2,260,880 $ 2,260,880 28.2% Indiana2 $ 4,426,496 $ 4,399,392 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Iowa2 $ 819,690 $ 831,970 $ - $ 643,830 $ 643,830 39.0% Kansas2 $ 796,948 $ 842,226 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Kentucky2 $ 1,263,595 $ 1,541,572 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Louisiana $ 1,277,422 $ 1,399,660 $ 78,723 $ - $ 78,723 2.9% Maine $ 294,926 $ 353,257 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Maryland2 $ 3,625,637 $ 3,495,840 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Massachusetts2 $ 2,179,355 $ 2,198,497 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Michigan2 $ 2,962,718 $ 2,970,668 $ - $ 61,525 $ 61,525 1.0% Minnesota $ 951,281 $ 980,199 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mississippi2 $ 955,515 $ 1,003,230 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Missouri2 $ 1,553,940 $ 1,627,581 $ - $ 120,279 $ 120,279 3.8% Montana $ 215,173 $ 222,185 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Nebraska2 $ 327,448 $ 346,509 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Nevada $ 527,671 $ 607,306 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% New Hampshire2 $ 1,534,771 $ 1,463,289 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% New Jersey2 $ 7,670,901 $ 7,718,454 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% New Mexico2 $ 560,598 $ 689,698 $ 51,249 $ 14,700 $ 65,949 5.3% New York2 $ 7,519,513 $ 7,710,296 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% North Carolina2 $ 2,131,719 $ 2,249,643 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% North Dakota $ 146,896 $ 164,289 $ - $ 51,343 $ 51,343 16.5% Ohio2 $ 2,819,825 $ 3,047,964 $ - $ 273,133 $ 273,133 4.7% Oklahoma $ 779,289 $ 882,760 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Oregon2 $ 826,913 $ 935,545 $ - $ 670,298 $ 670,298 38.0% Pennsylvania2 $ 3,921,041 $ 3,873,010 $ - $ 80,000 $ 80,000 1.0% Puerto Rico $ 1,325,846 $ 1,842,071 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Rhode Island2 $ 1,547,940 $ 1,522,115 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% South Carolina2 $ 1,358,241 $ 1,468,798 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% South Dakota $ 165,571 $ 172,368 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Tennessee2 $ 1,524,684 $ 1,732,247 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Texas2 $ 5,616,227 $ 5,917,447 $ - $ 500,280 $ 500,280 4.3% Utah $ 426,158 $ 479,139 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Vermont $ 118,817 $ 123,475 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Virginia2 $ 2,421,710 $ 2,352,142 $ - $ 73,036 $ 73,036 1.5% Washington2 $ 1,858,731 $ 2,029,587 $ - $ 1,272,783 $ 1,272,783 32.7% West Virginia $ 530,542 $ 620,419 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Wisconsin2 $ 1,377,298 $ 1,354,055 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Wyoming $ 99,830 $ 119,156 $ - $ 218,986 $ 218,986 100.0% Total2 $ 104,110,483 $ 108,077,267 $ 1,269,027 $ 9,243,916 $ 10,512,943 5.0% Program Total $ 77,200,000 $ 81,000,000 6.6% Duplicated Urban Area Funds $ 26,910,483 $ 27,077,267 1Please note that while the percentage of NF funds obligated by the end of FY 2007 was only 6.6 percent, by the end of FY 2008, an additional $87.6 million of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appropriations was obligated, bringing the percentage of FY 2006 and FY 2007 appropriations that had been obligated up to 62 percent. 2Note that the apportionments for each state include money designated for urban areas. The urban area funds may be duplicated in other states because some urban areas cross state lines; therefore, the sum of apportionments is greater than the program apportionments for FY 2006 and FY 2007. Source: FTA Statistical Summaries, FY 2006 and FY 2007, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/data/grants_financing_1090.html. Table 24 Comparison of NF apportionments and obligations by state for FY 2006 and FY 2007.1

2007 NF funds. Of the remaining 16 states with FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF obligations, four had obligated between 10 and 30 percent, and 12 had obligated less than 10 percent. Conclusions While initially there was some difficulty in obligat- ing the JARC and NF funds with nearly 14 percent of FY 2006 JARC and 12 percent of NF apportion- ments lapsed at the end of FY 2008, significant im- provements in obligations have been made in recent years. The FTA and GAO data presented in the tables demonstrate that the amount of JARC and NF funds obligated in the appropriation year is increasing and the amount obligated in each successive year is also improving. The initial delays may have been the re- sult of several factors, including the SAFETEA-LU requirement for having an approved Coordination Plan in place (not required previously), difficulty in designating the appropriate grant recipients in large urban areas, uncertainty regarding what “beyond ADA” meant for NF projects, and adjusting to the learning curve associated with drawing down funds from the NF program and the new formula-based allocation of JARC funds. In addition, it is important to note that the federal apportionments are not always released in a timely manner often due to delays in congressional appro- priations or authorization bills. For example, the SAFETEA-LU apportionments for FY 2006 through FY 2008 were all published well after the start of each fiscal year. FY 2006 apportionments were pub- lished in the December 20, 2005, Federal Register and revised on February 3, 2006. Similarly, FY 2007 and FY 2008 apportionments were published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2007, and January 28, 2008, respectively. Since many state DOTs do not announce the availability of funds or begin the competitive process until the annual federal appor- tionments are published, further delays in JARC and NF obligations are possible. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS The findings from the Internet survey of state DOTs and the telephone interviews with local coor- dinated planning participants in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wash- ington helped identify the perceived costs and ben- efits associated with the human services transporta- tion Coordination Plans and grant programs. In gen- eral, the study revealed that respondents were satis- fied with the development of the Coordination Plan and the grant programs; however, they believed that there are opportunities to improve the planning process and grant administration that could signifi- cantly help states and local recipients implement the Coordination Plans and reduce the perceived admin- istrative burdens associated with the human services grant programs and their requirements. This chapter summarizes these costs, benefits, and perceived op- portunities (from the perspective of the respondents) to improve the accomplishment and effectiveness of the Coordination Plans and human services trans- portation grant programs. Costs Associated with Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs The study attempted to quantify the costs associ- ated with the development of the Coordination Plans, specifically in terms of a dollar amount and/or time spent on the initial plan development and maintaining the plan. The costs were collected from state DOTs as part of the Internet survey and from local Coordina- tion Plan participants during the telephone surveys. State DOTs (Internet Survey) In the Internet survey, 57 percent of state DOT re- spondents indicated that the costs of the initial Coor- dination Plan development were less than $250,000 for the state. The remaining 43 percent of respondents indicated that the state DOT costs of the plans were between $250,001 and $1 million. For those states spending more money on the initial plan develop- ment, many indicated that the state was providing a significant portion of the money for the Coordina- tion Plan development, including providing techni- cal assistance, consultants, and workshops. Simi- larly, 86 percent of responding state DOTs projected that the costs for maintaining the Coordination Plans would be less than $250,000. While some states paid for the cost of the initial plan development, no re- sponding states indicated that the state would pay for the maintenance of the Coordination Plans, which likely contributed to the lower projected state costs for the maintenance of plans. The Internet survey respondents also provided in- sight on some of the additional costs associated with the development of the Coordination Plans. Nine re- spondents (43 percent) had hired consultants or addi- 54

tional employees to help meet the plan requirements at the state level, and 53 percent had hired consultants or additional employees at the local level. Even with the hiring of additional resources, the responsibilities for preparing the Coordination Plans has fallen largely on existing staff. Eighteen (86 percent) of respondents indicated that the plans have placed an additional bur- den on the state transit office, many of whom are already short-staffed. One respondent indicated that they are not allowed to expand staff, even if the posi- tion is 100 percent grant funded. The primary sources of funding for the develop- ment of the Coordination Plans for the responding state DOTs were federal planning/administrative funds (48 percent) and state funds (30 percent). The respondents using state funds generally were con- cerned about the sustainability of these revenues since many state funds came from one-time sources (such as an Executive Order) or were taken from funds (both state and federal) that would have gone toward providing services. As a result, Internet survey results indicate that funding for the Coordination Plans may become increasingly a local responsibility. Local Agencies (Telephone Interviews) During the telephone interviews, many local agencies had a difficult time quantifying the Coor- dination Plan development costs, particularly if the plan was developed in-house and the main expense was staff time. Often the best cost estimate available was an approximation of the number of staff people or the percentage of a person or team’s time devoted to the Coordination Plans. As a result, the overall costs associated with the development of the plans at the local level vary significantly in level of detail. Missouri DOT provided significant assistance to the Rural Planning Commissions (RPCs) for the Co- ordination Plan development, including technical assistance through workshops held throughout the state as well as funding for the development of the plans. MoDOT observed that initially consultants did not have more capability or information than the state on the Coordination Plans, so MoDOT staff used $4,000 in UWR grants to coordinate and facilitate workshops across the state on the coordinated plan- ning process. MoDOT held six workshops in 2006, at various locations across the state, communicating plan requirements and circulars and advertising the grant programs to local agencies. MoDOT will hold more workshops in anticipation of the plan updates in 2010 by utilizing the remaining $21,000 in UWR funds. In addition, MoDOT gave the 17 RPCs in the state the 10 percent planning money from Section 5303 funds, with a maximum of $21,000 for each RPC. Table 25 summarizes the amount of the Sec- tion 5303 planning funds used to develop the initial Coordination Plans by RPCs throughout the state. Several telephone interview respondents pro- vided descriptions of staff time required for the de- velopment of the Coordination Plan. Since many of these agencies developed the plan in-house, they do not have an estimate of actual hours spent because they do not record their time in this manner. How- ever, several respondents were able to discuss the number of people or the percentage of time devoted to the Coordination Plans, as well as the JARC and NF grant programs. One transit agency in a large, urban area estimated that six people on a day-to-day basis work on JARC and NF for at least a portion of the day. This includes everything from participating in the coordinated planning process, sub-recipient agreements, contracts, legal, and engineering. Sev- eral other smaller agencies indicated that they have one full-time staff person for JARC and NF as well as the coordinated planning process. Another re- spondent indicated that the planning section of the agency spends approximately 25 percent of their time on the coordinated planning process. However, in general, the agencies felt that the amount of time put into the process was worthwhile and comparable to most other political processes. The respondents’ largest complaint about time spent was on the grant administration, particularly in preparing applica- tions and helping sub-recipients with applications. In addition to staff time, several agencies men- tioned other costs associated with the Coordination Plan development: • One agency has spent the last few years work- ing on a Framework for Senior Mobility that identifies current services, gaps, and barriers 55 Amount of 5303 Funds Used Number of Rural Planning Commissions $21,000 13 $17,000 2 $16,000 1 $10,000 1 $19,559 Average Source: Missouri DOT. Table 25 Missouri Section 5303 planning funds used for the initial development of the Coordination Plans.

to senior mobility to aid the regional council with the development of the Human Services Coordination Plan. The Framework is funded by sustainable non-profit community funding and is estimated to have cost between $80,000 and $100,000. • Another agency spent an additional $60,000 to look at medical transportation services. This study was funded through a federal trans- portation planning grant. The Coordination Plan will be amended to include the results of this study. • One agency discussed the additional expense of having to translate materials into Spanish when there is not a significant Spanish-speaking pop- ulation. The agency estimated that they spent 24 hours reviewing Spanish translation and had to hire a translator. • Two agencies discussed the costs associated with the public meetings, and one emphasized the costs associated with a survey, particularly the mailings (more than 2,000 stamps). • Agencies in South Carolina noted that the initial plan development was the first effort for this type of planning; therefore, there was a learning curve and the costs may not be representative. The agencies also noted that the coordinated planning efforts are likely to expand outreach in the future, which likely will occupy the same amount of time, if not more, than the learning curve associated with the first plans. In addition, the state helped support the development of the first Coordi- nation Plans, but this support is not expected to continue. Successes Associated with Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs The study attempted to determine the perceived success associated with the development of the Co- ordination Plans, particularly in terms of meeting FTA’s goals of enhancing transportation access for target populations, minimizing the duplication of human services transportation provided, and facili- tating the most appropriate and cost-effect trans- portation possible. The perceived successful aspects of the coordinated planning process were gathered from state DOTs as part of the Internet survey and from local Coordination Plan participants during the telephone surveys. State DOTs (Internet Survey) The Internet survey revealed that the state DOTs have mixed views on whether the Coordination Plans have successfully met FTA’s goals. More than 75 percent of the Internet survey respondents felt that the Coordination Plans achieved average to sig- nificant success in meeting FTA’s goal of enhancing transportation access for the target populations in their state. However, just over 50 percent of respon- dents indicated that the plans have achieved average to significant success in meeting FTA’s goal of min- imizing the duplication of transportation services for target populations (57 percent) and facilitating the most cost-effective transportation possible with avail- able resources (52 percent). In addition, 52 percent of the state DOT respon- dents indicated that additional state or local goals had been met by the federal Coordination Plan re- quirement. For some states, the federal requirement tied their local Coordination Plans to funding or brought the coordination effort up to the state level. These varied additional goals included: • State coordination, rather than local • Tied coordination plans to funding • Mobility Management projects in areas with- out transit • Developed regional coordination councils • Interagency Committee on Special Trans- portation goals • Governor created transportation committee • Did not have state or local specific goals pre- viously • Demand response state-funded program • 5317 provided alternative to paratransit One of the greatest successes of the coordination planning process is the improved and new relation- ships formed between public and private agencies. The DOT survey respondents acknowledged that the perceived level of commitment and participation in the development of the Coordination Plans has been relatively strong at both the state and local levels. Over 70 percent of the survey respondents indicated that the amount of commitment/participation at the state and local levels was average or better. However, some respondents felt that funding levels and restric- tive federal requirements for the JARC and NF grant programs often make it difficult to attract partici- pants to the process, particularly other human ser- vices agencies. 56

In terms of the level of coordination achieved as a result of the Coordination Plan, 67 percent of the In- ternet survey respondents believed that the level of coordination was better than before the federal re- quirement. Several respondents reported that there is now increased awareness and additional stakeholder participation. While most of the respondents indi- cated that the level of coordination has improved after the federal requirement for the Coordination Plans, 62 percent of the responding DOTs believed that the same objectives could be met without the plans be- cause several states already had coordinated planning requirements in place. However, two respondents indicated that the federal requirement sped up the co- ordinated planning process, and one indicated that co- ordination requires mandates. Local Agencies (Telephone Interviews) The telephone interviews revealed that on the whole the local Coordination Plan participants across all six states interviewed believed the plans to be ef- fective. While some states had individual agencies that reported mixed or negative feelings about the plan requirement, the overall assessment by the states interviewed was positive. This support for the plans was a bit surprising given that three of the six states interviewed indicated in their Internet survey re- sponses that the plans were not effective. There is widespread agreement among the inter- viewees that the planning requirements of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs have been effective in developing new relationships and expanding the provision of human services transportation. Respon- dents talked of the coordination process bringing in new organizations and improving information among all participants about the resources available and the needs of customers. While the FTA human services transportation programs are relatively small, the co- ordinated planning process is designed to get the right people into the room, including other human services agencies that have larger transportation budgets. In addition, the FTA programs have the flexibility to use other federal human services agency grants as match. In some instances in Ohio, agencies were able to use federal dollars from other human services agencies to match the JARC and NF projects; however, other states found it was not possible to coordinate between the human services FTA grant programs and other federal grant programs. In addition, several respondents indicated that cus- tomer outreach and improved information through service marketing and promotion have enabled the programs to better meet customer needs. Several states noted having previous requirements, including Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Washington; however, federal specifications generally required even more outreach and coordination. In turn, Washington State now has state programs that make use of the same planning requirements as the federal programs. In addition, the telephone interviews highlighted the successful expansion of human services trans- portation. Based on the interviews conducted, suc- cessful projects accomplished under Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding include: • Sponsoring taxis for commuters without other means of transportation (JARC). • Developing a plan for shuttle service to a mil- itary base, which led to a private operator im- plementing the service (JARC). • Contracting with taxis for door-to-door demand response service to the elderly and disabled (NF). • Providing a new fixed-route service to a work- force development and state services center (NF). • Purchasing a new bus for a workforce devel- opment board (JARC). • Purchasing a GPS system to improve the coor- dination of demand-response service (5310). • Improving website information on services available (NF). • Developing a “Bus Buddy” program to intro- duce elderly and disabled citizens to public transit (5310). • Providing a demand-response service for re- turn trips for hospital users, enabling them to arrive via fixed-route services for appoint- ments but have flexibility for return trips given variations in appointment duration (5310). • Creating Mobility Management programs to connect customers with services, providing information, and collecting data (5310). • Sponsoring volunteer-operated transportation services (5310). • Providing bus stop accessibility improve- ments for wheelchair users (NF). • Improving access to shopping for low-income customers (5310). Pennsylvania DOT noted that the largest benefit from human services transportation funding has been the ability to purchase new vehicles and expand 57

service, as the state already had a well-developed human services transportation plan. Pennsylvania also noted that they believe most of the benefits are at the margins, including providing service later into the evening and route extensions. More importantly, the availability of the funding has allowed them to meet new needs and to test new services, continuing and expanding successful programs. Many organizations commented that the pro- grams have been more successful than expected. Cus- tomer demand has been high; in the words of Town & Country Transit in rural Pennsylvania, ridership “has grown exponentially, far beyond what the state had projected.” In addition, respondents indicated that human services transportation has also increased the use of general mass transit, as customers can com- bine services that meet their needs. They also believe that improved information and greater familiarity with the transportation options available has also in- creased general transit ridership. Findings The Internet survey of state DOTs and the tele- phone interviews with local Coordination Plan par- ticipants conducted as part of this study resulted in the development of several findings in regards to the perceived accomplishment and effectiveness of Co- ordinated Human Services Transportation Plans, re- lated requirements, and grant programs. The find- ings from respondents identified in the following section revolve around three central themes: flexibil- ity, administrative responsibility, and transparency. • Several respondents suggested the consoli- dation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs. The most frequently suggested im- provement for the human services transporta- tion grant programs was the consolidation of the Section 5316 JARC and 5317 NF programs with other grant programs such as Section 5310, 5311, and 5307. Respondents noted that with consolidation, the individual grant pro- gram goals could still be reflected in program and planning requirements, including dedicat- ing percentages of funding to each program goal. Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities was the most frequently mentioned program for consolidation with JARC and NF and was viewed as the most logical by respondents, given the similar target populations and re- quirement for the Coordination Plan. Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program and 5311 Rural and Small Urbanized Area Pro- gram provide funding for more traditional tran- sit services for general populations, contradict- ing the intentions of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs. As a result, there was general agreement by those surveyed and inter- viewed that the planning requirements for Sec- tion 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs are very similar, and that a combination of these grant programs would make planning and adminis- tration easier for all concerned. Respondents stated that by consolidating the three grant programs, state administrators would have greater flexibility to meet local customer needs without the multiple require- ments associated with each of the individual grant programs. Many respondents indicated that they believe the administration of multi- ple funds that are relatively small in funding levels is time-consuming and requires signif- icant staff resources for state and local agen- cies that are already short-staffed. Since many agencies are unable to hire additional staff or consultants to assist with the process, the re- sponsibilities often fall on existing staff, many of whom have already been asked to take on additional responsibilities. While the Internet survey and telephone interview respondents highlighted the benefits associated with the consolidation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs, other organizations have indicated that there could be potential drawbacks to consolidation as well. A recent AARP study on Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation noted that several aging and disability organizations have expressed concern that the consolidation of these programs could have unintended con- sequences, including reducing the quality of Section 5310 services because the target pop- ulations of these grants programs do not nec- essarily have the same transportation needs (2). In addition the AARP study highlights that there are some major issues associated with the consolidation of these grant programs that have not been evaluated sufficiently, including iden- tifying designated recipients and determining how the grant money would get to providers. Under the current grant programs, the desig- 58

nated recipient is the state for Section 5310 and either the state or local agency in large urban areas for JARC and NF. As a result, the suggestion to consolidate these grant programs would need to be evaluated more closely. • Suggested federal grant process improve- ments. The study respondents indicated that they felt the federal grant process could be im- proved to be more transparent, timely, sustain- able, and flexible. Planning organizations ob- served that the multiple levels of prioritization and project selection may interfere with trans- parency to local officials and stakeholders, which would adversely impact the commit- ment and perceived benefits of the coordinated planning process. These respondents suggested that more guidance from FTA on the grant se- lection and prioritization process could im- prove the understanding of all stakeholders (local and state) in what the federal priorities are and how grant awards match up with the in- tention of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs. In addition, respondents stated that im- provements to the administrative process, par- ticularly the length of time it takes to apply for and receive grant money, are desired. They noted that the year it can take between grant ap- plication and receipt of funds also impacts the link between planning efforts and the projects. In addition, they believe annual competition for funding of long-term, ongoing projects is re- dundant and wasteful; several respondents felt that the distribution of funds on a longer sched- ule (such as funding for 4 years) or on a pro- grammatic basis could be more effective for these types of projects. Many respondents added that greater flexibility for state and local recipients to redirect at least portions of the grant money to meet emergent needs or re- direct funds from projects that no longer need or cannot use the funding in a timely manner would also improve the grant administration process. • Requests for additional federal guidance on performance measures. Study respon- dents expressed a strong desire and need for additional federal guidance on performance measures that look beyond basic service in- dicators and consider the effectiveness of funded projects in promoting job sustainabil- ity; compare the effectiveness of the providers in supplying these services against the baseline conditions (unemployment, senior/disabled population, and distribution of customers and destinations); and measure the number of cus- tomers graduating from the need for JARC transportation. Quantitatively, relatively few interviewees mentioned performance measures playing a significant role in evaluating the effectiveness of projects, primarily because they believe customer-focused measures have been lacking. Those states interviewed that did utilize performance measures in some manner pri- marily relied on standard transportation ser- vice indicators to gauge the performance of the programs funded by the grants. However, many respondents believe the use of standard performance measures fails to sufficiently measure the human services aspect of the proj- ects and often favors urban areas over rural, because rural areas often have higher trans- portation costs due to longer distances, dis- persed customers and destinations, and little other infrastructure to support human services customers, which may make rural transporta- tion appear ineffective or inefficient. • Requests for additional federal guidance that strengthens the link between the plan- ning process and grant funding. There was concern expressed by some planning organiza- tions interviewed that providers do not always see the benefit of coordinated planning efforts, given the distinction between the planning process and the grant approval and disburse- ment process. Respondents felt that federal guidance that strengthened the link between the planning process and the grants would be ap- preciated by both the planning organizations and the service providers; this could be accom- plished by providing more technical advice, tying grant money to performance measures, and rewarding cooperative efforts. Many respondents suggested that some funding could be tied to the planning process and performance measures, preferably those identified at the federal level to help improve the perceived transparency and equity of fed- eral grant distribution. They believed that this could include consideration of the existing conditions and backgrounds of areas. Some respondents also indicated that performance 59

measures should also go beyond basic service indicators or cost data to be more results- oriented or outcomes-based. They felt that data should be collected on the success of proj- ects in getting customers to the services they need and on the effectiveness of the providers in supplying these services against the base- line conditions. The respondents’ support for performance measures and the perceived opportunity for an improved federal grant process come back to the effectiveness of the coordinated planning process. These respondents believe that by using performance measures and data and link- ing federal funds to the results of the process, coordinated planning could make better use of quantitative information and link the plans to the results more closely. They believe that stakeholders making use of a performance- driven coordinated planning process would get even more out of the process of developing and working to implement the Coordination Plan. REFERENCES 1. Ellis, Elizabeth, KFH Group, Inc. “Key Characteris- tics of the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom Programs” table, AARP Insight on the Issues 39: Pol- icy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation, October 2009, pp. 1–8. 2. Ellis, Elizabeth, KFH Group, Inc. AARP Insight on the Issues 39: Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation, October 2009, p.15. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAA Area Agency on Aging AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACRTA Allen County Regional Transit Authority ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AVL Automatic Vehicle Location BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMCOG Central Midlands Council of Governments COG Council of Government DATA Delaware Area Transit Agency DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOT Department of Transportation DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation DVRPC Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year GAO United States Government Accounting Office GPS Global Positioning System HHS United States Department of Health and Human Services HRPDC Hampton Roads Planning District Commission HRT Hampton Roads Transit HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IRS United States Internal Revenue Service IT Information Technology JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute KCATA Kansas City Area Transporta- tion Authority LACRPC Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission LCATS Licking County Area Transportation Study LCPC Lycoming County Planning Commission LOS Level of Service LSCOG Lower Savannah Council of Governments MARC Mid-America Regional Council of Governments MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRPC Meramec Regional Planning Commission MSAA Mobility Services for All Americans NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NF New Freedom 60

NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRHA Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation PDC Planning District Commission PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council PWD Persons with Disabilities QUADCO Quad-County Regional Trans- portation Planning Organization RPC Rural Planning Commission RPO Rural Planning Organization RRRC Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Council RTMA Regional Transit Management Agency RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly In- dividuals and Individuals with Disabilities Grant Program Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Com- mute Grant Program Section 5317 New Freedom Grant Program SLRCOG Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments SMTS Southeast Missouri Trans- portation Services SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority STEP Success Through Engagement and Partnership STP Surface Transportation Program TACT Town & Country Transit TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TMA Transportation Management Area or Agency TRB Transportation Research Board TRPC Thurston Regional Planning Council USDOT United States Department of Transportation UWR United We Ride UZA Urbanized Areas VRT Virginia Regional Transit WAT Williamsburg Area Transit WIB Workforce Investment Board WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation APPENDICES A, B, AND C Appendices A, B, and C as submitted by the con- tractor are not published herein. The titles of the appendices are as follows: APPENDIX A: Blank Internet Survey Form APPENDIX B: Telephone Interview Questionnaire APPENDIX C: Detailed Telephone Interview Summaries These three appendices are available online at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx. 61

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. Subscriber Categories: Public Transportation • Policy ISBN 978-0-309-21339-4 9 780309 213394 9 0 0 0 0

A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Results Digest 354: A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs explores the level of effort and costs associated with the development of coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans.

The report also discusses the perceived success of the Coordination Plans and the perceived success states and other grantees are having in awarding funds and meeting the Coordination Plan objectives.

Pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) instituted a planning requirement as a condition of federal funding for its human services related grant programs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes.

As a result, since 2007, FTA has required the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated public transit/ human services transportation plan (Coordination Plan) for all FTA human services transportation programs.

The Coordination Plan must be developed through an inclusive process that involves representatives from public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers, as well as the public.

The intent of this requirement is to bring the right people to the table to discuss human services transportation issues and identify opportunities to assist more people, reduce service gaps and overlaps, and increase the cost effectiveness of the services provided.

Appendixes A, B, and C to NCHRP RRD 354 are only available in electronic format.

Appendix A - Blank Internet Survey Form

Appendix B - Telephone Interview Questionnaire

Appendix C - Detailed Telephone Interview Summaries

  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!