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.
4This synthesis, TCRP Project J-7, Synthesis Topic SB-28, âAdministration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs,â describes the policies and practices that a number of transit agen- cies use to administer the ADA paratransit eligibility appeal process. It is intended to fill gaps in knowledge and help practitioners and researchers learn the state of the practice. The document is organized into five chapters: Chapter 1 introduces the project. Chapter 2 summarizes the information gathered during the literature search. Chapter 3 presents the survey results from the 37 responding transit agencies. Chapter 4 sets forth five interview-based case examples that elaborate on the respective agenciesâ eligibility appeals policies, review processes, panel composi- tion, hearing process, outcomes, and potential areas of improvement. Chapter 5 offers conclu- sions based on the information gathered and suggests topics for future research. The primary audience for this synthesis is transit professionals who oversee or conduct the ADA paratransit eligibility determination process. The synthesis will be helpful for them to understand how their peers are carrying out their regulatory responsibilities for eligibility appeals. Transit managers also will find this synthesis helpful in explaining the complex issues involved and the expertise and resources needed to properly administer the process. In addi- tion, riders and advocates can use this report to better understand the appeal process. They may choose to recommend changes to the process used by their local transit agencies. Background The ADA guarantees civil rights protections, including access to public transportation, to people with disabilities. Under U.S.DOT ADA regulations (49 CFR Part 37), public transit agen- cies that provide local fixed-route bus or rail service must also provide ADA complementary paratransit service to individuals who, because of their disabilities, cannot use the fixed-route service. The U.S.DOT regulations identify three categories of individuals who are entitled to ADA paratransit (49 CFR 37.123(d),(e),(f)): 1. Individuals who are unable to independently board, alight, or ride an accessible vehicle. (âAccessible vehicleâ is explained in 49 CFR Part 38.) 2. Individuals who could use fixed-route service if the vehicle, station, or stop were accessible, but the vehicle, station, or stop is not accessible. (Accessible stations and stops are explained in Appendices B and D to 36 CFR Part 1191 and Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 37.) 3. Individuals who can use an accessible vehicle, station, or stop, but their disabilities prevent them from reaching the vehicle, station, or stop (i.e., physical barriers prevent access). A transit agency that provides ADA paratransit service must allow an individual to apply for the service and must have a process to determine if that individual is eligible under one C H A P T E R 1 Introduction
Introduction 5 of three categories. Consequently, the eligibility determination process may yield one of four outcomes: 1. Unconditional. The individual is eligible to use ADA paratransit for all trips. 2. Conditional. The individual is eligible to use ADA paratransit for some trips but not others, depending on the individualâs disabilities, the availability of accessible fixed-route service, and the barriers to reaching it (49 CFR 37.123(b)). 3. Temporary. The individual is eligible to use ADA paratransit for a limited period, usually defined in months (49 CFR 37.123(c)). An individual may receive a combination of tempo- rary and conditional eligibility. 4. Not eligible. The individual is not eligible to use ADA paratransit for any trip. If a transit agency makes a determination other than unconditional eligibility, it must offer the applicant the chance to appeal the decision and it must have procedures in place to admin- ister the appeal process. The U.S.DOTâs ADA regulations define the requirements for eligibility appeals (49 CFR 37.125(g)): (g) The entity shall establish an administrative appeal process through which individuals who are denied eligibility can obtain review of the denial. (1) The entity may require that an appeal be filed within 60 days of the denial of an individualâs application. (2) The process shall include an opportunity to be heard and to present information and arguments, separation of functions (i.e., a decision by a person not involved with the initial decision to deny eligibility), and written notification of the decision, and the reasons for it. (3) The entity is not required to provide paratransit service to the individual pending the determination on appeal. However, if the entity has not made a decision within 30 days of the completion of the appeal process, the entity shall provide paratransit service from that time until and unless a decision to deny the appeal is issued. It is left to each agency to develop its specific process to meet these requirements. Transit agencies have taken a range of approaches in establishing and carrying out their eligibility appeals since the U.S.DOT ADA regulations took effect in 1991. In addition to complying with the regulatory requirements set forth in 49 CFR 37.125(g), transit agency goals for the appeal process may include that it: ⢠Be easy for applicants to understand and use. ⢠Not be intimidating or coercive for applicants. ⢠Lead to decisions that are consistent with other appeals decisions and with overall eligibility determinations. ⢠Be feasible for a transit agency to carry out and administer. Establishing an appeal process and conducting appeals for ADA paratransit service is chal- lenging for many transit agencies. Their primary areas of experience and expertise are plan- ning and operating transit service. Determining paratransit eligibility is a very different task, requiring other skills and expertise. Likewise, administering an appeal process for eligibility is a very different task. Transit agencies often use contractors with specialized knowledge for these activities, but transit agency managers remain responsible for overseeing the contractors. Furthermore, when the appeal process uses volunteers from outside the agency to serve on the committee that makes the decisions, the agencies have the added responsibilities of recruiting and training the volunteers. Eligibility appeals are infrequent at smaller agencies, yet these agencies must be ready with a process and with committee members. Transit agencies of all sizes are seeking ways to improve their appeal processes.
6 Administration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs Methodology A panel of researchers, transit agency practitioners, an advocate, and FTA and TRB staff provided guidance to the research effort. Primary activities undertaken by the principal inves- tigator included: ⢠Search relevant literature. The search for relevant literature included the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) database as well as Google searches on ADA eligibility, appeal outcomes, and the appeal process. ⢠Develop survey questions. The survey included questions on all issues identified in the final synthesis scope. The topic panel suggested additional questions. ⢠Select transit agencies to complete the survey. The principal investigator, together with members of the topic panel, selected a survey sample of 45 diverse transit agencies to partici- pate in the survey. ⢠Collect and analyze survey responses. The principal investigator used SurveyGizmo, an online survey tool, to send the survey to the target group. As transit agencies completed their responses, SurveyGizmo compiled the results for review and analysis. Of 45 transit agencies that received the survey, 37 responded, for a response rate of 82%. ⢠Select agencies for follow-up case examples. Based on the responses to the survey, the principal investigator selected five transit agencies for in-depth investigation as case exam- ples. The principal investigator sent additional tailored questions in advance to each of the five agencies, and then conducted telephone interviews. As needed, the agencies provided further information via e-mail. ⢠Document research and findings. This synthesis comprises the results of the literature review, survey, and case examples.
