Developing Partnerships between Transportation Agencies and the Disability and Underrepresented Communities (2013)

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.

April 2013 TrAnsiT CooperATive reseArCh progrAm sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm-Smith Research Results Digest 107 Summary Many U.S. transit agencies, particularly those serving urban areas, find that they serve a diverse population and that a sig- nificant portion of their patronage is from minority and disability communities. Most transit agencies have established customer advisory committees, diversity programs, and various community outreach efforts to involve these segments of their com- munities in the planning and improvement of their services. It is less frequent, how- ever, that transit agencies have been able to establish true partnerships with these communities and organizations represent- ing them. With the establishment of true partner- ships, customers and other representatives of these communities can better appreciate the costs and challenges the agency faces and can become informed supporters of the services they need. Representatives of these communities can suggest to the transit agencies new methods, tools, and avenues for service provisions, marketing, and gen- eral communication to their communities that may even improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of operations. An extensive review of the literature on transit agencies and public involvement, partnerships and collaborations, minority outreach, and outreach to people with dis- abilities revealed several key themes and action items. Community involvement is cru- cial to the success of transportation services and required by law. However, reaching out to diverse and underrepresented communi- ties, as well as obtaining their input, is often met with a number of challenges. The litera- ture is dense with information on the forma- tion of citizen advisory committees, which are utilized most often in the public involve- ment process. The literature is, however, limited in relation to the actual formation of true partnerships in transit. According to the literature, a partnership includes shared leadership, with stakeholders possessing equal power in the decision-making process. Citizen advisory committees offer advice. The goal of this research was to develop a resource guide that includes best practices that lead to productive relationships with the disability and underrepresented groups. The guide contains specific outreach strategies and suggestions that can be used by tran- sit personnel to develop and maintain these partnerships. The guide includes “how to” Developing partnerShipS between tranSportation agencieS anD the DiSability anD unDerrepreSenteD communitieS This digest presents the results of TCRP Project H-44, “Developing Partnerships between Transportation Agencies and the Disability and Underrepresented Communities.” The research was undertaken to provide practitioners with a resource guide and best practices for developing productive relationships with the disability and underrepresented groups. The research was led by SIMON & SIMON Research and Associates, Inc., Elkridge, Maryland. Monica L. Simon was the principal investigator. c o n t e n t S Summary, 1 chapter 1 introduction, 3 chapter 2 the literature, 5 chapter 3 Survey results, 13 chapter 4 case Studies, 29 chapter 5 the guidebook, 37 references, 48 bibliography, 50 appendixes a through c, 52 appendix D, 52 appendix e, 57 appendix F, 60 appendix g, 60

2approaches and information in narrative and graphic form on developing partnerships with the disability and underrepresented communities. To achieve the study’s objectives, two phases of data collection were used. A national survey was developed and administered to document the experi- ences of transit agencies in reaching and engaging the participation of minority and underrepresented communities with regard to developing partner- ships and public involvement. The purpose of the second phase of data collection was to conduct in- depth interviews to solicit first-hand information about developing partnerships with disability and minority communities. Seven transit agencies were selected based on best practices listed in their sur- vey responses and recommendations in this regard from other survey respondents. Of those seven, five agencies were selected and presented as case studies. These case studies offer examples of what agencies have defined as best practices and lessons learned when reaching out to underrepresented groups. The transit systems selected for interviews were as follows: •• CT Transit, Hartford, Connecticut; •• Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, Hous- ton, Texas; •• Lane Transit District, Eugene, Oregon; •• PACE Suburban Bus, Arlington Heights, Illinois; •• Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington; •• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and •• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Author- ity, Washington, D.C. The study revealed key factors for establishing effective partnerships and identified communica- tion as the primary factor in establishing effective and sustainable partnerships and community col- laboration. Mutual trust is an essential component and a primary objective of the public involvement process. Building trust with the public also requires respecting and understanding cultural differences (cultural competence). Establishing trust with com- munities that may traditionally be skeptical of gov- ernment is a common obstacle in the formation of partnerships. There often exists an understandable mistrust toward members of the dominant culture by historically oppressed and/or underrepresented groups. Transparency at the agency level, as well as communication and respect for cultural differ- ences, are essential when reaching out to underrep- resented communities. This proved to be a recurring factor with the case study agencies and the partner agencies. This discussion of developing partnerships with the disability and underrepresented communities requires a definition of “partnership” and “collabora- tion,” as well as examples of successful outcomes of each. “Collaboration” and “coordination” are often used interchangeably in the discussion of partner- ships. However, these terms must be clearly defined in most scholarly writing, because they have more distinct meanings and often represent differing levels of participation and access (Mattessich 2001). Partnering is defined as working together to cre- ate a common vision and implementation strategy that collectively solves problems. Partnerships, by definition (1) combine resources, (2) utilize a con- sensual decision-making process, (3) build trust among diverse stakeholders with open communi- cation, (4) possess a clear mission and strong lead- ership, and (5) evaluate the impact of the process. Collaboration occurs “when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain” (Wood and Gray 1994). Most often, “partnerships” in transit are advisory relationships, although 90 percent of study survey respondents referred to their relationships as partner- ships. Advisory committees often support the decision- making process, hold the agency accountable for decision-making, and/or offer advice and recom- mendations. They do not, in most instances, possess decision-making power. There is a wide variation in the make-up and organizational structure of such committees. Key success indicators in partnership and collaborative relationships include open com- munication, effective leadership, and mutual trust. The study revealed that there is no single approach to engaging underrepresented groups and people with disabilities in the public involvement process. Outreach strategies are often as diverse as the com- munities they serve and “success” is defined on a community basis. Industries outside of transit uti- lize strategies that are most effective for connecting with, and maintaining, continuous communication with the underrepresented communities that they serve. These strategies mirror the strategies identi- fied by the transit agencies. The study also revealed

3that transit agencies communicate regularly with the underrepresented and disability communities via a database network of organizations, organization websites, social media, news releases, flyers, and media outlets tailored to the language and cultural interests of the targeted group. Partners with transit agencies recommend that transit connect with the target market by developing relationships with other organizations that serve them. The best practices outreach strategies cited in literature, documented through the case studies (Chapter 4) and displayed in the guidebook (Chap- ter 5), provide a starting point for transit agencies to identify strategies that can be tailored for use in their communities. Tailoring effective outreach requires planning, resources, and time to ensure an inclusive process that brings the targeted representatives to the table. One transit agency described this process as “BORPSAT (a bunch of the right people sitting around a table).” Although there is no single definition of success- ful public involvement, some measure of effective- ness is essential. Successful public involvement can be judged based on outcomes of process. However, the complexity of variables (local politics, commu- nity issues, etc.) may complicate the process. Rowe and Frewer (2000) developed a framework for evaluating public participation methods by divid- ing evaluation criteria into two categories: accep- tance criteria and process criteria, which are related to the potential public acceptance of a procedure. The main problem in evaluation remains the defini- tion of “effectiveness.” The ideal outcome of any public involvement process is to generate public consensus on, and ownership of, a plan or project (Szyliowicz 2002). Ultimate authority may lie with the transit agency, but stakeholders must directly participate in the decision-making process. Therefore, advisory committees may be a form of collaboration if their advice is closely linked to decision-making out- comes. In practice (and by design), however, advi- sory committees are often far removed from actual decision making (Ansell and Gash 2008). chapter 1 introDuction This digest uses the results of comprehensive literature searches, an industry survey mailed to transit agencies identified through the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) databases, and nine in-depth case studies. The case studies formed the basis for the develop- ment of a guidebook (included as Chapter 5 of this digest) of specific outreach strategies and suggestions that can be used by transit personnel when devel- oping partnerships with the disability and under- represented communities. backgrounD Many U.S. transit agencies, particularly those serving urban areas, find that they serve a diverse population and that a significant portion of their patronage is from minority and disability commu- nities. Most transit agencies have established cus- tomer advisory committees, diversity programs, and various community outreach efforts to involve these segments of their communities in the planning and improvement of their services. It is less frequent, however, that transit agencies have been able to establish true partnerships with these communities and organizations representing them. With the establishment of true partnerships, cus- tomers and other representatives of these communi- ties can better appreciate the costs and challenges the agency faces and can become informed advo- cates at local, state, and national levels in support of the services they need. Representatives of these communities can suggest to the transit agencies new methods, tools, and avenues for services provi- sion, marketing, and general communication to their communities that may even improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of operations. Research is needed to examine the best methods for establishing effective partnerships or collabora- tion between the transit agencies and the disability and underrepresented communities. reSearch objective The goal of this research was to develop a resource guide that includes best practices that lead to productive relationships with the disability and underrepresented groups. The guide contains spe- cific outreach strategies and suggestions that can be used by transit personnel to develop and maintain these partnerships. The guide includes “how to” approaches and information in narrative and graphic form on developing partnerships with the disability and underrepresented communities.

4The research answered the following questions: 1. How do transit systems get advice from the disability and underrepresented groups in the communities that they serve? 2. What strategies do transit agencies use to develop partnerships/collaboration between the disability and underrepresented groups that they serve? 3. What specific strategies can be used to iden- tify key leaders in the disability community and underrepresented communities? 4. What specific strategies are used to build relationships with key leaders? 5. What is the role of cultural competence in disability and minority outreach? 6. What strategies, actions, and initiatives are successful in sustaining these partnerships? 7. What is a successful partnership? 8. What are the factors that determine a suc- cessful partnership? 9. Why do some partnerships/collaborations fail? 10. What strategies do other industries use to develop partnerships/collaboration between the disability and underrepresented groups that they serve? 11. Identify key strategies used in other industries to develop and maintain these partnerships. 12. Can these strategies be applied to the public transit industry? methoDology The first step in the research process was to conduct a comprehensive literature search related to public involvement, community and minority out reach, and partnerships and collaborations. The review summarized factors and best practice strate- gies that lead to productive partnerships between transit agencies and the underrepresented minority and disability communities they serve. This informa- tion was assembled from published literature, con- tacts with transit agencies, other related industries, and secondary sources. Finally, the practice implica- tions of the research were examined. To conform to the research literature, the term “public involvement,” rather than “public participation,” is used. Although there is extensive literature avail- able on the topic of public involvement, the review revealed limited information related to the actual formation of true partnerships between transit and underrepresented groups. The literature did, how- ever, provide information on the formation of citi- zen involvement committees, which place citizens in an advisory role. The review also provided con- siderable information from other industries relevant to the focus of the current study. Following the literature review, a national sur- vey was developed and administered to document the experiences of transit agencies in reaching and engaging the participation of disability and under- represented communities with regard to developing partnerships and public involvement. These agencies were identified through the American Public Trans- portation Association (APTA) and the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) data - bases. Eighty-one agencies expressed interest in the survey and 56 agencies submitted completed surveys, generating a response rate of 69 percent. Analy- sis of the survey data and recommendations from survey participants, other transit industry experts, and the TCRP H-44 Project Panel resulted in a list of 17 transit systems as potential “best practices” case-study candidates for presentation to the project panel. Twelve interviews were scheduled; three respondents were unavailable at the designated times and failed to respond to follow-up emails to reschedule. Survey data and the results of a second literature review were used to (1) define successful partner- ship/collaboration for the purposes of this research; (2) develop screening criteria to determine success; and (3) identify key success indicators (actions and initiatives) that contribute to the development of developing partnerships. These criteria were used to describe the key indicators for successful partner- ships and to identify best practices within transit and other industries. caSe StuDieS The research team determined that the best can- didates for case studies were those identified through the survey as having successful partnerships with the disability and underrepresented communities and comparing favorably with the best practice strat- egies identified in the literature. While preparing the case studies, an interview protocol was developed that included queries on customer advisory com- mittees, public involvement, disability and minor- ity outreach, partnerships, and other collaborative

5initiatives. All interviewees were asked to respond to the same open-ended questions. The TCRP H-44 Project Panel and other tran- sit professionals reviewed the guide and revisions were made. Upon final revision, the researchers que- ried the selected organizations via email for agree- ment to participate in the interviews and compiled a database of contact information. Pre-screening questions were emailed to participants to help them prepare for the interview. The initial plan included interviews with 10 “best practice” transit agencies and organizations. An additional five interviews were planned with representatives of the partnerships in these communities. Seven transit agencies were selected based on “best practices” listed in their sur- vey responses and recommendations in this regard from other survey respondents. The transit systems selected for the in-depth inter- view included the following: •• CT Transit, Hartford, Connecticut; •• Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, Houston, Texas; •• Lane Transit District, Eugene, Oregon; •• PACE Suburban Bus, Arlington Heights, Illinois; •• Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington; •• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and •• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Author- ity, Washington, D.C. The research team also interviewed a represen- tative from RideSource Call Center, in Eugene, Ore- gon. RideSource is a partner with Lane Transit. This digest is presented in five chapters. Chap- ter 2 presents main findings from the literature search. Chapter 3 describes the industry survey and the cri- teria that formed the basis for the case studies. Chap- ter 4 presents case study findings and results of the in-depth interviews. Chapter 5 presents the guide- book for developing partnerships with the disability and underrepresented communities. chapter 2 the literature the importance oF community outreach Public involvement builds social capital by fostering greater understanding and trust between companies and communities (Murdock and Sex- ton 2002). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and U.S. Department of Transportation document, Public Involvement Techniques for Trans- portation Decision Making (2002), states that public involvement is inclusive and should encompass the full range of community interests. However, com- munities that are underserved by transportation often fail to participate in the process. They not only have greater difficulty gaining access to jobs, schools, recreation, and shopping than the population at large (Rosenbloom 1998), but they may also be unaware of transportation proposals that could dramatically change their lives. Many lack experience with pub- lic involvement, even though they have important, unspoken issues that should be heard. The U.S. Department of Transportation and Fed- eral Highway Administration identify underserved people as “those with special cultural, racial, or eth- nic characteristics. Cultural differences sometimes hinder full participation in transportation planning and project development. People with disabilities find access to transportation difficult and their abil- ity to participate in public involvement efforts con- strained. People with low incomes often lack both access and time to participate. They may be difficult to reach, distrustful of the public involvement pro- cess, or need to work rather than attend meetings and public hearings; thus eliminating themselves from the public involvement process. Poorly edu- cated people often are not fully aware of what trans- portation services are available or of opportunities to help improve them” (2002). These groups are described as “a rich source of ideas that can improve transportation not only for themselves but also for the entire community. Agen- cies are responsible for reaching out and including them in the decision-making process—which requires strategic thinking and tailoring public involvement efforts to these communities and their needs” (FHWA & U.S.DOT 2002). Community outreach is a critical factor in the success of transportation services that reflect the ideas and culture of the entire community and that allow all to share ideas that reflect their interests. Much has been published in the transportation indus- try on community outreach and public involvement techniques; however, there is still little evidence of systematic application of genuine efforts for com- munity outreach and participation. Developing solu- tions that reflect community values can only occur if the community is consulted (Townsend et al. 2005).

6The literature revealed that there is no single def- inition of successful public involvement, although a measure of effectiveness is essential. Successful public involvement can be judged purely based on outcomes; the results determine the effectiveness of the participatory means. This approach is often diffi- cult, because other variables (local elections, contro- versy in the community, etc.) may contribute to the level and effect of participation. “Success” can also be defined in terms of the participatory process, with respect to the issues such as fairness, group dynam- ics, and procedures. The ideal measure of success is a balance of process and outcome. Developing a single definition is often problematic because of the diversity of perspectives about the goals of public participation (Chess and Purcell 1999). changing DemographicS The face of America has changed from a nation of European immigrants to a nation of global immi- grants. Current population statistics report that one in every three Americans is a member of a minor- ity group (U.S. Census May 2010). Minority groups constitute 35 percent of the nation’s 309 million resi- dents. Hispanic Americans, now the largest ethnic minority group, are 15 percent; African Americans, 13.5 percent; Asian Americans, 5 percent; Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and Hawaiians total 1.6 percent (U.S. Census May 2010). Currently, people with disabilities compose the largest minor- ity group, totaling 54 million and representing 19 percent of the U.S. population. America’s major metropolitan areas are the focus of the most dramatic transformations. The nation’s largest 100 metropolitan areas (cities and suburban regions with at least half a million people), account for more than two-thirds of the U.S. popula- tion (Frey et al. 2009). Other demographic changes such as increases in life expectancies; Americans over the age of 65; and Americans with low literacy, living in poverty, or speaking a non-English language continue to occur. In addition, more of the nation’s population now lives in urban rather than rural areas (ATR Institute et al. 2010). Such demographic growth has particular impli- cations for the public transit industry, where minori- ties collectively represent the largest segment of ridership. Research indicates that individuals from minority groups (African-Americans, Latinos, Asian- Americans, multi-ethnic) represent almost six of every ten (59.5%) public transit users (APTA 2009). Since the passage of the Americans with Disabili- ties Act of 1990 (ADA), increased numbers of indi- viduals with disabilities have become regular public transit users. However, many of these stakeholder voices are not fully integrated into existing public involvement mechanisms. Early citizen participation benefits the process because it introduces new knowl- edge and ideas and improves the quality of services by ensuring that the needs of those served are con- sidered in the design of programs and formulation of policies (Schacter and Liu 2005). Legislative requirements and the dramatic pop- ulation growth of Hispanics and other immigrants have sparked an urgency to involve the public in transportation planning and decision making, as well as to identify strategies for attracting and retaining the full range of community interests. laws, regulations, and guidance Federal commitment to public involvement in transportation decisions is evidenced in a series of federal statutes and regulations from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005 (Hull 2010). Transit agencies and other enti- ties receiving federal funds for transit projects must comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and environmental justice rules require that agen- cies consider the impact of proposed initiatives on minority and low-income communities. The ADA regulations set forth specific require- ments for involving individuals with disabilities in complementary paratransit service decisions (49 CFR 37.137). The regulations require consulta- tion with the disability community, including hold- ing a public hearing, providing an opportunity for public comment, and establishing a mechanism for ongoing public participation. Advisory committees are frequently cited as a technique for meeting these requirements. Presidential executive orders were issued in 2000 that provide the following directives for fur- ther ensuring the involvement of underrepresented communities: •• Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) requires federal agencies (1) to ensure that they provide meaningful

7access for LEP persons to the agencies’ pro- grams and (2) to work to ensure their recipients provide meaningful access to LEP applicants and beneficiaries. It also requires each federal agency to publish guidance for its recipients on how to provide meaningful access to LEP persons (Waite 2011). •• Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments requires agencies to consult and coordinate with local indian tribal governments and establishes the formal requirements for agen- cies to consult with tribal governments on any project that affects tribal entities in order to reduce impositions (Migliaccio, Knoebel, & Martinez 2010). According to O’Connor, Schwartz, Schaad, and Boyd (n.d., p. 2), “Federal mandates are powerful transforming tools, but the drive for public involve- ment is rooted deeply in other societal forces . . . [and] also results from a rapid rate of social change. . . . [Consequently,] the current mandates codify les- sons learned in the 1970s and 1980s—lessons that many transportation agencies learned after the fact from project delays, lawsuits, and public outcry about transportation decisions made without citizen input.” Federal guidance In its Transportation Planning Capacity Build- ing guide (2002), the Department of Transportation claims that the key to a purposeful and productive public involvement effort is good organization and well-planned outreach to ensure that all stakeholder groups are represented. The key emphasis is that effective public involvement is part of the transpor- tation continuum. The guide includes strategies for tailoring outreach to underrepresented groups and people with disabilities. Tailored outreach is defined as “selecting and adjusting public involvement tech- niques that effectively connect with the people affected by the project.” The objectives of tailored outreach are to •• Convey issues in ways that are meaningful to all constituents; •• Bridge cultural and economic differences that affect participation; •• Use communication techniques that enable a wide variety of people to interact; •• Develop partnerships on a one-to-one or small group basis to ensure representation of all demographics; and •• Increase participation by underrepresented groups so they have an impact on decisions. As noted by Black (2006), transit agencies have followed “a traditional model for public participa- tion that includes public notices, open house meet- ings to present the project, design and timelines, and a complement of fact sheets and colored-coded maps to inform the message.” However, “a transition from the decide, announce, and defend approach is underway . . . To meet expectations, transportation agencies must move beyond one-way communica- tion . . . to new two-way models of engagement” (Jackson 2002, p. 3) that engage those who have historically been absent during the planning and decision-making process. Black identifies the fol- lowing innovative approaches to public involve- ment in culturally diverse communities that have proven to be effective: •• Form a project team that is diverse in ideas and culture; •• Involve an expert in public and community relations; •• Create user-friendly project information materials; •• Form a community taskforce to provide feed- back on your ideas; •• Demonstrate commitment to community involvement; and •• Engage local community papers as a resource to reach diverse communities. Outreach to underrepresented groups provides fresh perspectives and opinions on engaging these communities and forming collaborative solutions that best meet the communities’ needs. The ideal outcome of any public involvement process is to generate public consensus on, and ownership of, a plan or project. “Ownership” will only occur when all affected stakeholders work together to develop a consensus on a decision or set of decisions. citizen aDviSory committeeS A citizen advisory committee is a group with various interests typically convened by a public agency to gather input or recommendations about a

8specific program or issue (Koontz 2005). Over the past 40 years, citizen advisory groups have been used at all levels of government. Formation of citizen committees The organized consumer dates back to 1899 with the formation of the National Consumer League. Composed of 90 affiliated state and local organizations, the league fought for sanitation in the food and candy industries and for labor reform (including minimum hours, minimum wages, and child labor and sweatshop conditions). The National Consumer League gained a powerful voice and led to the formation of the Consumer Advisory Board, a New Deal initiative, representing the voice of the consumer (“Who Speaks for . . .” 1967). In 1962, President John F. Kennedy created the Consumer Advisory Council under the Council of Economic Advisors. President Lyndon B. Johnson later incorporated this into the President’s Com- mittee on Consumer Affairs and created an Office of Special Assistant on Consumer Affairs. Indi- vidual consumers also began to advocate for local interests. With the passage of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in 1972, Congress implemented the formal use of advisory committees through- out the federal government. Membership included ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity and rec- ognized expertise in a specific field. In 1978, Presi- dent Jimmy Carter, recognizing the importance of public representation, urged federal agencies to “provide adequate opportunity for consumer par- ticipation in the decision-making process (Lewis 2009, para. 14). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) con- siders advisory committees critical to the product review process (Rados 2004). The traditional rela- tionship between the FDA and the public began to change shortly after World War II, when the agency, through a series of public meetings, con- sulted the lay public in its development of stan- dards of identity for certain food staples. This relationship proved successful and the FDA “hired part-time consumer consultants” to work on other food standards and similar issues. These earlier successes eventually evolved into a full- scale public-participation program” (Lewis 2009, para. 7–12). advisory committee roles and responsibilities According to FHWA and DOT (1996), “some boards make decisions; others help formulate poli- cies.” Citizens on policy and decision-making boards are established by statute, regulation, or political decision. On the other hand, a citizen advi- sory committee is a group of stakeholders that meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern. The committee provides input to transportation plan- ning development by examining and discussing issues with others; they serve in an advisory capac- ity. Although advisory committees provide recom- mendations to the agency, the final decision is made by the agency. There has been much debate concerning the role of an advisory committee. In one specific example, the debate emerged during a forum addressing this and other transit issues and services for people with disabilities (Denson 2003, p. 2). This issue was whether the advisory committee should possess policy-setting and decision-making authorities or strictly be an advisory organization. “The majority of participants supported a policy-setting, decision- making model that could set transit policy” (p. 6). According to FHWA and DOT (2002), a citizen advisory council has the following basic features: •• Interest groups from throughout a state or region are represented, •• Meetings are held regularly, •• Comments and points of view of participants are recorded, •• Consensus on issues is sought but not required, and •• The council is assigned an important role in the process. Exhibit 1 presents selected roles and responsibili- ties of consumer advisory committees determined by state and local government organizations, mortgage organizations, transit systems, and other organiza- tions. None of these “relationships” describe a “part- nership” between the organization and the consumer committee. That is, the consumer advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity, whose advice may or may not be used in the final decision. transit agency advisory committees Transit agencies have historically recognized the value of citizen input, and citizen or customer

9Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Get Involved. The mission of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s new 27-seat Policy Advisory Council is to advise MTC on transportation policies in the San Francisco Bay Area, incorporating diverse perspectives relating to the environment, economy, and social equity. Some of the issues that this new panel might be asked to advise on include •• Regional planning efforts linking transportation, housing, and land-use plans to reduce green- house gas emissions; and •• An MTC project to improve the cost-effectiveness of the region’s public transportation system and pursue strategies to secure new revenues for this system. American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators. Consumer Advisory Council. (2009). The purpose of the Consumer Advisory Council shall be to consult, advise, and assist the board of direc- tors on issues relating to residential mortgage regulation. The Consumer Advisory Council shall take under advisement and consider such issues as the board of directors may, from time to time, direct. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. (2010). Consumer Advisory Council (CAC). The pur- pose of the Consumer Advisory Council is to represent the public in advising the commissioners on mat- ters relating to the protection of consumer interests which are under the jurisdiction of the commission, or which, in the opinion of the council, should be brought under the jurisdiction of the commission. The council acts as a source of information and advice for the commissioners. Mental Health Care, Inc. (2009). Consumer Advisory Council: Consumer Advisory Council’s Mission or Statement of Purpose. To provide input, guidance, and assistance and to make recommenda- tions to the CEO and senior management of Mental Health Care, Inc. (MHC) on matters important to consumers. The CEO will present recommendations to the board of directors of MHC, when appropriate. To assist MHC in ensuring consumers are receiving the best services possible in a respectful and effective manner as well as provide feedback on new services and programs as needed. Typical respon- sibilities for a consumer advisory council are •• Reviewing organizational publications, •• Organizing special activities to promote consumers, •• Advising the board of directors on how best to meet consumer needs, and •• Providing input on new program design or implementation. Federal Reserve’s Consumer Advisory Council, A Q&A with Governor Gramlich. (2003). e-Perspectives, 3(3). The council’s purpose is to •• Advise and consult with the board on matters regarding consumer financial services of interest to the board or that fall within the board’s statutory authority. •• Assist the board in its rule-writing responsibilities. Examples are the Community Re -investment Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and Truth in Lending Act. Vermont Office of the Governor Public Transit Advisory Council. (2003). The advisory coun- cil shall serve as an advisory group to the agency of transportation on all matters relating to public transportation. Texas Department of Transportation. Public Transportation Advisory Committee. (2009). The committee’s primary responsibilities include •• Advising the commission on the needs of the state’s public transportation providers, •• Advising the commission on the allocation of public transportation funds, and •• Commenting on rules involving public transportation. exhibit 1 Example Roles and Responsibilities of Consumer Advisory Committees

10 advisory committees are a commonly used mecha- nism for public outreach, involvement, and par- ticipation. Transit agencies often have advisory committees for planning and operations, major capital projects, service changes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service delivery, as well as Title VI and environmental justice considerations. The ADA regulations set forth specific require- ments for involving individuals with disabilities in complementary paratransit service decisions (49 CFR 37.137). The regulations require consul- tation with the disability community, including holding a public hearing and providing an opportu- nity for public comment and establishing a mecha- nism for ongoing public participation. Although not required, advisory committees are the most frequent mechanism used for complying with this regulation. There is wide variation in the make-up and organizational structure of citizen advisory com- mittees. Most are described as a representative group of citizens or stakeholders that meets regu- larly to discuss issues of common concern (Hull 2010). Membership can be derived from an out- reach campaign, a competitive selection process, or appointment by the transit agency. Commit- tee members usually possess background and/or experience in the topics about which they will be advising. Membership is diverse in its representa- tion of the community and/or constituency that it represents. Advisory committees are usually established with a mission statement, purpose, and goals and objectives. Although structures vary, almost all oper- ate according to by-laws, operating guidelines and/ or procedures or other protocol. Research indicates that in the majority (77 percent) of transit agencies, the primary role of advisory committees is to pro- vide advice and input for transit decision making (Hull 2010). It is important to note that committees are not actually involved in the decision-making process. Although considered a valuable part of the public involvement process, it is clear that, for the most part, committees serve an advisory role only. Rarely are transit and advisory committee relation- ships described as partnerships. In the transit industry, citizen advisory commit- tees have proven to be an effective tool to gather public input and make important contributions to transportation decisions. Advisory committees are widely used as a mechanism for continuous public involvement and education, to facilitate collabo- ration among stakeholders (committee members, customers, agency staff, and others), seek out the viewpoints of underrepresented populations, and ensure that community input is considered. Most agree that for the optimal benefit of the advisory committees, it is important to (1) establish the parameters of the advisory role, (2) clearly define the actual authority of the committee, and (3) seek the input of the committee in the early stages of the planning or policy process. partnerShipS anD collaborationS In many industries, there is a growing trend to involve a broad range of stakeholders in planning, operations, and policy decisions. The literature is replete with meaningful citizen involvement in health care, education, labor, land use, and environ- mental issues. These relationships are often referred to as partnerships and/or community collaborations. A partnership is a mutually beneficial relationship that builds synergistically on the time, talent, and resources of participants to achieve common goals and measurable outcomes, and where all partners share in the decision-making process and responsi- bility for outcomes (Bureau of Land Management 2003). Common themes emerged throughout the litera- ture, with respect to building effective partnerships, including the following: •• Shared leadership: The stakeholders should have equal power and influence, including task and leadership behaviors. •• Communication: Two-way open exchange of information. •• Conflict resolution: Partners should not only recognize and address conflicts, but possess a means by which to solve them. •• Decision making: Decisions should be flex- ible, made by consensus, and include a par- ticipatory process. •• Problem-solving processes: Agreed-upon processes. •• Mutual trust: Trust is necessary for generat- ing meaningful participation. •• Shared resources: Information, money, labor. •• Effective management: Well-organized meet- ings, collaboratively developed agendas, and consistent facilitation are essential.

11 •• Evaluation techniques: A collaborative eval- uation of both task/goal and process objec- tives is necessary to measure effectiveness (Schulz, Israel & Lantz 2002). The goal of a community-based partnership is to build a strong, place-based, collaborative process, where people of different backgrounds meet to seek common ground. Partnering means to work together to create a common vision and implementation strategy to collectively solve problems. It involves developing collaborative relationships among various stakeholders using a consensual decision-making process. Wood and Gray (1991) define collaboration as a process that “occurs when a group of autono- mous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain” (p. 146). Partnership membership is usually through designation or appointment. Diversity is critical to ensure constituent representation. In effective part- nerships, partners share a common vision and goals and recognize the need for collaboration for achieve- ment. Partners are egalitarian (have equal power), understand and respect what everyone brings to the table, and usually have the authority to make deci- sions for the entity that they represent. Effective partnerships have a strong leader who champions the partnership and its vision and goals. Many part- nerships are established and operate according to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or coopera- tive agreement (CA). Abundant evidence suggests that these relation- ships are mutually beneficial and have been credited with garnering citizen support for organizational goals, bridging the gap between the organizations and diverse cultures, and facilitating institutional change. There are numerous examples of successful partnerships/ collaborations in reaching underserved populations, reducing disparities in minority health care and other community-focused health concerns, improving quality-of-life issues for people with disabilities, developing and implementing environmental poli- cies, and decreasing consumer utility costs. builDing a blueprint For change In 2009 in Philadelphia, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) created a manual, Building a Blueprint for Change, to help city leaders develop a comprehensive service plan and a coordinated strategy focused on placing volunteers with established organizations address- ing critical needs in the community. Based on research, CNCS determined that “service matters and that volunteering is associated with stronger communities . . . community participation and civic engagement . . . (“Citizen Engagement Strengthens Communities,” 2009). The strategies used to ensure a broad range of public involvement and that all stakeholders had an opportunity to participate in the development of the city’s service plan are discussed in the following subsections. identifying Stakeholders The involvement of stakeholders was a key part of building the city’s service initiative. Stakehold- ers were defined as people or organizations that are concerned about, affected by, have a vested interest in, or are involved in some [way] with the issue.” (“Stakeholders,” para. 2). Stakeholders included community groups, environmental groups, school systems, universities, residents, and others. They were involved through steering and advisory com- mittees, working groups, surveys, newsletters, and personal meetings with key players. Stakeholders included groups that are histori- cally underrepresented or underserved in the city and whose voices are not typically included in the planning process. Participation by underrepresented groups was obtained by working with the commu- nity to identify respected groups or leaders within the underrepresented community and developing partnerships with these groups to ensure represen- tation. Meetings were held in communities where the underrepresented population could be reached to ensure their participation. outreach to underrepresented Stakeholders To successfully reach underrepresented stake- holders, CNCS developed trusting relationships with members of the community and reliable con- tacts among the groups. Using techniques developed by the National Resources Conservation Services (2003), CNCS developed its strategies for reaching out to underrepresented communities, including the following: •• Know and understand your audience, •• Organize a team of local minority community members to advise you,

12 •• Share the stage with community leaders, •• Establish trust—be patient and move slowly if cultural differences are great, •• Provide the following for meetings, pub- lic forums, focus groups, or neighborhood hearings: – The opportunity for verbal and written feed- back, – Visual/hands-on presentations, – Multilingual translators, – Sign-language interpreters, – Accessible locations without physical barriers, – Child care, – Refreshments, – Accessibility via public transportation, and – Communication of final results. project action Project ACTION (Accessible Community Trans portation in Our Nation) is an example of a successful partnership between the public transit industry and the disability community. Prior to the passage of the ADA, the relationship between the disability community and public transit industry was contentious. There was broad disagreement over the availability of accessible transportation services for individuals with disabilities. In the late 1980s, representatives of Easter Seals, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) came together to address this concern. Their collaboration resulted in a proposal to cre- ate and demonstrate a national cooperative model to improve transportation options for people with disabilities (Capozzi 1990). In 1987, Congress established Project ACTION as a national model to promote cooperation and collaboration between public transit agencies, the transit industry, and peo- ple with disabilities to improve transportation access for people with disabilities. Federal dollars were provided to fund local demonstration projects to re- create similar partnerships/collaboration between the disability community and transit agencies at the local level. As a result, demonstration programs in local communities used cooperation and collabora- tion as the foundation for establishing policy initia- tives and improving transit access for individuals with disabilities in their communities. cultural competence In both citizen advisory committees and partner- ships, the meaningful participation by individuals with disabilities and from ethnic minority groups is para- mount. The degree to which a community views the group as legitimately representing the community’s concerns can have a powerful effect on its effective- ness (Koontz 2005). Seeking input from minority populations and underrepresented communities helps obtain diverse input and perspectives. Before that outreach can effectively begin, transit agencies must understand the diversity and cultural contexts of the communities they serve. However, community is an elusive concept; it means different things to dif- ferent people (Magrab 1999). Therefore, achieving community engagement has become increasingly complex. Factors involving community diversity involve more than race and ethnicity. Age, disabil- ity, language, literacy, socioeconomic status, and inter-group history are but a few of these factors. A thorough understanding of these factors, as well as respect for their relevance, is essential for effective outreach. Cultural competence is defined as the under- standing and acceptance of the beliefs, values, and ethics of others as well as the demonstrated skills necessary to work with, and serve, diverse popula- tions (Betancourt et al. 2002). It involves an expe- riential understanding, awareness, and respect for those beliefs, values, and ethics of other cultures and the cross-cultural skills necessary for deliver- ing services and working with diverse individuals and groups. It is the necessary precursor to effective minority outreach. Historically, professional organizations in health care led the way to institutions and professions addressing their need to be more effective when working with diverse patient and client popula- tions. Cultural competence in the health care indus- try describes the ability to understand and manage social, cultural, and linguistic differences, which may impact health consequences for minority groups (Betancourt et al. 2002). The field of cultural com- petence has recently emerged as part of a strategy to reduce disparities in health care. In recent years, the ideals and tools of cultural competence are being mainstreamed into other professions. Cultural competence extends beyond diver- sity. Operationally defined, “cultural competence is the integration and transformation of knowledge about individuals and groups of people into specific

13 standards, policies, practices, and attitudes used in appropriate cultural settings to increase the quality of services; thereby producing better outcomes” (Davis 1997). For example, the Pennsylvania DOT used the services of an intermediary to address the Amish community, because it is a more traditional way of dealing with outsiders. Culturally competent out- reach may also include working with translators and interpreters in non-English speaking communities. Given transit ridership trends, the importance of involving all citizens in the participatory process, and the benefits of collaboration, establishing part- nerships with the disability and underrepresented minority communities may ultimately improve transit agency decision making. Transit agencies need guid- ance in developing such partnerships. For example, challenges often exist in outreach and identifying and engaging members from disability and under- represented minority communities. Cultural, attitu- dinal, and language barriers may limit or prevent the participation of individuals from underrepresented communities. Several sources, as well as the National Center for Cultural Competence, utilize a conceptual frame- work and model for achieving cultural competence. Cultural competence requires that organizations •• Have a defined set of values and principles and demonstrate behaviors, attitudes, policies, and structures that enable them to work effectively cross-culturally; •• Have the capacity to (1) value diversity, (2) con- duct cultural self-assessment, (3) be conscious of the inherent dynamics when cultures inter- act, (4) acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge, and (5) develop adaptations to service delivery reflecting an understanding of diversity between and within cultures; and •• Incorporate all of the above in all aspects of policymaking, administration, and service delivery, and systematically involve consum- ers (Goode 2001). Cultural competence is an ongoing process and develops over time. Organizations and individuals begin at varying levels of awareness on the cul- tural competence continuum. As many educational, social, and governmental institutions experience shifting demographics, generational differences and a changing customer base, organizations are identi- fying best practices for supporting those customers to bridge cultural gaps. culturally competent StrategieS For engaging DiverSe communitieS ATR Institute et al. (2010) reported that many agencies are creatively using the processes and exam- ples that current literature identifies, including •• Utilizing the Internet and intranet; •• Using visualizations; •• Holding the meeting in the right place, on the right day, at the right time; •• Leveraging relationships; •• Playing interactive games; •• Taking the time to sit and listen; and •• Using public involvement programs (p. 13). Nonetheless, challenges still exist in outreach and identifying and engaging members from dis- ability and underrepresented communities. Cul- tural, attitudinal, and language barriers may limit or prevent the involvement of individuals from under- represented communities. Other barriers that result in limited participation in transit decision making by these communities are (1) limited resources, (2) lack of educational opportunities, (3) discrimination, (4) limited English skills, (5) fear and distrust of the government, and (6) limited knowledge about trans- portation and other programs and services (National Association of Conservation 2003, p. 3). The health care industry has been a leader in out- reach to underrepresented communities. Examples of outreach strategies in health care, transit, and urban forestry were included in this review as best practices. chapter 3 Survey reSultS The results of the national survey documented the experiences of transit agencies in reaching and engaging the participation of disability and under- represented communities with regard to developing partnerships and public involvement. These agencies were identified through the American Public Trans- portation Association (APTA) and the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) databases. Responses were received from geographically dispersed public transportation agencies in 24 states and 2 Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Ontario). Table 1 lists the number of responses by state and province. The largest number of responses, 12 percent, was reported in California. Of the 81 agencies that responded, 30 are located in

14 large urban areas; 37 are located in medium-sized cities, and 13 are located in rural areas or small urban communities (the respondents also include the UM Shuttle, the transit system serving the Uni- versity of Maryland, College Park). Eighty-one agencies expressed interest in the survey and 56 agencies submitted completed sur- veys, generating a response rate of 69 percent. In the analysis that follows, the percentages shown represent the percentages of respondents answer- ing a question. Questions that were left blank were excluded when the results were analyzed. Scope oF public involvement Transportation agencies seek public input for all of their major decision-making activities. This survey identified seven activities in which transit providers involve the public: capital projects, daily operations, fare changes, long-range corridor plan- ning, service changes, environmental justice issues, ADA, and accessibility issues. Respondents were asked to identify activities in which the public is engaged. Seventy-four responses were received from the agencies. Overall, 70 of the 81 agencies (87 percent) engaged the public in service and fare changes; while 64 of the 74 agencies (87 percent) engaged the public in activities related to the ADA and accessibility issues. More than 80 percent of the agencies involved the public in all of the activities. “Other” activities for public engagement included design and construction, major equipment changes, budget hearings, funding, and customer satisfaction. target auDienceS Community outreach is a critical factor in the suc- cess of transportation services that reflect the ideas and culture of the entire community and that allow all to share ideas that reflect their interests. Transit agen- cies were asked to identify the target audiences for public involvement activities. The results revealed that transit agencies attempt to reach a diverse audi- ence that includes people with disabilities, seniors, and underrepresented minority groups. While 97 per- cent of the agencies (n = 71) responded that they typi- cally target regular and frequent riders, an average of 92 percent of the agencies include people with dis- abilities and seniors in the targeted populations. More than 60 percent of the agencies included underrepresented minority groups in their target audiences (see Figure 1). “Other” target audiences included community-based organizations, visitors, welfare to work participants, potential riders, human services and nonprofit agencies, employers, colleges, students, local public schools, churches, hospitals, parents, and other transit agencies. Eighty percent of the agencies reported that community-based orga- nizations are used to help identify the targeted audience. DiSability anD unDerrepreSenteD minority communitieS identifying the Disability community and underrepresented groups Transit agencies were asked to identify the strat- egies used to attract disability and underrepresented minority groups. The results reveal that the agencies use a combination of strategies to identify members of the disability and underrepresented groups (see Figure 2). The majority of the agencies relied on these organizations to inform and attract these tar- geted audiences (see Table 2). Transit agencies have historically recognized the value of citizen input; and citizen or customer advi- sory committees are a commonly used mechanism for public outreach, involvement, and participation. More than half of the respondents reported using consumer advisory councils to attract the disabil- ity and underrepresented communities. Sixty-seven percent of the agencies also reported using rider- ship statistics to identify the target audiences. Other responses included local jurisdictions, employee table 1 Survey respondents by state/province State/Province No. of Respondents CA 10 TX 7 IL, OH 5 PA, OR, WA 4 AZ, CT, FL, MD, VA 3 MI, MO, NC, TN 2 CO, DC, IA, ID, NJ, NY, UT, WV 1 BC (British Columbia) 1 ON (Ontario) 1

15 and (6) limited knowledge about transportation and other programs and services (National Asso- ciation of Conservation 2003, p. 3). Transit agencies were asked to identify the significance of barriers to engaging the disability and underrepresented communities. Fifty-nine responses were received from public transit agen- cies. They were asked to indicate if the barrier was highly significant, very significant, moderately sig- nificant, somewhat significant, or not significant. A “not applicable” response option was also provided as shown in Figure 3. Two of the agencies (3 percent) reported cul- tural and language barriers were highly significant in engaging disability and underrepresented com- munities, compared to 19 percent who reported that these were not significant barriers. Overall, 19 of the 59 agencies (33 percent) indicated that lack of public interest had a very significant impact on engaging the disability and underrepresented communities. Another 8 agencies (14 percent) indicated that this barrier was moderately significant. In addition, 25 of the 59 agencies (42 percent) identified lack of trust as a somewhat significant barrier. Lack of understand- ing was also reported as a somewhat significant bar- rier by 19 agencies (34 percent). Almost half of the interaction with the public, public officials, rider alerts, signs on buses and paratransit vehicles, and universities. Barriers to Engagement Cultural, attitudinal, and language barriers may limit or prevent the involvement of individu- als from underrepresented communities. Other barriers that result in limited participation in transit decision-making by these communities are (1) limited resources; (2) lack of educational opportunities; (3) discrimination; (4) limited Eng- lish skills; (5) fear and distrust of the government; Figure 1 Target audiences for public engagement. Table 2 Targeted underrepresented groups Underrepresented Groups No. of Agencies African Americans 44 Asian Americans 31 Hispanics 44 Immigrants 27 American Natives 28 Limited English Proficiency 39

16 Figure 3 Significance of barriers. Figure 2 Strategies for identifying disability and underrepresented groups.

17 agencies indicated that accessibility of the meeting place was not a significant barrier. outreach StrategieS For public involvement Transit agencies reported using a variety of the following techniques to engage the disability and underrepresented communities: •• Community organizations, •• Advocacy organizations, •• Community partnerships, •• Transit agency advisory committees, •• Disability organizations, •• Church or religious organizations, •• Community leaders elders, •• Family members, •• Tribal leaders, •• Bilingual minority staff, •• Neighborhood staff and associations, •• Minority outreach coordinators, •• Targeted radio/TV ads, and •• Community newsletters. The five most widely utilized strategies for engaging underrepresented communities were out- reach to (1) disability organizations (92 percent); (2) community organizations that provide informa- tion and receive public input on transportation issues (90 percent); (3) advocacy organizations (85 percent); (4) transit agency advisory councils (82 percent); and (5) community partnerships (80 percent). Other strategies included using elected and gov- ernment officials, community newsletters, social media, targeted newspaper ads (translated for Low English Proficiency [LEP] communities), direct mail, telephone-based translation for LEP inquiries (i.e., a “language line”), translated material, lan- guage blocks on printed material, on-the-street and onboard representatives, flyers and posters, websites and social media, mass emails, and other media, such as newspapers, television news media, letters, and notices. Forty-six percent of the agencies hire bilin- gual minority staff and 21 percent of the agencies have minority outreach coordinators on staff. Successful outreach Strategies The majority of respondents reported that their outreach strategies are 100 percent successful when reaching out to the disability and African American communities. The strategies below were identified as the most successful: •• Techniques for involving people with dis- abilities – Advisory committees, – Advocacy organizations, – Disability organizations, and – Transit agency advisory committees. •• Techniques for involving African Americans – Community and neighborhood organizations, – Churches and community leaders, and – Outreach at targeted transit centers. •• Techniques for involving Hispanics – Community and neighborhood organizations, – Media, – Bilingual staff, and – Outreach at transit centers. •• Techniques for involving Asian Americans – Community and neighborhood organiza- tions, and – Outreach at targeted transit centers. •• Techniques for involving LEP communities – Community and neighborhood organizations, – Bilingual staff, – Minority media outlets, and – Translated materials. •• Techniques for involving other immigrants – Community organizations, – Advocacy organizations, and – Social service agencies. unsuccessful outreach Strategies The transit agencies were asked to rate their success in reaching the disability and underrepre- sented communities. Only 13 of the 81 agencies responded to this question. Although the majority of respondents reported that most of the strategies are somewhat successful, 54 percent of the respond- ing agencies reported that the strategies are unsuc- cessful when reaching out to Hispanics. Agencies reported that, although information is available in Spanish, many Hispanics do not read or write Span- ish. Due to lack of trust and because some Hispanics are illegal immigrants, many are reluctant to attend government-sponsored events. In this regard, staff on board the bus is proving to be the best method of conveying targeted information to this segment of the community. Responses are reported in Figure 4.

18 to other underrepresented groups—Asian Ameri- cans (38 percent), Native Americans (33 percent), and immigrants (36 percent) were rated as satis- factory. Six respondents offered comments that included “no data” and an “insignificant popula- tion of Asian Americans, Native Americans, or other immigrant populations.” Forty-five percent of the respondents rated the overall effectiveness of outreach efforts as good (Table 3). PartnershiPs and Collaborations A partnership is a mutually beneficial relation- ship that builds synergistically on the time, talent, and resources of participants to achieve common goals and measurable outcomes and where all partners share in the decision-making process and responsibility for outcomes (Bureau of Land Man- agement 2003). More than 90 percent of the agen- cies described their relationships with disability and underrepresented groups as partnerships. Common themes emerged with respect to partnerships when With regard to Asian Americans and other immigrants, 23 percent of the respondents reported success to an extent, but found that communicating with the specific audience and the varied languages have been the greatest challenges. The responding agencies (39 percent) believe that policies set by the government and failure to use public transit services hampered outreach to Native Americans. Fifteen percent of the respondents reported that their outreach strategies are unsuccessful when reach- ing out to the LEP populations. effectiveness of outreach efforts Transit agencies were asked to rate the success of their efforts at reaching and engaging the partic- ipation of disability and underrepresented minor- ity groups. More than half of the respondents rated success at reaching the disability community as excellent; 57 percent rated success at reaching African Americans as good, and 41 percent rated success at reaching Hispanics as good. Outreach Figure 4 Unsuccessful outreach efforts by group.

19 analyzing respondents’ comments. Examples of those comments are listed within the following dis- cussion of each question. Strategies for Developing partnerships Sixty-five percent of the respondents answered this question. Twenty-five of those respondents reported that their primary means of developing partnerships with the disability community were crucial to connecting with other minority groups. Several respondents explained that their relation- ships with disability advisory committees pro- vided links to other underrepresented groups. In most cases, these relationships began with respect to paratransit issues. Transit agencies are required to engage the disability community concerning changes to paratransit service through meetings and public hearings. According to respondents, this targeted outreach often provided opportunities to connect to additional minority groups. The transit agencies that considered their partnerships success- ful were strategic in their outreach approach. They leveraged the relationships they formed with the transit advisory group and recognized the value in these collaborations. In addition, 11 transit agencies reported that open communication with their stakeholders was key to developing partnerships. Nine agencies rely on their relationships with advocacy groups and five respon- dents utilize culturally competent strategies that address the linguistic needs of non-English speaking communities. One respondent’s comments were cat- egorized as “Other.” Responses are listed in Table 4. Respondents were asked to provide comments regarding the development of their community part- nerships. Exhibit 2 presents these comments. key Factors in establishing partnerships Sixty-five percent of the agencies also answered this question regarding the ongoing process of establishing partnerships with minority and disability communi- ties. Fourteen respondents reported that communica- tion was the primary factor necessary in establishing partnerships. Twenty-three percent also reported the importance of maintaining relationships with com- munity organizations. Nine respondents cited mutual trust as a necessary approach in forming partnerships. Many responses overlap several categories. Seven agencies cited that meeting the needs of the community enabled them to establish successful partnerships. For five respondents, gaining input and feedback from stakeholders was the primary method of establishing partnerships. One agency reported that including underrepresented groups in the decision-making process proved successful. Responses are listed in Table 5. Survey data and information from additional lit- erature review were used (1) to define partnerships and collaborative relationships for the purposes of this research; (2) to investigate criteria to evaluate success; and (3) to identify key success indicators table 4 Strategies utilized to develop community partnerships Strategy No. of Agencies Strategic Outreach 25 Communication 11 Advisory Groups 9 Cultural Competence 5 Identifying Key Stakeholders 2 Other 1 table 3 Effectiveness of outreach for each underrepresented group

20 Strategic Outreach •• “We use a strategic community engagement approach for every outreach effort, where our rela- tionships built within one effort extend and become stronger from one effort to the next. This approach includes using data and community knowledge to design appropriate and targeted outreach to affected populations.” •• “Our department (Transportation Services) partnered with the university’s Disability Support Ser- vice Office to utilize their expertise in providing necessary services to those with disabilities on our campus. The Disability Support Service Office handles certifying students/faculty/staff for our paratransit service as well as advertising our paratransit service to disabled persons who might deal with their department for other needs.” •• “Our partnership with the disability population stemmed from our having to restructure our para- transit program. This required we engage the disability community through meetings, presentations before advocacy groups, etc. Because a significant number of our transit riders are represented by minority groups, specifically Blacks and Hispanics, we have maintained close relationships with these communities to include sub-groups.” •• “Primary partnership is with the elderly and disabled. Partnership developed when local para- transit was taken in-house to be administered directly by the transit district.” •• “From an individual meeting with a group discussing their transit concerns. Eventually the two agencies respond to each other and involve each other in different activities where one organiza- tion could support the other. For example, a disability organization has been invited to become a member of the transit agency consumer group.” •• “We are in the process of coordinating with Affordable Housing Managers (35) to offer free ride tickets to new residents. In exchange Mgrs., are required to keep local and regional transit info onsite, conduct annual transit fairs in their community room (snacks included). We also attend monthly meetings of the Livermore Community Needs Networking Group to discuss issues that affect this segment of the population. Members represent social services that provides services to seniors, minorities, and disabled citizens. LAVTA also recruited Hispanic mini-markets to sell Wheels Discounts tickets at their locations. In exchange, LAVTA promotes these businesses in the bus fleet and in the Transit Guide.” •• “Worked with social service providers, leaders in the community, minority press and minority chambers of commerce. Followed Title VI guidelines, hired coordinator of limited English profi- ciency. Routinely print agency information in multiple languages.” •• “Identified key community-based organizations with which to partner based on their successful outreach track records for targeted audiences.” Relationships with Advisory Groups •• “There is a community organization called the Power of We that we are a part of.” •• “We have a standing Customer Service Advisory Committee and Accessibility Advisory Com- mittee. The former has been in place for a few years while the latter has been in existence for 20 years.” •• “For the disability community, ATA has worked closely with an agency called LIFT (Life and Independence for Today). They are an agency that deals with persons with dis abilities.” •• “Through an advisory group, community meetings, and relationships with advocacy groups.” exhibit 2 Comments on Development of Community Partnerships

21 table 5 Key factors in establishing community partnerships Key Factors No. of Agencies Communication 14 Community organizations 12 Mutual trust 9 Meeting needs of the community 7 Stakeholder input 5 Attention to diversity 3 Include stakeholders in decision making 1 Other 1 Identifying Key Stakeholders •• “Formation of a Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC), an oversight group comprised of key ADA community stakeholders that advises our Transit Board on our ADA services, service qual- ity, and policy issues.” Cultural Competence •• “Ongoing efforts to conduct outreach and build on successes; designated staff assignments; hiring practices that result in representation of minorities that exceeds that in general population; Diver- sity Council within the organization and linked to other community agencies; proactive inclusion at early stages of project development; foster culture of accessibility with organization through training.” exhibit 2 (Continued) (actions and initiatives) that contribute to the devel- opment of successful relationships. These criteria were compared to the partnerships/collaborations identified as best practices inside and outside of the transit industry. Community involvement is crucial to the suc- cess of transportation agencies and required by law. However, reaching out to underrepresented commu- nities and obtaining their input can be challenging. This survey of public transit agencies revealed that •• Transit agencies engaged the public most often with respect to service and fare changes and •• These agencies reach out to regular and fre- quent riders, especially those with disabilities and seniors. In addition, the majority of the agencies sur- veyed reported that they work with community organizations to help identify their targeted audi- ence. African Americans and Hispanics are the larg- est minority groups targeted, because they often represent the largest percentage of frequent riders. Customer surveys and ridership statistics are useful in identifying target audiences for outreach and public involvement. Disability and community organizations, as well as advocacy groups, are most valuable in this process because key leaders within these organizations are best equipped to identify the needs of each respective community. Cultural, attitudinal, and language barriers often limit or prevent the involvement of individuals from underrepresented communities. Respondents reported 100 percent success when reaching out to the African American and disabil- ity communities. Effective outreach strategies often involve a variety of techniques and approaches. Outreach to Spanish-speaking, Asian-American, and Native-American target audiences was reported as difficult. Transit agencies cited language barri- ers, mistrust of government, and failure to use pub- lic transit as barriers to reaching these communities. More than 90 percent of the agencies surveyed referred to their community relationships as part- nerships. These agencies are often strategic in their approach in developing, establishing, and sustaining these relationships. Establishing open communica- tion, trust, meeting the needs of the community, and maintaining relationships with disability and con- sumer advisory councils are examples of the key factors cited. The literature is replete with successful partner- ships in health care, education, labor, land use, and environmental industries. These relationships are referred to as partnerships or community collabora- tions. Partnering means to work together to create

22 a common vision and implementation strategy that collectively solves problems. It involves “pooling resources (information, money, and labor) and devel- oping collaborative relationships among various stake- holders using a consensual decision-making process” (Bureau of Land Management 2003, para. 10). Suc- cessful partnerships possess a clear mission, focus on actions that produce the intended results, and monitor and evaluate impact (London 1995). partnerships The Bureau of Land Management (2003) describes a partnership as a relationship that (1) shares a vision or definition of objectives from the beginning; (2) recognizes the need for collabo- ration and a consensual decision-making process; (3) has a goal of building trust among diverse stake- holders; (4) has strong leadership; (5) is committed to making the partnership work; (6) ensures every- one has equal power; (7) has a clear understanding of the expectations of the partnership; and (8) has good communication that strengthens commitment, builds trust, and fosters mutual respect. According to Arnstein (1969), “[a] partnership can work most effectively when there is an orga- nized power-base in the community to which the citizen leaders are accountable; when the citizens group has the financial resources to pay its lead- ers reasonable honoraria for their time-consuming efforts; and when the group has the resources to hire (and fire) its own technicians, lawyers, and community organizers. With these ingredients, citi- zens have some genuine bargaining influence over the outcome of the plan (as long as both parties find it useful to maintain the partnership).” Conse- quently, a partnership includes shared leadership with stakeholders possessing equal power in the decision-making process. Arnstein (1969) also stated, “there is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the process” (para. 8). She defines citizen participation as the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. In A Ladder of Citizen Participation, she discusses eight types of participation to use as a guide for determining who has power when important decisions are being made. The different types of participation are dis- cussed in this section. As shown in Figure 5, the rungs of the ladder range from “manipulation” to “citizen control.” Source: Arnstein, 1969 Figure 5 Arnstein’s Ladder of participation.

23 On the bottom of the ladder are two forms of non- participation: manipulation and therapy. Therapy pretends to involve people in planning in order to help those people feel better about themselves; manipulation is also a facade of participation and is concerned with educating people or getting them on board. The next three levels are degrees of tokenism. Informing involves the use of the media, pamphlets, and posters to provide a one-way flow of information. Consultation allows citizens to express their views but there is no guarantee that those views will be considered or taken into account. Placation allows some influence to citizens through token membership on committees or boards. The three highest levels, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control, which involve real participation, involve a redistribution of power and decision- making clout (Beder 2001). Using Arnstein’s Ladder as a framework, “part- ners work cooperatively, build upon mutual interests, and share resources to work toward shared objec- tives to accomplish work. They work together to find appropriate solutions to complex and interrelated social, economic challenges . . . different partners bring different strengths to the partnership and these are applied at different times in the life of the partner- ship” (Bureau of Land Management 2003). collaboration The goal of a community-based partnership is to build a strong, place-based, collaborative pro- cess, where people of different backgrounds meet to seek common ground. Collaboration is the most formal relationship involving shared authority and responsibility for planning, implementation, and evaluation of a joint effort (Hord 1986). Mattessich (2005) defines collaboration as a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. Wood and Gray (1991) define collaboration as a process that “occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an inter- active process, using shared rules, norms, and struc- tures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain” (p. 146). Decisions in collaborative forums are con- sensus oriented (Connick & Innes 2003, Seidenfeld 2000). Although public agencies may have the ulti- mate authority to make a decision, the goal of collabo- ration is typically to achieve some degree of consensus among stakeholders (Ansell & Gash 2008). In a recent study (2011), Migliaccio et al. identi- fied best collaboration practices for facilitating com- munication, cooperation, and coordination (the 3Cs) between transportation agencies and tribes. The fol- lowing definitions were developed for each of the 3Cs: •• Communication: Process by which informa- tion, data, or knowledge regarding issues and projects is exchanged, so that it is satisfactorily received or understood by the receiving parties. •• Coordination: Process by which representa- tives communicate information on how and when each party must act in order to achieve effective common results. •• Cooperation: Process by which representa- tives work together to achieve a common goal or objective in carrying out transpor- tation planning, programming, and delivery processes. A collaborative environment ensures a success- ful environment for reaching shared goals by com- municating, coordinating, and cooperating with each other, which, in turn, enables collaboration. Within the framework of these definitions, a ladder of col- laboration (Figure 6) was developed to demonstrate the relationship-building process as the steps prog- ress from communication to coordination, and from coordination to cooperation. 1. Communication is the first step in creating a collaborative environment among stakehold- ers through the sharing and receiving of infor- mation between parties. Cultural competency is essential to interact effectively with people of different cultures. 2. The second step for creating a collaborative environment is coordination, which encom- passes the development and adjustment of plans, programs, and schedules among par- ties to achieve a common purpose. Effective coordination requires communication and in- formation on how and when each party must act together with a commitment for follow- ing through. 3. The third step on the ladder of collaboration is cooperation that goes beyond coordina- tion as parties work together to achieve a common goal or objective in carrying out transportation planning, programming, and delivery processes. As a result, parties would work in conjunction with one another

24 and eventually share resources to achieve success. This ladder is easily transferable to generic transportation projects (i.e., the re- lationship between consumer advisory com- mittees and transportation officials). Engaging a community in decision making requires collaborative leadership (Wolff 2010). A successful collaborative leader has the ability to share power, is flexible, can see the big picture, is trustworthy, and has patience, abundant energy, and hope. Common characteristics of an effective col- laborative relationship (Czajkowski 2007) include the following: •• Trust and partner compatibility, •• Common and unique purpose, •• Shared governance and joint decision making, •• Clear understanding of roles and responsi - bilities, •• Open and frequent communication, and •• Adequate financial and human resources. Abundant evidence suggests that these relation- ships are mutually beneficial and have been credited with garnering citizen support for organizational goals, bridging the gap between the organizations and diverse cultures, and facilitating institutional change. PartnershiPs in transit The issue of whether the advisory committee should possess policy-setting and decision-making authorities or remain strictly advisory organizations is a longstanding debate. Many consumers support a policy-setting, decision-making model that could set transit policy (Denson 2003); while other con- sumers are satisfied to receive feedback on their recommendations, which gives them the sense that their input is valued: “It’s not so much that we have to have a vote . . . we just want to know that you looked at what we wrote and that you give us feedback on our input. We know we have no power. . . . Just give us feedback and results from the input” (TCRP H-44 Project Panel 2011). According to FHWA and DOT (2002), a citizen advisory council has the following basic features: 1. Interest groups from throughout a state or region are represented, 2. Meetings are held regularly, 3. Comments and points of view of participants are recorded, 4. Consensus on issues is sought but not required, and 5. The council is assigned an important role in the process. Source: ATR Institute et al. (2011) Figure 6 Ladder of collaboration.

25 There is wide variation in the make-up and orga- nizational structure of citizen advisory committees. Most are described as a representative group of citi- zens or stakeholders that meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern (Hull 2010). Member- ship can be derived from an outreach campaign, a competitive selection process, or appointment by the transit agency. Committee members usually possess background and/or experience in the topics about which they will be advising. Membership is diverse in its representation of the community and/ or constituency that it represents. Partnership membership is usually through des- ignation or appointment. In effective partnerships, partners share a common vision and goals and rec- ognize the need for collaboration for achievement. Partners are egalitarian (have equal power), under- stand and respect what everyone brings to the table, and usually have the authority to make decisions for the entity that they represent. Effective partnerships have a strong leader who champions the partner- ship and its vision and goals. Many partnerships are established and operate according to a memo- randum of understanding (MOU) or cooperative agreement (CA). While advisory committees are usually estab- lished with a mission statement, purpose, goals, objectives, and almost all operate according to bylaws, operating guidelines, and/or procedures or other protocol, research indicates that in the majority (77 percent) of transit agencies, the pri- mary role of advisory committees is to provide advice and input for transit decision-making (Hull 2010). It is important to note that transit advisory committees are not actually involved in the deci- sion-making process. Although considered a valu- able part of the public involvement process, it is clear that, for the most part, committees serve an advisory role only. Chrislip and Larson’s (1994) definition of col- laboration is more appropriate for describing the citizen advisory committee’s relationship with transit agencies because it focuses on a process, distinct from a program, agenda, or outcome, and looks at the very process by which we arrive at political choices. Collaborative relationships often share some basic characteristics, as follows: 1. Problems are not clearly defined or there is disagreement about how they should be defined. 2. Some stakeholders have a stake in the prob- lems and are interdependent. 3. Stakeholders are not necessarily organized in any systematic way. 4. There may be a disparity of power and/or re- sources for dealing with the problems among the stakeholders. 5. Stakeholders may have varying levels of ex- pertise and different access to information about the problems. 6. The problems are characterized by technical complexity and scientific uncertainty. 7. Differing perspectives on the problems may lead to adversarial relationships among the stakeholders. 8. Incremental or unilateral efforts to deal with the problems typically produce less than sat- isfactory solutions. 9. Existing processes for addressing the prob- lems have proved insufficient. Ultimate authority may lie with the transit agency, but stakeholders must directly participate in the decision-making process. Therefore, advisory committees may be a form of collaboration if their advice is closely linked to decision-making out- comes. In practice (and by design), however, advi- sory committees are often far removed from actual decision making (Ansell & Gash 2008). Adams et al. (1995) used Arnstein’s Ladder to display levels and types of citizen involvement, including citizen committees. Table 6 illustrates the types of citizen participation government agencies [transit agencies] typically adopt when seeking pub- lic input. There is no single approach to engaging under- represented groups and people with disabilities in the public involvement process. The strategies are often as diverse as the communities they serve, and “success” is defined on an individual basis. “The ideal outcome of any public involvement process is to generate public consensus on, and ownership of, a plan or project.” Throughout the research, the role of a transit consumer committee is described as advisory or providing input or recommendations into the tran- sit decision-making processes. In addition, federal guidance and handbooks refer to consumer commit- tees as advisory (Hull 2010). According to FHWA and DOT (1996), “some boards make decisions; others help formulate policies.” Citizens on policy

26 and decision-making boards are established by stat- ute, regulation, or political decision. On the other hand, a citizen advisory committee is a group of stakeholders that meets regularly to discuss issues of common concern. The committee provides input to transportation planning development by examin- ing and discussing issues with others; they serve in an advisory capacity. Consensus is desired, but not required. Although a majority of survey respondents described their community relationships as partner- ships, rarely do transit advisory committee relation- ships include decision-making power, nor do they align with the themes identified in the research as characteristic of “true” partnerships. The research clearly demonstrates that advocacy/advisory roles are dominant among transit and consumer advisory committees versus true decision making. key SucceSS inDicatorS Key factors for establishing effective partner- ships identified by the research revealed that com- munication is the primary factor necessary for establishing partnerships. Key factors also included maintaining relationships with community organi- zations and mutual trust. Characteristics of effective partnerships identified are displayed in Figure 7. •• Effective management: Well-organized meet- ings, collaboratively developed agendas, and consistent facilitation are essential. •• Communication: Two-way open exchange of information. •• Decision-making: Decisions should be flex- ible, made by consensus, and include a par- ticipatory process. •• Conflict resolution: Partners should not only recognize and address conflicts, but possess a means by which to solve them. •• Problem-solving processes: Agreed-upon processes. •• Shared leadership: The stakeholders should have equal power and influence, including task and leadership behaviors. •• Mutual trust: Trust is necessary for generat- ing meaningful participation. •• Shared resources: Information, money, labor. Effective Management Decision Making Shared Leadership Communication Problem Solving Conflict Resolution Mutual Trust Shared Resources Evaluation Techniques Figure 7 Characteristics of successful partnerships. table 6 Levels and types of citizen participation Citizen Participation Types Citizen Participation Models Examples Proactive Participation Involvement Citizen Control Delegated Control Partnership Community-controlled organization By law—dominant decision-making Negotiated decision-making—participants may receive compensation Reactive Participation Input Placation Consultation Informing Citizen advisory boards—often without staff or power Public meetings inviting ideas—no assurance of action Informing of rights—first step to participation, but often superficial Non-Participation Therapy Manipulation Powerlessness—inability to cope or adapt; group therapy masked as participation Rubber stamp boards, public relations for system— contrived to substitute for participation Source: Adams et al. (1995)

27 •• Evaluation techniques: A collaborative eval- uation of both task/goal and process objec- tives is necessary to measure effectiveness (Schulz, Israel & Lantz 2002, p. 251). leadership Leadership is crucial for setting and maintain- ing clear ground rules, building trust, facilitat- ing dialogue, and exploring mutual gains (Ansell & Gash 2008). The majority (90 percent) of the survey respondents referred to their collaborative relationships as partnerships, as is the common practice. Although these relationships are coordi- nated in some instances and collaborative in others, none of them actually share leadership. The leader- ship is unilateral and control is central (Mattessich 2001), which is characteristic of a less formal relationship. Authority and leadership rest solely with the tran- sit agencies involved. Citizen advisory committees have influence and may hold the agency accountable to some degree, but the final decisions are made by transit. In practical use, “collaboration” and “coordi- nation” are used interchangeably. In most scholarly writings, these terms have more distinct meanings. The literature defines coordination as slightly more formal than cooperation with more clearly defined roles for individuals and organizations. Authority and risk rest with the participating organizations, while leadership is shared to some degree. Col- laboration is the most formal relationship, where resources, risk, and leadership are shared among all involved (Mattessich 2001). communication Open communication is probably the most important element of any successful partnership or collaboration. Communication is, however, a com- plicated process, and a great deal can go wrong. Communication has both an internal and an exter- nal role in the formation of partnerships and col- laborations. It begins with outreach strategies and connecting with the targeted audience. This type of “networking” between policymakers and stake- holders is a crucial step in the collaborative pro- cess and the flow of information (Migliaccio et al. 2011). Both the literature review and survey results revealed the importance of tailoring messages to their respective groups through websites, newslet- ters, and social media relevant to each audience. The most effective outreach strategies produced materi- als in several formats, Web, and paper, as well as alternate formats for people with disabilities and low English proficiency. Effective communication, where the stakehold- ers’ voices are heard and roles are clearly defined, creates a sense of ownership. Public ownership is key to gaining buy-in when decisions are made and policy is affected. This internal flow of communica- tion must also include operational structures of the collaboration, constraints and rules of engagement for meetings, and interactions. External communi- cation should include a communications strategy for ongoing outreach linked to the overall strategic plan. trust building Mutual trust is an essential component and a primary objective of the public involvement pro- cess. Transit agencies must gain the public’s trust to generate meaningful participation. The issue of trust and its importance in developing partner- ships and collaborations is evidenced by both the literature and survey results. Survey respondents reported that trust, as well as listening to diverse viewpoints, was essential in forming their relation- ships with stakeholders. Establishing trust requires time and open communication and is earned through the collaborative process (Bureau of Land Manage- ment 2003). Building trust with the public also requires respecting and understanding cultural differences (cultural competence). Establishing trust between communities that may traditionally be skeptical of government is a common obstacle in the formation of partnerships. There often exists an understand- able mistrust toward members of the dominant culture by historically oppressed and or underrep- resented groups. Transparency at the agency level and communication and respect for cultural dif- ferences are essential when reaching out to these communities. Withholding information can cause a distrustful relationship between the public and the agency, as well as disenchantment with the public participation process (Giering 2011). This distrust may discourage groups from participating in the public process.

28 unSucceSSFul partnerShipS Transit systems can often operate in silos, even when “reaching out” to the community. The lack of transparency and openness can derail the trust- building process with underrepresented communities and possible stakeholders. To form a true partnership requires collaboration and equal decision-making power, for lack of a better word. Citizens in advisory roles are often involved too late in the process, after the agency and influential participants have defined the problem and narrowed the range of possible choices (Schachter & Liu 2005). In addition, there may exist a technical “indus- try” language of expertise, which can alienate community participation from transit and techno- logically oriented policy issues. “When admin- istrators believe that quality decisions require a language of expertise, they are often ambivalent about citizen participation” (King et al. 1998). In a true partnership, the experts and community stake- holders define the problem together. In reality, the experts often possess the sole ability to define prob- lems, which excludes the voice of the community from the policy process. The transit agencies deter- mine the priority of the issues, which may include public involvement, but late in the process. “Early citizen participation benefits the process because it introduces new knowledge and ideas” (Schachter & Liu 2005). Causes of dysfunctional partnerships identified throughout the research include the following: 1. There is a lack of shared vision, goals, and interests. 2. There is no sharing of responsibility, account- ability, or benefits. 3. There are inequalities in the levels of exper- tise and resources. 4. The people with the expertise will influence the decision. 5. One person or entity drives the process. 6. There is hidden motivation, which is not clear to all involved. 7. The collaboration was formed for appear- ances. 8. The stakeholders lack appropriate training to truly understand the issues and technical in- formation (if technical information exists). The Bureau of Land Management (2003) includes the following as characteristics of unsuccessful partnerships: •• Lack of understanding and trust, •• Lack of accomplishments, •• Lack of program consistency, and •• Lack of commitments. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management also stated that the majority of the obstacles related to forming partnerships are administrative, includ- ing agency culture, internal policies, staffing, train- ing, budgeting, and reporting systems. Thirteen of the 81 survey respondents answered this question. The responses provided data on unsuccessful strategies with specific underrepre- sented groups, but provided little to no data regard- ing the success of their strategies or the strength of their community relationships. In this regard, the literature is also limited to the actual formation of true community partnerships in transit. Additional data, possibly anecdotal and historical experience, is needed to develop a matrix of successful and unsuc- cessful partnerships that describe the reasons for success or failure. At this point, the research sug- gests that building community relationships and defining success or failure will reflect the context of the community; what works in one community may be different from what works in another community. evaluation criteria Evaluation of consumer advisory committees will help transit agencies determine if the commit- tee is achieving its stated goals and identify whether strategies and processes are working. There is no single definition of successful public involve- ment, although a measure of effectiveness is essen- tial. Successful public involvement can be judged purely based on outcomes; the results determine the effectiveness of the participatory means. This approach is often difficult because other variables (local elections, controversy in the community, etc.) may contribute to the level and effect of participa- tion. “Success” can also be defined in terms of the participatory process, with respect to issues such as fairness, group dynamics, and procedures. The ideal measure of success is a balance of process and outcome. Developing a single definition is often problematic because of the diversity of perspectives about the goals of public participation (Chess & Purcell 1999). Federal guidance for evaluating public involve- ment provided by FHWA and DOT (2002) suggests that agencies ask participant advisors if a technique

29 is appropriate or rewarding or meet with commu- nity advisors to get a sense of the best methods of getting feedback and comments and resolving con- flicts. According to Szyliowicz (2002), “if public involvement programs are to promote democratic processes and improve the quality of transporta- tion systems, rigorous evaluation is essential.” However, Giering (2011, p. 19) reported a major gap in academic literature and practical applica- tion of public involvement that identifies methods and processes for determining the effectiveness of public involvement efforts (i.e., “there are no con- sensus definitions, methods, goals, or outcomes to guide the development of an evaluation process”). The study identified quantitative methods typi- cally used to evaluate public involvement efforts as follows: •• Pre- and post-engagement surveys of custom- ers and non-riders, •• On-board transit surveys, •• Focus groups, and •• Third-party research. The survey respondents also cited the above methods as strategies for developing and sustaining effective community relationships. Although these quantitative measures help to distinguish between effective and ineffective processes, they offer little help in determining good or beneficial outcomes and are not sufficient for determining “a baseline for standardizing evaluation” (Giering, p. 20). Fur- ther, Hull (2010) reported that most agencies do not evaluate the effectiveness of advisory committees, nor do they ask advisory committee members to evaluate the effectiveness of individual meetings or the overall process. Rowe and Frewer (2000, p. 12) developed a framework for evaluating public participation meth- ods by dividing evaluation criteria into two catego- ries: acceptance criteria, which are related to the effective construction and implementation of a pro- cedure, and process criteria, which are related to the potential public acceptance of a procedure. These criteria represent key aspects of public acceptance and good process in participation exercises: Acceptance Criteria •• The public participants should constitute a broadly representative sample of the popula- tion of the affected public. •• The participation process should be conducted in an independent, unbiased way. •• The output of the procedure should have a genuine impact on policy. •• The process should be transparent so that the public can see what is going on and how deci- sions are being made. Process Criteria •• Public participants should have access to the appropriate resources to enable them to suc- cessfully fulfill their brief. •• The nature and scope of the participation task should be clearly defined. •• The participation exercise should use/provide appropriate mechanisms for structuring and displaying the decision-making process. •• The procedure should in some sense be cost- effective. However, “the main problem in the evaluation of participation methods remains the absence of any optimal benchmarks against which the criteria might be compared and measured, which arises in part because of confusion about the meaning of ‘effec- tiveness.’” Rowe and Frewer (2000, p. 24) suggest that a variety of the most appropriate techniques for public participation are likely to be hybrids of more traditional methods. Szyliowicz (2002, p. 37) agrees that public involvement literature provides limited insights for measuring outcomes and improving processes. He describes transit’s evaluation of public involve- ment as a set of “conclusions drawn by the agency or consultants, which measure success either by the degree to which the agency’s activity is viewed favorably by the public or the extent to which the agency’s program or plans proves acceptable to the stakeholders” and recommends an assessment based on mechanisms, not techniques. Mechanisms are defined as surveys, focus groups, public com- ments, public hearings, public education efforts, and interacting with consumer advisory commit- tees. In view of the need for public involvement in transportation decision making, Szyliowicz rec- ommends that transit begin now to evaluate cur- rent practices to identify the most effective ways to develop and sustain authentic public involvement. chapter 4 caSe StuDieS This chapter provides a detailed look at five tran- sit agencies and the outreach strategies and engage- ment techniques used to develop partnerships with

30 underrepresented communities. The agencies were selected based on the literature review, evaluation of their own outreach strategies and relationships with underrepresented groups, and their willingness to participate in qualitative interviews. The interviews highlight best practices and a variety of relation- ships, which respondents describe as partnerships. In reality, these collaborations vary from strictly advisory collaborations to the absence of a formal advisory committee. Key themes and strategies for outreach to dis- ability and underrepresented communities identi- fied in the literature review and survey data emerged during the in-depth interviews. The interviews pro- vided a better understanding of the strategies and best practices identified in the literature review and the survey data by providing personal accounts of how the strategies were implemented and the les- sons learned. The most significant findings pro- vided the identification of the various definitions and implications of partnership and the identifica- tion and transferability of outreach strategies used by industries outside of transit. lane tranSit DiStrict (ltD)— eugene, oregon background Lane Transit District (LTD) has been provid- ing fixed-route service to the Eugene-Springfield and surrounding Oregon communities since 1970. LTD provides an average of more than 38,000 trips each weekday and serves as the regional coordi- nator under the Oregon model for human services transportation. Eugene, Oregon, is a college community that has traditionally embraced diversity. Lane Transit District’s relationship with the disability commu- nity dates back to the agency’s inception in 1970. By 1980, a decade before the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), LTD equipped buses with lifts and solicited advice on equipment design from the local disability community. All LTD routes became fully accessible in 1985. Accessibility has to be in the forefront of your mind, and you have to keep it there. In the mid 1980s, the state of Oregon passed leg- islation to provide transportation for senior citizens and people with disabilities. The state DOT required coordination with people with disabilities and rela- tionships with local communities. At that time, the Special Issues Committee, now the Accessible Transportation Committee, was formed. The com- mittee provides advice and testing on equipment selection, vehicle design, and a range of accessibil- ity issues and acts as a public information body. Its role is “very interactive with LTD,” but advisory. The committee does not have decision-making power. However, Lane places a high value on the committee’s contributions and very often follows its advice. partnerships LTD places high value on public involvement and credits its commitment to diversity as part of its corporate culture. LTD’s board of directors is diverse and the Diversity Council maintains rela- tionships with a number of community agencies. Sensitivity training is ongoing and required for all Lane employees. Lane maintains contracts with human services agencies, understanding the importance of mean- ingful engagement, so that the agencies understand the limitations of transit. LTD has formed partner- ships with non-profits and social services agencies to work with people with disabilities and bridge the gap between human services and transportation. Alternative Work Concepts is a small non-profit that assists people with disabilities enter the job market by offering services that meet the needs of their clientele and support them in a way that makes them more independent and able to keep a job. The non-profit works along with LTD to pro- vide transit training and conducts paratransit eligi- bility functional assessments for LTD applicants. Senior and Disabled Services field caseworkers conduct the assessments in applicants’ homes. Lane has engaged the agencies to work on their behalf, thus strengthening the partnership and presence in the community. It’s that keeping in step with that changing nature of who is disenfranchised and who is underrepresented, and it evolves. It emerges.

31 With its early roots in coordination, LTD main- tains a very interactive relationship with the dis- ability community, which has been strengthened over the last 30 years. Lane’s outreach approach to people with disabilities extends beyond physical dis- abilities and includes people with various cognitive disabilities. LTD has formed partnerships with local taxi companies that serve that population. The taxis provide transportation to people with cognitive dis- abilities who are unable to navigate both fixed-route and paratransit service. The State of Oregon allows transit agencies to act as coordinated call centers. In 2008, LTD created the RideSource Call Center to further improve coordination and simplify access for people who need transportation that requires unique features or fulfills an agency standard. Ride Source uses a combination of public, non-profit, and private transportation providers with LTD to manage the following programs: 1. Pearl Buck pre-school transportation for children of parents with disabilities, 2. Non-emergency medical transportation for eligible riders, 3. Senior and disabled services community transportation, 4. Lane County developmental work trans- portation, 5. Volunteer escorts for seniors, 6. RideSource complementary paratransit. LTD was a sponsor of the recent event, “Con- necting Communities,” that included over 200 elected officials, community stakeholders, and citi- zens. The program discussed creating quality growth and walkable urban areas. LTD’s continued success in reaching underrepresented communities involves admitting mistakes early and creating an environ- ment built on trust and respect. “The whole issue of trust pays for itself. You have to do the right thing.” ct tranSit—hartForD, connecticut background CT Transit is unique, in that the agency is owned by the State of Connecticut and under contract to the Partnership is probably a more formal idea than collaborative, which is a term we use a lot. And, we do a lot of that. state DOT. It dates back 30 years, when the State of Connecticut purchased the assets of a private com- pany that managed three separate transit operations in the cities of Hartford, Stanford, and New Haven. Although CT Transit is responsible to the state DOT, there is no board of directors or elected officials to which the staff report. This arrangement has created a unique relationship with riders, because there is no formal advisory board or formal policy-making seat at the table. partnerships CT Transit describes its relationship as an infor- mal partnership because the agency is “sensitive to their needs and open to communication.” However, the actual working relationship is more informal and collaborative. The formal advisory committee, the Connecti- cut Public Transportation Commission (CPTC), is appointed by the governor and listens to issues from riders and constituents. The committee’s makeup is diverse and it communicates informally with the state DOT and other transit operators. They hold for- mal meetings around the state on specific topics and invite the public to voice their concerns. CT Transit maintains informal contact with the CPTC. How- ever, the committee’s main objective is the formal report it presents to the state legislature, outlin- ing the issues raised during the public outreach meetings. CT Transit’s service review commit- tee reviews every service recommendation made by the public. “If somebody says ‘I wish the bus came past my house 5 minutes earlier because I could make a better connection to the train,’ we’ll investigate that recommendation and consider it at service review.” CT Transit has been at the forefront of providing transportation to jobs since the 1990s. The People to Jobs Regional Transportation Task Force is a collaborative effort that resulted from the need to improve access to jobs for low-income individuals, those transitioning into the workforce as a result of welfare reform, and anyone who depends on public transportation. CT Transit, in partnership with vari- ous community organizations, local government, The public outreach is a very important part of everything we do.

32 ride-sharing programs, the MPO, and workforce development organizations, enhanced services to reduce the barrier of transportation to employment. The effort became an early model in workforce development and community outreach, specifically focusing on transportation for a transit-dependent population. The People to Jobs initiative was designed to improve service to underrepresented communi- ties. It was a collaborative process with a number of different organizations working together. “It’s all been for the common good and that’s why the jobs access was so successful. It’s in that same spirit that we do service planning and community outreach.” Successful Strategies Meeting Notices on Buses and Website. Connecti- cut is divided into 169 towns; collaboration occurs on a regional basis. Some of the larger cities, for example, Hartford, are the most diverse regarding ethnicity and language. These areas, surrounded by more affluent communities, are also the most transit-dependent areas. The Hartford region alone is composed of 28 towns with just one transit sys- tem serving the entire population. The collaborative process is critical, given that those most in need of transit are concentrated in a very small area, and the larger population may not consider access to transit a priority. CT Transit’s outreach strategies need to reach a wide population. The agency places meeting notices on buses and its website. In-Person Events. The agency conducts “bus forums” to allow community stakeholders the opportunity to interact with management and, if possible, contribute ideas. Reach Out to Employers. To encourage transit ridership and alternatives to private cars, outreach extends to community groups and employers in collaboration with the DOT, the MPO, and state contractors. The term is BORPSAT: a bunch of the right people sitting around a table. That’s how things get done in the real world. lessons learned Lack of Funding. Bus routes in Hartford all con- verge downtown and then fan out like the spokes of a wheel. For riders traveling downtown, the service is excellent from all neighborhoods. However, if a rider wants to travel from the north end of Hartford west, the rider must travel downtown and back out. The challenge for CT Transit was to create better crosstown service from the north end, a largely Afri- can American, Latino, and low-income community. Several neighborhood associations collaborated with CT Transit to advocate for better crosstown service and developed a plan to take to legisla- tors. The collaborative sought funding, however, the community groups were not entirely cohesive and considerable time was spent “getting the right people to the table.” The legislators did not fund the new route. The process, as well as CT Transit’s collaboration with the community was successful. Not all of the communities were agreeable to what they wanted, and the process lacked appropriate funding. pace Suburban buS—arlington heightS, illinoiS background PACE was created in 1984 as a consolidation of smaller transit properties outside of the City of Chicago. The consolidated agency began operations as the Suburban Bus Division of the Regional Trans- portation Authority, which was renamed PACE. In 2006, the state legislature designated PACE as the sole provider of ADA paratransit services, which includes the City of Chicago. A 13-member board of directors, composed of current and former mayors, and the commissioner of the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, uniquely governs PACE. The service area includes six counties that incorporate 264 municipalities. The routes serve 200 communities in and around the Chicago area. There are certainly strategies where you try to get all the right people together and you come up with a really good idea and then there’s just no money.

33 partnerships Accessibility has always been a priority at PACE, which provided dial-a-ride and vanpool ser- vices for people with disabilities prior to the passage of the ADA. The initial vanpool program transported people with disabilities to work at sheltered work- shops. PACE also became responsible for providing paratransit service in Chicago while continuing the vanpool program. PACE works closely with its citizen advisory group. They define the relationship as “strictly advi- sory.” The relationship has evolved since acquiring the Chicago paratransit service. It was during those early hearings that the committee put forth their expectations and held PACE accountable for meet- ing them. The initial collaboration was contentious. The committee does not make formal decisions, but PACE does reach a level of consent based on the committee’s feedback. The advisory commit- tee clearly has influence with regard to services changes and hours of operation. Members consult on various issues and, upon request, test equipment. PACE’s history of working with human services agencies also pre-dates the ADA. Over the years, the relationship with sheltered workshops devel- oped into partnerships that continue today. PACE has a strong partnership with the Chicago area cen- ters for independent living. The centers have been instrumental in getting the word out when PACE needs to reach its customers with disabilities. The centers have their own websites, newsletters, and presence on local radio outlets. Successful Strategies PACE has traditionally engaged in varied com- munity outreach. As the Chicago service began, the PACE staff reached out to the city’s 50 wards in 50 days. The agency continues to hold a num- ber of public meetings that allow riders to express We were holding public hearings and meet- ings before the ADA required it. It’s the right thing to do. We didn’t need to be told to do it. We go beyond what a traditional transit agency would do. concerns and suggest improvements. PACE utilizes various strategies, as reported in the interview. In-Person Events. The in-depth interview revealed that in-person events were the most productive form of community outreach. PACE had some challenges when reaching out to its substantial Latino popu- lation. They maintain a business relationship with Toyota Park, an area soccer stadium that serves a large Latino market. In addition, Arlington Race Track organizes a yearly event that is heavily pro- moted in the Latino community. PACE uses these opportunities to successfully reach out to area Lati- nos and promote PACE services. Faith-Based Groups. Community- and faith-based groups are typically effective in reaching underrep- resented groups. Mutual trust between leaders and stakeholders exists, and these leaders also advocate for the community. PACE has found their relation- ships with faith-based groups essential in reaching minority communities. Some of the organizations have included PACE’s written materials in their newsletters and promotional materials. “The role of the faith-based groups in minority communities has been absolutely effective for us to communicate with our riders and non-riders alike.” Print and Electronic Media. PACE must, by stat- ute, publish information in area newspapers. How- ever, newspaper advertising has only been effective in dual-language, Spanish/English publications. The advertisements and announcements placed on local Spanish-speaking radio stations have proven much more successful. Ethnic media outlets are key in reaching out to minorities, because the pro- gramming is tailored to the needs of the language and community. PACE also places car cards announcing public hearings on all fixed-route buses and drop seats on paratransit vehicles. They notify the public of work- shops via written letter, website, and email. The agency maintains an email opt-in system. PACE serves over 200 communities and also includes written notices in their newsletters. Many of the human services agency contacts are principals in their respective agencies and instrumental in get- ting the word out to people with disabilities through email listserves. The Ability Expo is a large-scale forum featuring products, services, and workshops

34 for people with disabilities, which also allows PACE to distribute materials through its mailing list. Social Media and Text Messaging. JJ’s List is a local website that allows people with disabilities to post reviews of Chicago area businesses and ser- vices. PACE has partnered with the site, which has a sizable presence with the local disability commu- nity. PACE also posts on social forums such as Face- book and Twitter. In an attempt to reach Latino riders, PACE held a series of Spanish language focus groups. The moderator noticed that the participants were con- stantly checking their smart phones. When asked, they reported that text messaging was their primary method of communication. PACE now sends infor- mation through text messaging, which has been key in reaching minority populations. Cultural Competence. Cultural competence ex- tends beyond diversity. A thorough understanding of cultural norms and nuances is essential for effec- tive outreach. PACE has a large Latino population and has enlisted several outreach strategies to en- gage this group. The agency is mindful when creat- ing messages in Spanish and those geared to other limited-English-speaking groups. Messages and advertising are not literally translated, but rewritten to maintain cultural contexts. Simply translating a message or using the same imagery across cultures is not always effective. For example, a middle-class white household may respond to advertising with either a male or female family member. In contrast, if the same message is intended for a Latino mar- ket, an image of the entire family may prove more effective. They are considering the use of cultural consultants and subject matter experts to gain more insight into culturally competent messaging. Span- ish translators, bilingual staff, and American Sign Language interpreters are present at public meetings and hearings. However, Latino riders do not typi- cally attend meetings. Word of Mouth. Although PACE utilizes technol- ogy to reach out to underrepresented communities, more traditional methods, such as word of mouth, re- main successful. PACE’s board of directors is unique; it is composed of current and former mayors, as well as the current commissioner for the Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities. The collaboration with the disability community is strong. Many of the sheltered workshops, centers for independent living, and special recreation districts use phone trees and often share service change and meeting information. lessons learned Newspaper Advertising. With the exception of bilingual, Spanish/English newspapers, this par- ticular form of outreach was ineffective. The cost of key placement is expensive compared to alter- nate outreach methods, such as radio advertising or in-person events. Billboard Advertising. Billboard advertising also proved difficult, due to difficulty in securing key lo- cations and multiple, well-placed billboards. In addi- tion, the interview respondents reported that minority communities are already saturated with billboard ad- vertising and may be immune to new media. Webinars. Webinars have not produced the intended results. Poor attendance and a lack of publicity were cited as reasons. challenges Reaching the Asian community has been a chal- lenge. PACE has provided information to that com- munity and outreach to senior citizens. However, lack of trust, as well as lack of trusted liaisons has resulted in disappointing results. The language bar- rier, given the varied Asian languages, also contrib- utes to the lack of Asian community involvement. SoutheaStern pennSylvania tranSportation authority (Septa)— philaDelphia, pennSylvania background The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is the fifth largest overall transit system in the United States, serving 3.9 million peo- ple on and around the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area. SEPTA is one of only two U.S. transit authori- ties that operates all of the five major types of transit Anything that is not researched, or without insight and some kind of cultural knowledge, is relatively ineffective. . . .

35 vehicles: bus, subway and elevated rail, commuter rail, light rail, and electric trolley bus. Created by the Pennsylvania legislature in 1963, SEPTA is gov- erned by a 15-member board of directors. SEPTA has a formal citizen’s advisory committee (CAC) that is part of their enabling legislation and it has representatives from five counties. Two counties have appointed individuals with disabilities to sit on this committee. partnerships SEPTA has been committed to accessibility issues since the 1970s. The agency has maintained a relationship with its independent advisory com- mittee since that time, nearly 20 years before the passage of the ADA. The SEPTA Advisory Committee (SAC) is a citizen-run, community advisory committee of cus- tomers with disabilities and disability advocates who represent riders and 50 disability service organiza- tions. SAC members provide advice regarding facil- ities, equipment, and service accessibility issues, and they contribute to making decisions. SEPTA refers to the relationship as a partnership, but defines it as collaboration. The committee contributes to the decision-making process and has evolved into that of a valuable ally. The committee provides “hours and hours of free consulting” on a variety of accessibility issues, including capital projects, station inspections, vehi- cle testing, and most recently, creation of the SEPTA Accessible Travel Center. “The disability commu- nity asked for it and we gave it to them.” The center includes a mockup of a SEPTA bus and allows pas- sengers with disabilities to practice safe boarding, use audiovisual teaching materials, and familiarize themselves with SEPTA vehicles (Geiger, 2012). In addition, SEPTA makes a point of inviting the SAC to county planning meetings and events, where SEPTA staff provide information on new projects and initiatives. “They are some of our most valu- able allies and really our partners, because there is no community more transit-dependent than the disability community.” SAC involvement extends It’s being inclusive and it’s recognizing that everybody can have something useful or valu- able to say. beyond compliance issues. For example, they are instrumental in new vehicle testing and develop- ing specifications for new vehicles. That input also extends to facilities and stations. Every 2 to 3 years, SAC submits a list of stations that need accessibility updates, a recommendation SEPTA takes seriously. “The SAC actually has power. It is not a rubber stamp relationship.” Successful Strategies Value Stakeholder Input. SEPTA has created an inclusive environment, which is instrumental in forming community partnerships. The staff at SEPTA worked to transform a once adversarial re- lationship into an alliance by valuing the opinions of their stakeholders. The SAC members realize that their input is valued and respected. “We make them a part of the process.” SAC members are often in- vited to SEPTA events: area disability awards cer- emonies, NTI (National Transit Institute) training, and APTA meetings. Community Events. SEPTA reaches out to the dis- ability and minority communities through regular community events (e.g., health fairs and commu- nity days with local elected officials). The agency believes in getting out and meeting people on their own turf. Establish Trust and Maintain Respect. “Trust is built not on big talk, but on a lot of small, individual actions, over and over.” Respect is a ground rule for all interactions and meetings at SEPTA. Provide Meeting Space. Meeting the needs of the SAC and, therefore, meeting the needs of the com- munity, is critical. SEPTA staff ensure that meeting space is always available when the committee re- quests it. In addition, operation staff must be present to address concerns. Service committee members deal with issues regarding late arrivals, outages, etc. Follow up on Complaints. If a SEPTA passenger files a complaint, staff and management not only Look for ways that you can involve these com- munities where their input can be meaningful. Those are easy wins for everyone.

36 address it, they look for ways to personalize the issue. For example, if a passenger with a disability has difficulty boarding, he or she may have the op- tion of practicing boarding skills at the Accessible Transit Center. Operations staff must attend meet- ings and are involved in problem solving until a resolution is reached. Cultural Competence. Philadelphia is extremely diverse, as are most urban areas. African-Americans and Latinos are represented on the SAC and in com- munity organizations. SEPTA remains committed to creating “an atmosphere of respect and collabora- tion” with its community partners. In-house bilingual staff, as well as a minority outreach coordinator, are active in reaching out to minority groups. SEPTA’s website is available in over 30 languages. Social Media. SEPTA has a presence on social media—Facebook, Twitter, and instructional pod- casts on iTunes are some of the social media strat- egies used. SEPTA’s website is available in over 30 languages. challenges Even with the various methods of outreach and attention to diversity, the Asian community is dif- ficult to reach. The interview respondent cited the numerous languages and subcultures within the Asian community as two factors that have made outreach challenging. In addition, although overall Asian ridership is significant, some Asian commu- nities in the Philadelphia area are affluent and may not utilize public transit. SEPTA has made attempts to reach out to Asian seniors without measurable success. SounD tranSit—Seattle, waShington background Sound Transit is a regional transit agency cre- ated in 1996 by a vote of the people. The agency connects communities in King, Pierce, and Sno- homish counties. Sound Transit partners with King County, Community Transit in Snohomish County, and Pierce Transit. It operates express bus, com- muter rail, and light rail service in the region and constructs capital projects in support and expansion of those services. partnerships Sound Transit’s Citizens’ Accessibility Advisory Committee was chartered in 1999 and advises the transit agency on regional mobility and accessibil- ity issues, vehicle and facilities design, signage, and enhancing services to people with disabilities. Their role is advisory; they do not have decision-making power. The work of the committee does not replace other Sound Transit outreach or public involvement efforts. Sound Transit staff will include the com- mittee’s input in its decision-making process. Final decisions remain with the Sound Transit Board of Directors and staff. Sound refers to its community relationships as partnerships, because of the quality of the relation- ships. “Mutual respect and trust are the foundations of the partnerships.” Reaching out to underrep- resented communities has been a policy at Sound Transit since its inception in 1996. Successful Strategies Targeted Outreach. Sound Transit is both an op- erating agency and a capital agency. As the agency continues to build light rail, it engages in construction- related outreach as well as operational outreach. This outreach, therefore, is varied and tailored to each specific community. For example, the initial light rail line from downtown Seattle toward the airport ran through some of the lowest income communities in Seattle. Those neighborhoods were also densely populated with citizens who spoke limited English. Sound Transit identified 10 to 12 dominant lan- guages in the community and worked through com- munity centers that served each respective culture. An additional segment of the rail line extends through the district near the University of Washington, a very dif- ferent demographic that required a technically savvy outreach strategy. Inform Each Community of Major Changes. In the fall of 2012, Sound Transit will eliminate its Including people with disabilities has always been a policy . . . it’s just the nature of the company. It’s the right thing to do. One community, one approach.

37 free ride program. The change will substantially affect the ridership, especially low-income riders and those with disabilities. In addition to the obvi- ous financial impact, this change will alter transit patterns because everyone will now have to board at the front of the bus. The current challenge for Sound Transit is developing strategies to inform communities and tailor their strategies accordingly. The transit agency teams with a number of human services providers that assist the homeless, limited- English-speaking citizens, and people with disabili- ties. They work through the homeless coalition and other agencies and groups to disseminate informa- tion to social workers that often provide information and training to their clients. People with disabilities who need travel training and those organizations are also targeted in the outreach. Sound works with Lighthouse for the Blind and the Asian Counsel- ing and Referral Service, among others, to inform customers with disabilities of changes. The agency reaches out to social workers to educate their re- spective client base. lessons learned Cultural Competence. Sound Transit appreci- ates the complexity of cultural competence. In an attempt to provide smartcard technology to immi- grant communities, the agency learned that the tra- ditional means of disseminating information were proving ineffective. In certain immigrant groups, the main users of transit are women and children. Yet, the social structure for reaching those groups and providing information is mediated through the men of the culture. Therefore, Sound would present the information to the men, but they would not relay it to their families, because of cultural mistrust of government. Sound has been working with the City of Seattle and utilizing their strategy of outreach liaisons. chapter 5 the guiDebook The purpose of this guidebook is to assist transit agencies in developing partnerships with the dis- ability and underrepresented minority groups. It contains specific outreach strategies and suggestions Tailor your outreach efforts to each specific culture because one size does not fit all. that can be used by transit personnel and includes “how to” approaches and information on developing partnerships with the aforementioned communities. backgrounD Community involvement is crucial to the suc- cess of transportation services and required by law. However, reaching out to diverse and underrepre- sented communities, as well as obtaining their input, often meets with a number of challenges. The goal of this research was to develop a resource guide that includes best practices that lead to productive relationships with the disability and underrepresented groups. A national survey was developed and adminis- tered to document the experiences of transit agencies in reaching and engaging the participation of minor- ity and underrepresented communities with regard to developing partnerships and public involvement. The study revealed key factors for establishing effective partnerships and identified communica- tion as the primary factor in establishing effective and sustainable partnerships and community col- laborations. Mutual trust is an essential component and a primary objective of the public involvement process. Building trust with the public also requires respecting and understanding cultural differences (cultural competence). Establishing trust between communities that may traditionally be skeptical of government is a common obstacle in the formation of partnerships. There often exists an understandable mistrust toward members of the dominant culture by historically oppressed and/or underrepresented groups. Transparency at the agency level, as well as communication and respect for cultural differ- ences, are essential when reaching out to under- represented communities. This proved to be a recurring factor with the case study agencies and the partner agencies. caSe StuDy highlightS The purpose of the second phase of the struc- tured interviews was soliciting first-hand informa- tion about developing partnerships with disability and minority communities. Conducted with key rep- resentatives of transit agencies and others knowl- edgeable in disability and best practices in minority outreach and successful partnerships and collabo- ration, the interviews did not reveal any new data.

38 However they highlighted “best practices” regard- ing outreach strategies. The case studies presented offer examples of what agencies have defined as best practices and lessons learned when reaching out to underrepresented groups. The following tran- sit systems were selected for the in-depth interview: •• CT Transit, Hartford, Connecticut; •• Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, Houston, Texas; •• Lane Transit District, Eugene, Oregon; •• PACE Suburban Bus, Arlington Heights, Illinois; •• Sound Transit, Seattle, Washington; •• SEPTA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and •• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Author- ity (WMATA) Washington, D.C. The agencies’ relationships with advisory com- mittees vary from formal relationships to the absence of any advisory committee. There is a wide variation in the make-up and organizational structure of citi- zens’ advisory committees. The interview participants considered the quality of the partnership or collabora- tion more important than the actual definition. Two of the interviewees referred to their advisory committees as valuable allies. Industries outside of transit also utilize strategies that are effective for connecting with, and maintaining, continuous communication with underserved commu- nities. This is achieved by informing key stakeholders and organizations of events, status reports, and any other information that may be relevant to the com- munity. In addition, the partners reported that the first step to connecting with the target market is to develop relationships with other organizations that serve them. The agencies place high value on public involve- ment and most credit their commitment to diversity as part of their corporate culture. The boards of directors are diverse and they often have diversity councils that maintain relationships with commu- nity agencies. Sensitivity training is on going and required for employees; and hiring practices reflect their commitment to diversity. Several of the agen- cies also formed partnerships with non-profits and social services agencies to work with people with dis- abilities and bridge the gap between human services and transportation. Community and in-person events were, by far, the most successful strategies used to engage under- represented groups. Attention to cultural differences and ongoing diversity training were also priorities for each agency. The impact of technology and social media is a more recent development and suc- cessful strategy when reaching large numbers of citizens. However, some groups may have limited access to social media. Outreach to Asian American communities proved challenging for several agencies. Numer- ous languages and sub-cultures within the Asian community were cited as barriers. In addition, the social structure for reaching the transit riders within a family are often unclear. In one example, a transit agency targeted the men of the family, although the women and children were more likely to ride tran- sit. The agency relied on the men to mediate and present their information. However, the men were distrustful of government and failed to relay mes- sages to their families. The use of cultural liaisons and representatives from within immigrant cultures proved successful. organizational Structure The steps each agency takes to develop its part- nerships may vary. However, defining the organi- zational structure of the collaboration in the early stages will assist in defining the scope and purpose of the project. Examples of some possible processes and relationships include the following: •• Communication: Information, data, or knowl- edge regarding issues and projects is exchanged so that it is satisfactorily received or understood by the receiving parties. •• Coordination: Stakeholders communicate information on how and when each partner must act in order to achieve effective common results. •• Cooperation: Stakeholders work together to achieve a common goal or objective in car- rying out transportation planning, program- ming, and delivery processes. •• Advisory: Committees may be a form of col- laboration if their advice is closely linked to decision-making outcomes. In practice (and often by design), advisory committees are often far removed from actual decision making. •• Partnership: Partners are egalitarian (have equal power), understand, and respect what everyone brings to the table and usually have the authority to make decisions for the entity

39 that they represent. Effective partnerships have a strong leader who champions the part- nership and its vision and goals. outreach to unDerrepreSenteD groupS Step 1. Define goals and objectives Developing clear goals and objectives will ulti- mately strengthen outreach techniques and clarify problems, issues, and opportunities in developing relationships with underrepresented groups. Well- defined goals and objectives are simply more likely to succeed. An important consideration is that the agency distinguishes the stakeholders’ actual needs from the agency’s perception of stakeholder needs and concerns. The essential steps in developing goals and objectives include overall focus, vision, and direc- tion. The vision provides a focus for completing a community assessment. It summarizes the outcomes and “wish list” for the partnership and reflects the perspective of the group it represents. A mission statement communicates the partnership’s purpose and mission. The language should be inclusive and the statement should include strategies with which to achieve the vision. Goals are broad reaching while objectives are more realistic steps to achieve goals, are measurable, and clear to everyone. Goals should also remain specific and identify the target audience and include those who will be involved in the process. An impor- tant consideration is to define the goals the agency thinks the stakeholders expect versus the actual goals the stakeholders expect. Step 2. conduct a needs assessment The purpose of a community assessment is to develop an understanding of the context in which the citizens live, important issues, opinions, strengths, and weaknesses. A needs assessment is a method used to gather information essential to developing partnerships. Engagement techniques for citizens of under- represented groups often require coordinated strat- egy. Such strategies begin with an understanding of Why is a partnership needed to accomplish this goal? the context in which stakeholders live. An accurate assessment needs to produce a clear picture of the community with respect to political, social, and economic factors. Determining what members of underrepresented groups think and feel about issues that affect them will help guide the strategy for collaboration. The most successful community assessments begin with a vision of future outcomes and allow questions to drive the process. Methods for assess- ing the needs of the community include, but are not limited to the following: •• Focus groups, •• Interviews, •• Surveys, •• Community mapping, and •• Public meetings. Step 3. identify leaders and Stakeholders There is no single approach to engaging underrepre- sented groups and people with disabilities in the pub- lic involvement process. The strategies are often as diverse as the communities they serve, and “success” is defined on an individual basis. Members of underrepresented groups may, for a number of reasons, remain “out of the loop” with regard to community issues. Alternative work schedules, access to adequate childcare, and trans- portation are a few factors that may prevent active community involvement. In addition, citizens may not be aware of opportunities to get involved or understand what may be expected of them. Given that members of underrepresented groups have a history of being ignored, they may believe that their involvement will not make a difference. Community, religious, and tribal leaders are often the most influential members and experts of each community. Community organizations often reflect the needs and concerns of the community. Leaders possess a trusting relationship with the communi- ties they serve and their participation is essential in building credibility and confidence with underrep- resented groups. They also possess knowledge and history of issues or problems that may exist. Who can be effec- tive in bringing about the vision and mission of the partnership?

40 Stakeholders include community groups, envi- ronmental groups, school systems, universities, residents, and local businesses. They are identified through steering and advisory committees, working groups, surveys, newsletters, and personal meetings with key players. Therefore, diversity of the stake- holders is essential. Identifying stakeholders may prove challenging. Various outreach methods include the following: •• Create a stakeholder list and possibly conduct a stakeholder analysis. •• Identify a person to “champion” the project or outreach efforts. Find the people who have influence and understand the needs of the underrepresented group. •• Identify the opinion leaders and “links” of the community. Ensure that those identified as stakeholders are representative of the group. •• Recruit emerging, as well as established, lead- ers to ensure a variety of perspectives. •• Reach out to those most affected by the issues. It is important to make stakeholders allies in the process. For example, Lane Transit Dis- trict maintains a very interactive relationship with the disability community, which has been strengthened over the last 30 years. The com- mittee provides advice and testing on equip- ment selection, vehicle design, and a range of accessibility issues, and acts as a public infor- mation body. It remains an important ally in the public participation process. Step 4. build cultural competence Challenges often exist in outreach to, identify- ing, and engaging mem- bers from disability and under represented minor- ity communities. Com- munication is the basic tool that the agency can use to unite people. Cultural, attitudinal, and language barriers may limit or prevent the participation of individuals from underrepresented communities. It involves, at a minimum, developing an awareness of the stakeholders’ cultural viewpoints, values, beliefs, and problem-solving skills. Cultural competence is an ongoing process and develops over time. Organizations and individuals begin at varying levels of awareness on the cultural competence continuum. As many educational, social, Create an environ- ment that will allow the greatest diversity of people to participate. and governmental institutions experience shifting demographics, generational differences, and a changing customer base, organizations are identify- ing best practices for supporting those customers to bridge cultural gaps. Cultural competence requires that organizations •• Have a defined set of values and principles and demonstrate behaviors, attitudes, poli- cies, and structures that enable them to work effectively cross-culturally; •• Have the capacity to (1) value diversity, (2) con duct cultural self-assessment, (3) be conscious of the inherent dynamics when cul- tures interact, (4) acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge, and (5) develop adaptations to service delivery reflecting an understanding of diversity between and within cultures; and •• Incorporate all of the above in all aspects of policymaking, administration, and service delivery, and systematically involve consum- ers (Goode 2001). Development of communication tools not only helps to build partnerships, it bridges many cultural gaps. Some stakeholders come from cultures that do not encourage self-disclosure, confrontation, or questioning authority. Allow sufficient time and appropriate activities to help people get to know each other. Cross-cultural and ongoing diversity training of staff is essential. Arrange for bilingual translators or volunteers for meetings and activities. In addition, build a network of cultural and community experts who can provide insight and trust advocacy to diverse stakeholders. One of the most effective ways to build trust and handle mis- information is to utilize trusted advocates from within underrepresented communities. In an effort to increase participation of underrepresented groups—especially immigrant communities—in the neighborhood planning pro- cess and shape communities with involvement from the bottom up, the City of Seattle, Department of Planning, and several local government agen- cies created the Planning Outreach Liaison (POL) Model. The model bridges the gap between the city and communities of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, seniors, and other underrepresented groups because they share language, culture, and/ or ethnicity with their respective communities. They are able to establish connections and insights

41 into the community’s needs and ultimately shape a neighborhood plan reflective of each community. The City of Seattle recruited and hired 13 cul- tural liaisons from within diverse communities to conduct engagement and outreach activities. The liaisons reached over 1,200 stakeholders in South- east Seattle neighborhoods by facilitating workshops in each community’s language, translating written materials, and providing childcare and cultural food from local businesses. They chose culturally appro- priate settings for workshops (e.g., libraries, com- munity centers, churches, and high schools) instead of city offices. Step 5. maintain open communication Respondents who completed the online survey cited trust and communication as the most important factors in establishing partnerships. Effective com- munication, where stakeholders’ voices are heard and roles are clearly defined, creates a sense of ownership and respect. Communication can be a complicated process and a great deal can go wrong. Listening to each other and developing a common language must remain a priority. Communication has both an inter- nal and an external role in the formation of partner- ships and collaborations. Mutual trust, understanding, and information sharing are building blocks of effec- tive communication. Communication is also essential to build and fos- ter trust, especially with underrepresented groups, which are often distrustful of government. Building and maintaining trust with underrepresented groups can make the difference between failure and success. Use Every Opportunity to Build Relationships “Trust is built not on big talk, but on a lot of small, individual actions, over and over.” Respect is a ground rule for all interactions and meetings at SEPTA. When a SEPTA passenger files a complaint, staff and management not only address it, they look for ways to personalize the issue. For example, if a passenger with a disabil- ity has difficulty boarding, he or she may have the option of practicing boarding skills at the Acces- sible Transit Center. Operations staff must attend External communica- tion should include a strategy for outreach linked to the overall strategic plan. meetings and are involved in problem solving, until a resolution is reached. Communication on all levels of inter action is essential to the success of any collaboration or partnership. Inform Each Community of Major Changes. In the fall of 2012, Sound Transit will eliminate its free area ride program. The change will substantially affect the ridership, especially low-income riders and those with disabilities. In addition to the obvious financial impact, this change will alter transit pat- terns, because everyone will now have to board at the front of the bus. The current challenge for Sound Transit is devel- oping strategies to inform communities and tailor their strategies accordingly. The transit agency teams with a number of human services providers that assist the homeless, limited English-speaking citizens, and people with disabilities. They work through the homeless coalition and other agencies and groups to disseminate information to social workers that often provide information and training to their clients. People with disabilities who need travel training and those organizations are also targeted in the outreach. Sound works with Lighthouse for the Blind and the Asian Counseling and Referral Service, among oth- ers, to inform customers with disabilities of changes. The agency reaches out to social workers to educate their respective client base. Step 6. engage underrepresented groups Key themes and strategies for outreach emerged throughout each phase of the research. This section lists the most effective techniques for reaching the disability community and underrepresented groups. Although there is no “one size fits all” approach to outreach, the survey respondents and interviewees consistently cited these strategies as most effective. Community Events. The in-depth interview revealed that in-person events were the most pro- ductive form of community outreach. Transpor- tation and health fairs, bus forums, and sporting events are a few examples. In-person events allow opportunities for transit agencies to interact with citizens personally, in a non-threatening manner. These events also provide opportunities to engage new participation. PACE Suburban Bus uses soccer games and race track events to successfully reach out to area

42 Latinos and promote PACE services. SEPTA reaches out to the disability and minority communities through regular community events such as health fairs and community days with local elected officials. Faith-Based Groups. Community and faith-based groups are typically effective in reaching under- represented groups. Mutual trust between leaders and stakeholders exists, and these leaders also ad- vocate for the community. Some stakeholders may obtain community information through church bul- letins and meetings. Social Media and Text Messaging. Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and various blogs may not reach everyone and some may prefer a more formal means of communication. However, the numbers of users is always increasing and social media provides an instant method of reaching and engaging large groups of people. JJ’s List is a Chicago area website that allows people with disabilities to post reviews of local businesses and services. PACE Suburban Bus has partnered with the site, which has a sizable pres- ence with the local disability community. PACE also posts on social forums such as Facebook and Twitter. The agency also sends information through text messaging, which has been key in reaching minority populations. SEPTA has a presence on social media— Facebook, Twitter, and instructional podcasts on iTunes are some of the social media strategies used. SEPTA’s website is available in over 30 languages. Print and Electronic Media. Ethnic media out- lets are key in reaching out to minorities, because the programming is tailored to the needs of the lan- guage and community. Non-English-speaking popu- lations often obtain information from radio in their native language. Radio, public access television, and local cable stations proved useful to survey respondents. Bilingual newspapers have proven effective, but less effective than radio. Newsletters, websites, and email listserves are effective. Flyers and signs should deliver a coherent message that can be widely disseminated. Culturally Competent Messaging. Although print media remains an effective outreach strategy, its effectiveness is dependent on reaching the target audience. Culturally competent messaging ensures that information is disseminated to underrepresented groups in the language and/or style each group understands. Culturally competent messaging extends beyond translating materials into various languages, which is also essential. Research has shown that the manner in which messages are pre- sented impacts different groups in different ways. Colors, imagery, and context are equally as important as language. For example, a middle-class white household may respond to advertising with either a male or female family member. In contrast, if the same message is intended for a Latino mar- ket, an image of the entire family may prove more effective. Community and Human Services Agencies. The majority of the agencies surveyed maintain relation- ships with human services agencies and understand the importance of meaningful engagement. The human services agencies then understand the limita- tions of transit. Partnerships with non-profits, social services agencies, and disability organizations were very often the first points of contact for forming partnerships. Targeted Outreach. Transit agencies are re- quired to engage the disability community concern- ing changes to para transit service through meetings and public hearings. Survey respondents explained that their relationships with disability advisory com- mittees provided links to other underrepresented groups. In most cases, these relationships began with respect to paratransit issues. According to respondents, this targeted outreach often provided opportunities to connect to additional minority groups. Targeted, strategic outreach is extremely effective, provided that the transit agency under- stands the target audience. Some targeted outreach techniques include •• Interaction with community groups represent- ing underserved residents or communities of color, tailored meetings, customized presen- tation materials, provision of incentives; •• Outreach in the community (flea markets, churches, health centers, etc.); •• Personal interviews or use of audio recording devices to obtain oral comments;

43 •• Translation of materials; having translators available at meetings as requested; and •• Including information on meeting notices regarding how to request translation assistance. Step 7. organize meetings Stakeholder and public meetings are a low-cost method utilized to engage the public. Plan meet- ings early in the process and obtain information and solicit input from the group you are trying to reach. Advanced planning is crucial. Leadership should be alternated to allow the greatest accessibility to diverse stakeholders. Meeting Times and Locations. Meet stakehold- ers “where they are.” Determine the best times to schedule meetings and consider locations that are non-traditional and convenient to public transpor- tation. Determine if meetings will be bilingual. If possible, include childcare and refreshments. Hold- ing meetings on the evenings and on weekends and avoiding major religious and cultural holidays will also help improve participation. Open houses, work- shops, and forums are alternative forms of meetings that are also effective. Meeting agendas need to be clearly defined and reflect the needs of the community. Non-traditional meeting locations include •• High schools, •• Churches, •• Senior centers, •• Local businesses, •• Shopping malls and stores, and •• Public libraries. Ground Rules. Establishing ground rules sets the tone for the collaboration, making the first meeting critical to ensure success. The best ground rules are created by the stakeholders themselves and meet the needs of the group. Ground rules should be revisited regularly and, at a minimum, include •• Respect opinions, values, culture, and ideas; •• Encourage participation; •• Recognize participants’ contributions; •• Include process for sharing leadership; •• Include method for conflict resolution; and •• Clearly identify roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Accessibility. Outreach strategies and meetings must be accessible to people with disabilities. A num- ber of barriers already exist that may inhibit or prevent participation from underrepresented groups. Acces- sibility for people with disabilities is the law. At a minimum, the following accessibility guidelines should be met: •• Meeting notices and announcements should contain a TTY number where stakeholders can request interpretation services and other accommodations. •• Meetings should be designed to allow par- ticipation by those with sensory, physical, and cognitive disabilities. •• Facilities where meetings are held should meet all basic ADA requirements. •• Information should be presented in alternative formats, such as large print, Braille, audio- tape, CD, or assistive listening devices, as requested. •• Qualified sign language interpreters, oral interpreters, and tactile interpreters must be provided, as requested. •• Service animals must be allowed even though pets may be prohibited. An Accessible Meeting Facilities Checklist is provided as Exhibit 3. Step 8. Sustain partnerships Building a successful partnership is an ongo- ing process. Meeting with stakeholders on a regular basis and maintaining open communication are a few techniques utilized in sustaining long-term partnerships and collabora- tions. It is important to think strategically and remain persistent. Since there are no formal processes for evaluat- ing partnerships, agencies may wish to monitor and evaluate outreach efforts to determine the success of public involvement efforts. Up-to-date performance data on outreach activities, including attendance at events, meetings, and other functions, are relatively simple methods of monitoring participation. What does a successful partnership look like?

44 BUILDING ExTERIOR Off-Street Parking/Passenger Loading Zone _____ Number of accessible parking spaces, # Required Spaces _____ _____ *At least one van space, 96″ space with 96″ access aisle/132″ space with 60″, 114″•vertical clearance) _____ Sign at parking space, International Access Symbol, white on blue, “Van Accessible” for van space _____ Built-up curb ramps do not project into access and parking spaces _____ *Level Slope < 1:48, firm, and non-slip surface. Slope < 1:48 _____ *Curb-cut, ramp, or level area to walkway _____ *If surface unpaved, then size of gravel < 0.3 inches _____ Closest parking space to accessible entrance. Crosses vehicular traffic lane? Y_____ N_____ _____ Directional signage to accessible entrance, at non-accessible entrance _____ Passenger drop-off or loading zone with accessible route or travel to building Proximity to Public Transportation _____ Bus stop within 1-2 blocks. Approximate distance_____ Bus available evenings Y_____ N_____ _____ *Level, firm, non-slip surface from bus stop to primary accessible building entrance, maximum slope of 1:12 _____ *Curb cut, ramp, or level area to walkway (see Walkways). Note: handrails required if slope > 1:20 and the rise is > 6″ Walkways _____ 44″ minimum exterior width _____ *Max. slope of 1:12 (up to 1:8 permissible for rises < 3″ and up to 1:10 for rises < 6″) preferably 1″ to 20″ (can carry a latte in your lap and go down ramp without spilling) _____ Level (slope >1:20) or ramped from parking to primary accessible entrance _____ Level, firm, non-slip surface with no drop-offs, grass or soil meet sidewalk _____ Walkways free of obstructions that protrude > 4″ (higher than 27″ or < 80″) _____ Walkways free of grating openings larger than ½″, openings perpendicular to path of travel _____ Threshold ¼″ maximum, or ½″ if beveled Ramps _____ Maximum slope of 1′:12′•(no more than 30′ between landings); slope 1′:20′ (40′ between landings) _____ *Landings at top and bottom of run; landings shall be level and be 60″ in direction of travel _____ *Graspable handrails provided, 34″–38″ high (slope 1:20 or rise < 6″ with no handrails required) _____ Handrails 1½″ diameter and 1½″ from wall _____ Firm, non-slip surface _____ 44″ minimum exterior width Stairways _____ *Graspable handrails provided on both sides, 34″–38″ high, properly secured _____ Handrails 1½″ diameter and 1½″ from wall _____ Uniform riser height and tread width _____ 5′ × 5′ level landings on top and bottom _____ Contrast on stairs and landings _____ Adequate lighting on stairs _____ *No open risers (steps); no hanging stairwells, unless cane detectable barriers are provided underneath exhibit 3 Accessible Meeting Facilities Checklist *Essential for an accessible meeting

45 Entrances _____ *At least one primary entrance accessible, door 32″ clear opening _____ Threshold height ¼″ maximum, ½″ if beveled; if not, actual height is_____ _____ An 18″ clear maneuvering space at the pull side of the door _____ Level and unobstructed area 5′ × 5′ both sides of door _____ Lever or loop-type door handles _____ Door opening pressure 8.5 lbs. maximum, or automatic door openers _____ *Alternate accessible entrance for a revolving door _____ Sign indicating accessible entrance _____ Directional signage at inaccessible entrances designating the accessible entrance BUILDING INTERIOR Interior Doors and Corridors _____ *Firm, non-slip surface (no loose or deep pile carpet, maximum pile thickness < ½″) _____ *Doors have a minimum clear opening width of 32″ _____ *An 18” clear maneuvering space at the pull side of the door _____ *Lever or loop-type handles, path to meeting room _____ *Door pressure 5 lbs. maximum, or automatic door _____ *Corridors have a clear width of 36″ _____ Wall-mounted objects protruding 4″ or greater (located within 27″–80″ from the floor) have barriers detectable by individuals using a white cane. Wall-mounted objects protruding less than 4″ or higher than 80″ from the floor, no detectable barrier required _____ Adequate lighting in corridors, provide uniform illumination Ramps _____ *Maximum slope of 1′:12′ (no more than 30′ of rise between level landings) _____ *5′ × 5′ level landings on top and bottom _____ *Graspable handrails provided, 34″–38″ high _____ *Handrails 1-½″ diameter and 1-½″ from wall _____ *Firm, non-slip surface _____ *36″ minimum interior width Elevators _____ *Door has 36″ minimum clear opening _____ *Size of elevator floor at least 54″ × 68″ _____ *Serves all floors and public meeting areas _____ *Highest control buttons 48″ maximum (54″ built before 2002), emergency controls 35″ _____ *Audible and visible signals, hallway and elevator interior _____ Controls have raised Arabic numerals and Braille identification _____ Exterior call buttons 35″ max _____ Floor levels indicated on door jambs by raised numerals placed no more than 60″ high _____ Elevator doors remain fully open for 5 seconds minimum _____ *Reopening device that will reopen a car door automatically if the door becomes obstructed _____ *Visible and audible signal provided at each entrance to indicate which car is answering a call exhibit 3 (Continued) (continued on next page)*Essential for an accessible meeting

46 Public Telephones (Where Provided) _____ *At least one telephone/floor usable wheelchair accessible open space in front at least 30″ by 48″ _____ *Highest operable part 48″ maximum side or forward approach _____ 27″ high clear knee space _____ Handset cord length at least 29″ _____ All public telephones are required to have volume control _____ TTY in bank of 4 or more Water Fountains (Where Provided) _____ *At least one fountain on accessible route of travel _____ Maximum spout no higher than 36″ from floor _____ Spout located at front of unit with water projecting parallel _____ Hand-operated control (push or lever) within 5″ of the front of the fountain _____ 27″ clear knee space _____ If no knee space, then at least 30″ × 48″ clear floor space provided for parallel approach *Essential for an accessible meeting PUBLIC RESTROOMS Women Men (One restroom may be accessible while another is not, check both.) ______ ______ *On accessible route of travel from or to meeting room ______ ______ *At least one accessible stall in each restroom or unisex restroom available ______ ______ Ambulatory accessible toilet stalls (required when six or more water closets are available in a restroom) ______ ______ *High contrast, non-glare sign, raised and Braille between 48″–60″ from floor, located on latch side of door ______ ______ Signs at inaccessible restrooms giving directions to accessible restrooms ______ ______ *Entry 32″ minimum clear width ______ ______ *Accessible stall doors 32″ minimum clear width ______ ______ *Door pressure 5 lbs. maximum ______ ______ *Stall width 60″ wide × 56″ wall mounted, 60″ × 59″ floor mounted toilet ______ ______ Minimum 48″ width next to toilet on one side ______ ______ *Grab bars side and back, 33″–36″ above and parallel to floor ______ ______ Grab bars 1-½″ diameter and 1-½″ from wall ______ ______ *Toilet seat 17″–19″ high ______ ______ 5′ × 5′ diameter clear floor space to turn around (by mirrors or sink area) ______ ______ Bottom of mirror, top of shelf, towel and all other types of dispensers at 40″ maximum from floor ______ ______ Soap and towel dispensers and hand dryer adjacent to the sink ______ ______ 27″ clear knee space under basin ______ ______ Insulation of exposed pipes under sinks ______ ______ *Lever-type faucets (or auto matic) ______ ______ *Lever-type door hardware, entry door and on accessible stall and urinal ______ ______ Elongated urinal within 17″ of floor exhibit 3 (Continued) *Essential for an accessible meeting

47 MEETING ROOMS AND COMMON USE AREAS Meeting Rooms – Room # / Name of Room: __________________________________________________________________________________ (Please complete for each meeting room to be used.) _____ *Capacity _____ High contrast signage with non-glare finish, raised and Braille at 48″–60″, latch side of door _____ *Ramps for raised platforms, speaking areas _____ Top of table 28″–34″ from floor _____ Clear knee space for tables (minimum 27″ high × 30″ wide × 19″ deep) _____ Public address system with assistive listening equipment _____ Assistive listening equipment (identified by signage) _____ Low noise level (inside and outside) _____ Uniform lighting _____ *Meeting and other functions provided in nonsmoking areas _____ *Firm, non-slip surface (no loose or deep-pile carpet) _____ *If audible, then visible alarm system FIxED SEATING ONLY (AUDITORIUM) _____ For auditoriums, integrated wheelchair seating, a minimum of 1, for 4-25 seats Number of wheelchair spaces required _____ _____ Minimum space 33″ × 48″ for rear or forward access, 33″ × 60″ for side access _____ *Unobstructed viewing position from wheelchair seating _____ Aisles at least 36″ having seating on one side of aisle, 42″ with seating on both sides _____ Integrated seating, people using wheelchairs can sit next to others, accessible seating dispersed throughout auditorium COMMON USE AREAS _____ *Restaurant/coffee shops, gift shops, ATM, lobby, vending machines, copy machines, and other common use areas accessible to persons with disabilities (entrance, seating, counter height, reach range, 48″) Problem Areas:______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____ Audible alarm system _____ Visible alarm system _____ Smoking policy or restrictions in common use areas _____ Maintenance/remodeling at time of meeting _____ Swimming pool access exhibit 3 (Continued) *Essential for an accessible meeting Source: Adapted from Washington State Department of Enterprise Services, http://www.ga.wa.gov/ada/instlist.htm

48 Changing Times 1967. “Who Speaks for the Consumer Now?” The Kiplinger Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 41–44, http://books.google.com/books (as of November 1, 2010). Chess, C. and Purcell, K. 1999. “Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works?” Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 33, No. 16, pp. 2685–2692, doi:10.1021/es980500g. Childress, B.M. 2007. How Transit Agencies Can Improve the Public Involvement Process to Deliver Better Transportation Solutions: A Real-Time Application of Public Engagement Strategies. Master thesis, San Jose State University, http:// www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/education/ alumni/capstones/2007Childress.pdf (as of June 11, 2011). Chrislip, D. and Larson, C. 1994. Collaborative Leader- ship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Corporation for National and Community Service 2009 [Online]. “Building a Blueprint for Change,” http:// www.blueprintforchangeonline.net/index.php (as of June 1, 2011). Costello, D. and Geller, J. 2010. “Health Literacy in Action,” http://www.healthdialog.com/Libraries/ Research_Documents/Health_Literacy_in_Action. sflb.ashx (as of April 1, 2012). CTC & Associates. 2003. “Best Practices for Public Involvement In Transportation Projects” [Online], www.dot.state.wi.us (as of June 11, 2011). Czajkowski, J.M. 2007. “Leading Successful Inter- institutional Collaborations Using the Collaboration Success Measurement Model,” http://www.chair academy.com/conference/2007/papers/leading_ successful_interinstitutional_ collaborations.pdf (as of December 1, 2010). Davis, K. 1997. “Exploring the Intersection between Cul- tural Competency and Managed Behavioral Health Care Policy: Implications for State and County Mental Health Agencies.” Alexandria, VA: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning. Denson, C.R. 2003. “Developing Partnerships between Transit Advisory Committees and Transit Providers.” Newark, DE, Proceedings Forum on Working the Partnership, http://www.udel.edu/cds/downloads/ TransitReport.pdf (as of May 27, 2011). Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. 2002. Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making. U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation. Washington, D.C. Federal Reserve’s Consumer Advisory Council: A Q&A with Governor Gramlich 2003. e-Perspectives, Vol. 3, No. 3., http://www.dallasfed.org/ca/epersp/2003/3_2. cfm (as of November 1, 2010). reFerenceS Adams, E., Gray, K., and Baril, K. 1995. “Ground Rules Equalize Power as Governmental Agencies Manage Citizen Involvement.” Partnerships in Education and Research, WREP 0129, http://cru.cahe.wsu. edu/CEPublications/wrep0129/wrep0129.html (as of May 15, 2011). American Association of Residential Mortgage Regula- tors. Consumer Advisory Council, http://www.aarmr. org/page052.htm (as of November 7, 2010). American Public Transportation Association. 2009. “A Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demo- graphics and Travel Characteristics.” 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book. Washington, D.C. Ansell, C. and Gash, A. 2008. “Collaborative Gover- nance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 543–571. Arnstein, S.R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216–224. ATR Institute, Migliaccio, G.C., Knoebel, G., Martinez, R., Albert, D., and Hurd, J. 2011. NCHRP Report 690: A Guidebook for Successful Communi- cation, Cooperation, and Coordination Strategies between Transportation Agencies and Tribal Commu- nities, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. BART, 2010 Draft Public Participation Plan 2010 [Online], www.bart.gov/guide/ppp.aspx (as of June 7, 2011). Beder, Sharon. 2001. “Public Participation.” Environ- mental Context, http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/ STS300/participation/index.html (as of June 7, 2011). Betancourt, J.R., Green, A.R., and Carrillo, J.E. (2002). Cultural Competence in Health Care: Emerging Frameworks and Practical Approaches, http://www. commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/ Fund-Reports/2002/Oct/Cultural-Competence- in-Health-Care—Emerging-Frameworks-and- Practical-Approaches.aspx (as of December 8, 2010). Black, R. 2006. “Public Participation in Diverse Com- munities: Tools for Consensus Building,” Paper #06-2580, Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Partnership Ques- tions and Answers, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ prog/more/partnerships_home/tools/Frequent_ Questions/frequent_questions.html#A1 (as of June 9, 2010). Capozzi, D.M. 1990. “Project ACTION: Moving toward Demonstration Projects for Accessible Public Transit Systems.” Paraplegia News, pp. 1–3.

49 Frey, W.H., Berube, A., Singer, A. Wilson, J.H. 2009. “Getting Current: Recent Demographic Trends in Metropolitan America.” The Brookings Insti- tution, Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, D.C. Giering, S. 2011. TCRP Synthesis 89: Public Participation Strategies for Transit. A Synthesis of Transit Prac- tice. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Goode, T.D. 2001. “Engaging Communities to Real- ize the Vision of One Hundred Percent Access and Zero Health Disparities: A Culturally Competent Approach.” Policy Brief Series, pp. 1–9. Wash- ington D.C.: The National Center for Cultural Competence. Hull, K. 2010. TCRP Synthesis 85: Effective Use of Citi- zen Advisory Committees for Transit Planning and Operations. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Jackson, M.C. 2002. “Public Involvement in Trans- portation: Collaborating with the Customers.” TR News. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. http://online- pubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews220.pdf (as of June 2, 2011). Koontz, T.M. 2005. “We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy.” The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 459–481. Lane, L.B., Townsend, T., and Hartell, A. 2006. “Com- munity Impact Assessment Practice: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, Where We’re Going,” Envi- ronmental Analysis in Transportation Committee (ADC10). Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Lewis, C. 2009. “Advisory Committees: FDA’s Primary Stakeholders Have a Say. U.S. Food and Drug Admin- istration.” http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ ByAudience/ForPat ientAdvocates /Pat ien t Involvement/ucm123870.htm (as of November 12, 2011). London, S. 1995. Collaboration and Community, http:// www.scottlondon.com/reports/ppcc.html (as of December 13, 2011). Magrab, P.R. 1999. “The Meaning of Community.” In Roberts, R.N. & Magrab, R. (Eds.), Where Children Live: Solutions for Serving Children and Their Fam- ilies, pp. 3–29. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing. Mattessich, P.W., Murray-Close, M., Monsey, B.R., Wilder Research Center 2001. Collaboration: What Makes It Work. (2nd ed). St. Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance. Mental Health Care, Inc. 2009. Consumer Advisory Council: Consumer Advisory Council’s Mission or Statement of Purpose. http://www.mhcinc. org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=36745 (as of November 1, 2010). Morris, A. and Fragala, L. 2010. NCHRP Synthesis 407: Effective Public Involvement Using Limited Resources, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. National Association of Conservation. 2003. Conser- vation District Board Member Recruitment and Community Outreach Guide [Online], http://www. nacdnet.org/resources/guides, (as of June 15, 2011). O’Connor, R., Schwartz, M., Schaad, J., and Boyd, D. (n.d.). “State of the Practice: White Paper on Public Involvement.” TRB Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/online- pubs/millennium/00108.pdf (as of May 31, 2011). Oshun, M., Ardoin, N.M., and Ryan, S. 2011. “Use of the Planning Outreach Liaison Model in the Neighborhood Planning Process: A Case Study in Seattle’s Rainier Valley Neighborhood.” Urban Studies Research, pp. 1–12, doi: 10.1155/2011/687834. Partners for the Future: Public Libraries and Local Governments. “Creating Sustainable Communi- ties,” http://www.libraryworks.com/INFOcus/1210/ ULC_Sustainable_Communities_Full_Report.pdf (as of March 30, 2012). Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 2010. “Con- sumer Advisory Councils (CAC),” http://www.puc. state.pa.us/general/consumer_ed/cac_geninfo.aspx (as of November 1, 2010). Rados, C. 2004. “Advisory Committees: Critical to the FDA’s Product Review Process.” FDA Consumer, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 17–19. Retrieved from Alt Health- Watch database. Rosenbloom, S. 1998. TCRP Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future: The Challenge of Change, Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. 2000. “Public Participation Meth- ods: A Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technol- ogy, and Human Values, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 3–9. Schachter, H.L. and Liu, R. 2005. “Policy Development and New Immigrant Communities: A Case Study of Citizen Input in Defining Transit Problems.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 65, pp. 614–623, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00488 Schulz, A.J., Israel B.A., and Lantz P. 2002. “Instrument for Evaluating Dimensions of Group Dynamics within Community-Based Participatory Research Partner- ships.” Evaluation Program Planning, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 249–262. Szyliowicz, J.S. 2002. “Measuring the Effectiveness of Public Involvement Approaches,” TR News, No. 220, pp. 35–38. Texas Department of Transportation 2009. Public Trans- portation Advisory Committee, http://www.dot.state.

50 Brabham, D.C., Sanchez, T.W., and Bartholomew, K. 2009. Crowdsourcing Public Participation in Transit Planning: Preliminary Results from the Next Stop Design Case. http://pressamp.trb.org/compendium/ 508/81797BFFDA77.pdf (as of June 2, 2011). Butterworth, J., Foley, S., and Metzel, D. 2001. Developing Interagency Agreements: Four Ques- tions to Consider. Institute Brief 14. Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI). http://www.community inclusion.org/article.php?article_id=14/ (as of June 3, 2011). California Health Advocates. 2007. Are You Practicing Cultural Humility: The Key to Success in Cultural Competency. http://www.cahealthadvocate.org/ news/disparities/2007/are – you.html (as of June 24, 2011). Callahan, K.M. 1999. Citizen Participation: The Uti- lization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in Local Government. Ph.D. disserta- tion, Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey- Newark. Retrieved November 7, 2010, from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 9929694). Carrizales, T. 2010. Exploring Cultural Competency within the Public Affairs Curriculum. Journal of Pub- lic Affairs Education, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 593–606. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Carter, V. 2008. First-Rate Advocacy from Second-Tier Issues: Participatory Transportation Planning in Low- Income Los Angeles. Master Thesis – University of California-Los Angeles, http://www.its.ucla.edu/ academics/Final_Report_VC.pdf (as of May 22, 2011). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Website. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health: The Facts, http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/ publications/AAG/reach.htm (as of June 23, 2010). Charles River Associates, Inc. 1997. TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership: An Exploration of Tran- sit’s Market Share and the Public Policies that Influ- ence It. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Chess, C. and Purcell, K. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Envi- ronmental Science and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 16, pp. 2685–2692. Choudhury, P. and Geng, C. 2002. Marketplace Diversity and Cost Effective Marketing Strategies. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 54–73. Davis. M.J. 2003. TCRP Synthesis 47: Corporate Cul- ture as the Driver of Transit Leadership Practices. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Diversity, Inc. Website. Practices in Diversity Recruit- ment and Retention (2010), http//www.diversityinc. tx.us/public_involvement/ptn_committee.htm (as of November 1, 2010). Urban and Community Forestry Outreach Services Committee 2001, http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/UF/ Resources/MinorityOutreachBrochureIIi.pdf (as of November 10, 2010). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 2000. “Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improv- ing Health,” (Conference Edition, in Two Volumes), Washington, D.C. Vermont Office of the Governor, Public Transit Advisory Council. 2003, http://governor.vermont.gov/tools/ index.php?topic=BoardsAndCommissions&id=149 &v=Article (as of November 1, 2010). Wolff, T. 2010. “Practice Democracy, Promote Active Citizenship and Empowerment.” Collaborative Solutions Newsletter, http://www.tomwolff.com/ collaborative-solutions-newsletter-winter-06.html (as of March 11, 2012). Wood, D. and Gray, B. 1991. “Toward a Comprehen- sive Theory of Collaboration.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 139–162. bibliography Ahmed, S. and Palermo, S.A. 2010. Community Engage- ment in Research: Framework for Education and Peer Review. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 100, No. 8, pp. 1380–1387. Aimen, D. and Morris, A. 2012. NCHRP Report 710: Practical Approaches for Involving Traditionally Underserved Populations in Transportation Deci- sionmaking. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Baldwin J.A., Johnson, J.L., and Benally, C.C. 2009. Building Partnerships between Indigenous Communi- ties and Universities: Lessons Learned in HIV/AIDS and Substance Abuse Prevention Research. Ameri- can Journal of Public Health Supplement 1, Vol. 99 (S1), pp. 77–82. http://www.nnaapc.org/publications/ Buildingpartnershipsbetweenindigenouscommunities anduniversities.pdf (as of June 1, 2011). Beierle, T.C. 2002. The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 739–749. Retrieved from EBS- COhost. Bojorquez, A. 2003. Effectively Utilizing Citizen Advisory Boards. PA Times, Vol. 26, No. 12, p. 8. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database. Bowe, F.G.J., Jan, E., and Wiseman, L.D. 1978. Coalition Building: A Report on a Feasibility Study to Develop a National Model for Cross-Disability Commu- nication and Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: The American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, Inc., pp. 1–55.

51 com/department/106/Work-Force-Diversity/Work forcediversity (as of March 15, 2010). Falk, S. 1993. Making Citizen Task Forces Work. Public Management, Vol. 7, Issue 12, p. 15(3). Retrieved from Academic OneFile. Food and Drug Administration. FDA 101: Advisory Committees. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ ConsumerUpdates/ucm048040.htm (as of November 10, 2010). Gaverich, S., Simon, L.J., Grudzinskas, A.J., McDonald, J., and Grillo, J. 2008. Consumer Involvement in Research. Psychiatry Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 6, http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/pib/vol5/iss6/1/ (as of November 7, 2010). Gillies, P. (1998). Effectiveness of Alliances and Partner- ships for Health Promotion. Health Promotion Inter- national, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 99–117. Graves, S. and Casey, S. 2000. Public Involvement in Transportation Planning in the Washington, D.C. Region: Report on an Assessment. Transportation Research Record 1706, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 100–107. Greenwood, G.E., Breivogel, W.F., and Jester, R.E. (1977). Citizen Advisory Committees. Theory into Practice, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Hirano, S. (2004). Community Outreach Strategies Reduce Friction in Rail Projects. Metro Magazine, Vol. 100, No. 10, pp. 32–34, 36. Hutch, D.J., Bouye, K.E., Skillen, E., Lee, C., Whitehead, L., and Rashid, J.R. 2011. Collaborative Strategies to Improve Public Health: Potential Strategies to Eliminate Built Environment Disparities for Disadvan- taged and Vulnerable Communities. American Jour- nal of Public Health, Vol. 101, No. 4, pp. 587–595, doi: 10.20105/AJPH.2009. Ingram, P.D. and Nyangara, F.M. 1997. Recruitment, Retention, and Participation of Underrepresented Groups on Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension Advisory Boards and Committees. Journal of Agri- cultural Education, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 21–29. King, C.S., Feltey, K.M., and Susel, B.O. 1998. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 317–326. Lewis, C. 2000. Advisory Committees: FDA’s Primary Stakeholders Have a Say. FDA Consumer, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 30. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from Academic OneFile via Gale. Lowry, M.B. 2010. Online Public Deliberation for a Regional Transportation Improvement Decision. Transportation, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 39–58, doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9219-7. Madison, S. 2001. Applied Leadership for Effective Coalitions: Building Effective Coalitions. The National Council on Disability, http://www.ncd.gov/ publications/2001/Dec52001#Introduction (as of March 20, 2011). Mental Health Care, Inc. 2009. Consumer Advisory Council: Consumer Advisory Council’s Mission or Statement of Purpose, http://www.mhcinc.org/poc/ view_doc.php?type=docandid=36745 (as of April 21, 2010). Migliaccio, G.C., Knoebel, G., Martinez, R., Albert, D., and Hurd, J. 2010. NCHRP Web-Only Document 171: Identification of Results-Oriented Public Involve- ment Strategies between Transportation Agencies and Native American Tribal Communities. Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 2008. Local Government Citizen Advisory Boards: Examples, Options, and Model Practices for the Effective and Efficient Use of Advisory Boards by Local Governments, http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/ lgcab08.pdf (as of March 20, 2010). Murdock, B.S. and Sexton, K. 2002. Promoting Pollution Prevention through Community-Industry Dialogues: The Good Neighbor Model in Minnesota. Envi- ronmental Science & Technology, Vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 2130–2137. National Consumer Supporter Technical Assistance Center. n.d. How to Develop and Maintain Con- sumer Advisory Boards, http://www.ncstac.org/ content/materials/ConsumerAdvisoryBoard.pdf (as of November 15, 2010). PBS&J. 2006. How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited- English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking. Federal Highway Administration and Departments of Transportation, http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/hep/lowlim (as of October 10, 2010). Rebori, M.K. 2005. The Effectiveness of Citizen Partici- pation in Local Governance: A Case Study of Citizen Advisory Boards (CABs). Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer- sity of Nevada, Reno. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from Dissertations and Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3198199). Rice, M.F. 2007. A Postmodern Cultural Competency Framework for Public Administration and Public Ser- vice Delivery. American Society for Public Admin- istration. PA Times, http://bss.sfsu.edu/naff/PA760/ Rice%20on%20cultural%20competency.pdf (as of March 10, 2010). Rice, M.F. 2007. Promoting Cultural Competency in Public Administration and Public Service Delivery: Utilizing Self-Assessment Tools and Performance Measures. Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 41–57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

52 Wu, E. and Martinez, M. 2006. Taking Cultural Com- petency from Theory to Action. The Commonwealth Fund: New York, http://www.commonwealthfund. org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_ id=414097 (as of March 23, 2011). appenDixeS a through c Appendixes A through C of the contractor’s final report are not included herein. appenDix D beSt practiceS in minority outreach in tranSportation The literature review of publications and web- sites highlighted processes and provided examples for identifying the public, tailoring an approach to that public, and implementing a plan that reflects the abilities and constraints of that public to participate in public involvement. Outreach strategies to involve the public entail a variety of approaches and tools, from press releases, door-to-door solicitations, and public meetings to sophisticated visualization presentations, public comment database software, and interactive state websites (CTC & Associates 2003, p. 1). metroplan anD cartS 2008 cartS public participation plan Metroplan, a designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO), must adopt a long-range trans- portation plan—covering at least 20 years—and a short-range plan, a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Central Arkansas Regional Trans- portation Study Area (CARTS) is a cooperative effort by participating communities, transportation provid- ers, and other interested parties to develop a long- range transportation plan for the metropolitan area. In accordance with SAFETEA-LU requirements, Metroplan updated and expanded its public participa- tion plan to include the new standards. Specifically, SAFETEA-LU requires all MPOs to develop a public participation plan in consultation with all interested parties and the general public. The process established for public participation must include an element for “visualization” techniques that help visualize what the plan, program, or project will actually look like when completed. Relevant techniques include illus- trations, photo simulation, multimedia, computer Rice, M.F. 2008. A Primer for Developing a Public Agency Service Ethos of Cultural Competency in Public Services Programming and Public Services Delivery (cover story). Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 21–38. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Santos, S.L. and Chess, C. 2003. Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant-Based Criteria and Practical Implica- tions. Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 269–279, doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00307. Simpson, G. 2003. TCRP Synthesis 46: Diversity Train- ing Initiatives. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Smillie, L.N. 2004. A Case Study of Halifax Regional Municipality’s Planning Advisory Committees: Influence on Decision Making and Effectiveness as a Means of Public Participation. Master Thesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Spyke, N.P. 1999. Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making at the New Millennium: Structur- ing New Spheres of Public Influence. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 263–313. Retrieved from EBSCOHost. Stephenson, K.L. 2010. Can Government Mandate Citi- zens’ Voice? A Case Study in Transportation Policy. The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://search.proquest.com/ docview/822166877?accountid=35812 (as of January 31, 2011). Stich, B. and Eagle, K. 2005. “Planning to Include the Pub- lic: Implementation with Effective Citizen Involve- ment.” Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 319–340. Tervalon, M. and Murray-Garcia, J. 1998. “Cultural Hu- mility Versus Cultural Competence: A Critical Dis- tinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multi cultural Education.” Journal of Health Care for Poor and Underserved, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 117–125. Virginia Department of Transportation. 2003. An Assess- ment of the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Public Involvement Practices and the Development of a Public Involvement Toolkit: Phase II, http:// www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/ pdf/03-r17.pdf (as of May 23, 2011). Waite, J.K. 2011. TCRP Research Results Digest 97: Transit Agency Compliance with Title VI: Limited English Proficiency Requirements. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash- ington, D.C. Welling, D.K. 1999. A Qualitative Study to Examine the Effectiveness of a Citizen Advisory Committee. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://search. proquest.com/docview/304531214?accountid=• 35812.

53 •• Including the Spanish media in the distribu- tion of news releases; •• Advertising public hearings, meetings, proj- ects, and programs in Spanish print, radio, and television media; •• Providing simultaneous translation services at meetings; •• Producing Spanish language website content; and •• Timely response to public input. monterey bay’s public involvement Strategies Public Information •Visualization techniques •Large employers/schools •Email distribution lists •Agency websites Targeted Outreach •Faith-based communities •Partner with health services programs •Flyers/inserts in paychecks •TV/radio interviews Public Input •Advisory committees •Targeted focus groups •Targeted community meetings •Bilingual committees This plan provides guidance in the structuring of regional transportation planning processes to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, interagency con- sultation and public participation are an integral and continuing part of the regional transportation decision-making process. San FranciSco bay area rapiD tranSit DiStrict bart’s public participation plan To expand public access to its transportation decision-making process, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) utilized com- munity involvement for developing its Public Par- ticipation Plan (PPP). The plan will guide BART’s ongoing public involvement endeavors to ensure the most effective means of providing information and receiving public input on transportation issues, with particular emphasis on involving tradition- ally underrepresented groups. Comments received through a variety of public participation activities helped to develop the PPP. In order to engage diverse community mem- bers, BART conducted a public participation process throughout the BART service area (San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo counties). Meeting locations were identified through a mapping animation, and 3-D models. Visualization tech- niques must be described and reflected in the public participation plan. The public participation plan was developed in close consultation with the Transportation Advisory Council, whose responsibilities include (1) develop- ing a proposed transportation plan for the region and (2) ensuring “early and meaningful” public involve- ment in the planning process. metroplan and cartS’ public involvement Strategies Public Information • Visualization techniques • Web distribution • Agency websites • Newpaper inserts • Graphics/photographic images Targeted Outreach • Contacts database • Flyers/brochures • Video presentation dissemination to TV/community Public Input • Transportation Advisory Council monterey bay area public participation plan February 2011 update The Monterey Bay Area Public Participation Plan was prepared collaboratively with the Council of San Benito County Governments (SBCOG), Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District (SCMTD), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Association of Monterey Bay Area Govern- ments (AMBAG). The plan was originally adopted in 2008 to comply with SAFETEA-LU legislation and updated pursuant to changes in California Govern- ment Code 65080. Targeted Outreach Strategies The Monterey Bay region is home to a significant Spanish-speaking population; therefore, the partner agencies employ a number of bilingual outreach meth- ods to include participation of the Spanish-speaking community. These methods can include the following: •• Publishing printed information regarding services, projects, programs, and meetings in Spanish;

54 analysis of Bay Area communities based on income and race. The results were used to identify com- munity-based organizations (CBOs) in the tar- geted areas. The CBOs represented a broad range of community interests, including civic groups; business organizations; service providers for chil- dren, youth, families and persons with disabili- ties; schools providing programs on English as a second language; churches and faith-based orga- nizations; senior centers; community centers; and many others (BART 2010, p. 1). A variety of notification methods were used. Professionally facilitated, multilingual community meetings were also held. The facilitator provided an objective review of the findings and analysis of the meetings, comment cards, and survey and created a summary report on the PPP development outreach process. The resulting PPP and the summary report are used to offer early and ongoing opportunities for public involvement in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts of proposed transportation decisions at BART (p. 6). bart’s public involvement Strategies Public Information • • Bart website Newsletters in BART stations •Communication with media •Emails to community members •Press briefings/news releases Targeted Outreach • • Community fairs/festivals Social networks (Facebook, Twitter) •Major community event sponsorship •Communication with elected officials •Mailings to neighborhoods •Language line services (LLS) Public Input •Advisory committees •Focus with CBOs •Key person interviews Recommended Outreach Strategies Although BART’s public participation plan includes methods that have a regional reach and will continue, recommendations from community members from a specific area or ethnic group are being considered. Recommendations include the following: 1. Working with community partners and stake- holders to identify the most effective meth- ods to support participation within the area: specific meeting locations, meeting times, community-based organizations, and media outlets that work best for their particular area. 2. Walking tours of specific stations. 3. A “road show” with representatives staff- ing tables at community events and loca- tions such as malls, local supermarkets, and BART parking lots; making sugges- tion boxes or comment cards, surveys on kiosks, and sending representatives to reg- ularly scheduled community meetings on a regular basis. 4. Neighborhood Public Participation Advisory Groups to include community members and group representation in order to make recom- mendations regarding public participation methods, publicity, meeting venues, transla- tion needs, childcare opportunities, and other aspects of public participation strategy. 5. Partnerships with community-based or- ganizations (CBOs) to bridge the gap between transit agencies and the targeted community. 6. Participation by BART directors to build trust and demonstrate that the public’s voice matters. 7. Maintaining a contact database to ensure that notice of public participation is received in a timely manner. 8. Expanding local media to include free and low-cost weekly newspapers published in English or the language of the community. 9. Local service providers to help to commu- nicate with members through their news- letters. 10. Holding meetings in a variety of venues and coordinated with community partners. 11. Refreshments (as culturally appropriate), translation and interpretive services, and onsite childcare, if requested 72 hours in advance. 12. BART will develop specific measurable ob- jectives for its public participation activities (p. 21). BART also offers home visits as an outreach strategy for “one-on-one” meetings with home- owners, business owners, and other stakehold- ers who cannot necessarily free themselves from their busy schedules to attend a public meeting or

55 workshop. Home visits were also made to com- munity members challenged in other ways such as accessibility, language, or cultural barriers, or even those not comfortable in a public setting” (Childress 2007, p. 25). San joaquin council oF governmentS public participation plan (2010) The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) is the transportation planning and financ- ing agency for San Joaquin County. This public participation plan describes SJCOG’s process for providing the public and interested parties with reasonable opportunities for involvement in the regional transportation planning process. SJCOG provides the public with opportunities for continu- ing involvement in the work of the agency, through the following: 1. Advisory Committees – SJCOG has estab- lished a citizen advisory committee to foster ongoing public awareness of, and involve- ment in, transportation decision making, especially by those groups that have been traditionally underserved by transportation systems. 2. SJCOG Citizens Advisory Committee – serves as a citizen advisory group to the board of directors. 3. Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee – SSTAC is composed of rep- resentatives of senior citizens, people with disabilities, transit disadvantaged, and tran- sit provider groups. This committee meets regularly and is largely involved in met and unmet transit needs. The committee’s recommendations are given to the board of directors. Targeted Outreach Strategies Techniques for involving low-income com- munities and communities of color include the following: •• Interaction with community groups represent- ing underserved residents or communities of color, tailor meetings, customize presentation materials, provide incentives; •• Outreach in the community (flea markets, churches, health centers, etc.); •• Personal interviews or use of audio recording devices to obtain oral comments; •• Translate materials, have translators available at meetings as requested; and •• Include information on meeting notices describ- ing how to request translation assistance. Techniques for involving populations with limited-English proficiency include the following: •• Translated documents and Web content on key initiatives; •• On-call translators for meetings; •• Translated news releases and outreach to alternative-language media; •• Information included on meeting notices describing how to request translation assistance; •• Staff trained to be alert to, and anticipate the needs of, low-literacy participants; and •• Use of community and minority media outlets to announce participation opportunities. Other Outreach Strategies •• Information/comment tables or booths at com- munity events; •• Court reporters recording resident’s concerns, especially those who prefer not to or cannot express themselves in writing; •• Translators for limited-English and non- English speakers; and •• Comment cards/take-one cards on-board bus and passenger rail. Visualization techniques Web content, interactive games Maps, charts, illustrations, photographs Table top displays Electronic voting PowerPoint slide shows Visualization Techniques

56 SJCOG’s public participation plan is not a static document, but an ongoing strategy, periodically reviewed and updated based on SJCOG experi- ences and the changing circumstances of SJCOG, the Commission, and the transportation commu- nity it serves. Performance measures for the effec- tiveness of the participation program are under development and the results will be shared with the public. metropolitan council, minneapoliS/ St. paul, minneSota transportation policy plan The Metropolitan Council is designated by state legislation as the metropolitan planning organiza- tion (MPO) for the Twin Cities metropolitan area (Minnesota Statute Section 473.146). The council provided a variety of methods for interested parties and the public to participate in the formulation of the region’s Transportation Policy Plan. Special out- reach efforts are made to those in a minority, low income, and with disabilities. This is accomplished, in part, by increasing the visibility of particular issues and co-sponsoring events that develop new relationships. minneapolis/St. paul, minnesota’s public involvement Strategies Public Information •Education initiatives •Key contact database •Mailers/advertisements in minority-based media •Public meetings in accessible locations Targeted Outreach •Geographic analysis •Recruit representatives of underrepresented groups •Participation in community events •Respect cultural sensitivities/prohibitions •People with disabilities serve on advisory committees Public Input •Advisory committees •Local government •Stakeholder groups The council has established a broad citizen participation and public education effort to build awareness and understanding of regional issues and to build consensus for solving regional issues. portlanD plan public participation 2010 phase 2 progress report To gauge the ongoing success of its public par- ticipation and engagement methods, Phase 2 of Port- land’s public involvement plan (the Portland Plan) implemented more targeted and interactive outreach approaches to engage typically underrepresented communities. Numerous partners are working collab- oratively to design and carry out an inclusive public participation program. Targeted non-geographic communities that par- ticipated in Portland Plan workshops or hosted presentations include the following: •• Senior and aging community; •• Public and private schools; •• Lesbian, gay, bisexual; •• Business community; •• Transgender and queer; •• Faith-based communities; and •• Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community. Targeted Outreach Strategies •• Portland Plan Community Handbook; •• Presentations and interactive activities; •• Community Involvement Committee (CIC) members serve as the “eyes and ears” of Port- land’s many diverse communities; •• Diversity and Civic Leadership (DCL) Pro- gram is based on the assumption that the quality of community participation is enhanced with full, equitable participation of underrepresented communities’ leaders and constituents. Recent programs include the following: – Project grants to build capacity of under- represented groups and increase participa- tion with city government; – A leadership academy to train emerging leaders; – An advisory committee to review and advise on diversity outreach programming; and – Partnerships with Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO), the Cen- ter for Inter cultural Organizing (CIO), the Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), the Urban League, and the Latino Network. Stronger relationships with organizations that advocate for non-geographic communities, the new DCL grant program, and the visible equity work produced by staff have helped gain trust in the communities and will hopefully encourage increased participation.

57 virginia Department oF tranSportation (vDot) public involvement toolkit VDOT conducted an assessment of its public involvement practices and used the results to develop a public involvement “toolkit” for use by VDOT staff. The toolkit describes an array of techniques that may be used from the earliest planning stages of trans- portation projects through their construction, noting advantages, disadvantages, special considerations in the use of each technique, and references and website links for further reading. Targeted Outreach Strategies •• Tools for small and large groups, •• Public involvement campaigns, •• Public participation guide for consumers (available on website), •• Public meetings, •• Public opinion surveys, •• Transportation fairs, •• Brainstorming sessions, and •• Tips for effective use. VDOT recognizes that one size does not fit all for involving the public in transportation decisions and that different situations and stakeholder groups often require different approaches. As such, VDOT believes that the toolkit of public involvement tech- niques is a valuable resource to guide their public outreach in planning processes for highway, tran- sit, and other modal improvements and in project development. miD-america regional council 2010 public participation plan The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the bi-state Greater Kansas City area. In 2010, MARC’s Imagine KC Project received an honorable mention from the 2010 Federal Highway Admin- istration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transportation Planning Excellence Awards (TPEA), which are co-sponsored by the American Planning Association (APA). The biennial TPEA Program recognizes outstanding initiatives across the country to develop, plan, and implement inno- vative transportation planning practices. MARC designed Imagine KC, a community visioning exercise, to test innovative, large-scale strategies to engage citizens in discussions about the Kansas City region’s ability to develop more sustainably. Imagine KC involved numerous pub- lic forums during which residents identified sus- tainability issues of importance, including transit, local food policy and production, and walkable neighborhoods. marc’s public involvement Strategies Public Information •Visualization techniques •One KC Voice partner network •Website with core plans/published documents •Publication mailings •Contacts list •Media-newspapers Targeted Outreach •Collaboration with CBOs •Non-English and minority newspapers •Churches/civic groups •Limited English Proficiency Plan (LEP)- -translation/interpreter requirements Public Input •Advisory committees •Meeting with key leaders of underrepresented groups MARC uses the techniques and strategies devel- oped by the International Association of Public Partic- ipation (IAP2) as a guide for expectations for project managers to consider when developing the public participation component. Each year, the MARC transportation staff person designated as the Pub- lic Engagement Advisor compiles an evaluation for both individual techniques/events and full public participation strategies. appenDix e beSt practiceS oF minority outreach in other inDuStrieS A U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser- vices Initiative (2000), Healthy People 2010, stated, “over the years, it has become clear that individual health is closely linked to community health. Like- wise, community health is profoundly affected by the collective behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs of everyone who lives in the community, . . . Part- nerships, particularly when they reach out to non- traditional partners, can be among the most effective tools for improving health in communities.” Minority outreach is a strategy of specifically reaching out to minority, multicultural communi- ties and engaging them on their own terms and in

58 their own cultural context. The health care indus- try is a leader in minority outreach. The following case studies are from health care and industries outside of transportation. community health care Sunset park Family health center network of lutheran medical center—brooklyn, new york Overview Lutheran Medical Center created the Sunset Park Family Health Center (SPFHC) in response to the overwhelming need for primary care in south- west Brooklyn, New York. Sunset Park has attracted immigrant workers for decades, beginning with Scandinavians and Latinos of Puerto Rico in the 1940s. Today, the community includes many of the long-settled ethnic groups, as well as Chinese, Mexican, Central and South American, Dominican, Russian, and Middle Eastern populations. In the 1990s, SPFHC began to expand access to care for recent Chinese immigrants. The Asian Initiative became its first initiative into culturally competent health care, which focused on reducing barriers to primary care. Flexible hours of service, the establishment of interpretation and translating signage, were among the strategies utilized. Train- ing Chinese-educated nurses in upgraded clinical skills so they could pass state licensing exams addressed the shortage of linguistically and cul- turally appropriate staff. This effort demonstrates the priority SPFHC placed on recruiting and hiring from within the community. In addition, SPFHC formed strong links to community leaders and key resources. SPFHC Network made cultural competence a priority by funding regular staff training programs, offering patient navigators, and expanding its rela- tionships with community groups. These efforts cre- ated an environment that celebrates various cultures, cultural and religious holidays, multicultural art- work, and offers ethnic foods. The Mexican Health Project is one of several recent primary care sites targeting a rapidly growing immigrant community. This project, once completed, will provide an assessment of community health needs and recommend interventions for communica- tion in clinical settings and patient education. Successful Strategies •• Form partnerships with community-based organizations to establish culturally compe- tent, community-oriented primary care. This approach is effective in a demographically changing environment. •• Recruit and hire staff that reflects the environ- ment culturally and linguistically. •• Develop a mission statement and vision that reflects the principles of the community. •• Establish a governing body that will help identify needs and provide feedback. •• Utilize available resources internally and exter- nally. Internal resources may include staff, while external resources include websites. •• Measure outcomes and success (in health care) by assessing the barriers to primary care that may continue to exist, overall satisfaction, and ongoing collaborative relationships (Betancourt et al. 2002). manageD care kaiser permanente—San Francisco, california Overview In the early 1990s studies showed that Asian populations were the least satisfied with their health care within Kaiser Permanente’s Northern Califor- nia region. As a result, many Chinese American business owners began exploring other health care options, primarily those marketed specifically to their community. To gain a better understanding of the issues, the San Francisco Medical Center launched the “Chinese Initiative.” Based on the findings of this initiative, Kaiser Permanente established a department of multicultural services, providing on-site interpreters for patients in 14 languages. In addition, Kaiser created a Chinese interpreter call center to assist Chinese-speaking patients in scheduling appointments and obtaining medical advice. Written materials and signage were trans- lated. A cultural diversity board was established for oversight. Kaiser has expanded from this original initia- tive to include a Spanish multi-specialty as well. Nurses, case managers, and health educators in the facility are multilingual and the staff is cho-

59 sen for cultural and language proficiency. The San Francisco Medical Center has been an award-win- ning model in the health care industry. Kaiser has acknowledged the business case for cultural com- petence, as well as their need to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Lessons Learned •• Utilize publicity and marketing strategies in diverse communities. •• Avoid mandating cultural competence, as it may lead to resentment. •• Employ multi-cultural managers to reflect the diversity of the organization. •• Focus the organization on the opportunity to improve customer satisfaction. Present the business case for cultural competence. •• Establish a cultural diversity board of employ- ees, providers, and community members to help guide the process (Betancourt et al. 2002). urban anD community ForeStry Overview When planning and delivering programs, state urban forestry coordinators often struggle to achieve diversity among groups, despite the fact that the programs impact more diverse populations than any other state forestry agency activity (Urban and Community Forestry 2001). The coordinators addressed their concerns during the National Urban Forest Conference in 2001. They estab- lished a committee to catalogue successful out- reach strategies and service delivery to minority populations that traditionally lack engagement in urban forestry. Success Story: Environmental Outreach Education and Tree Planting—Annapolis, Maryland The Maryland Forest Service goals were to develop an urban forestry awareness and apprecia- tion program aimed at the area’s growing Hispanic population. In the process, the committee hoped to inspire community involvement and promote the planting and nurturing of tress and protection of the environment. The Maryland DNR Forest Service created an environmental pilot project as well. Outreach to Targeted Groups After 8 months of planning with area commu- nity organizations and volunteers, 80 trees were planted and a brochure was printed. The City of Annapolis Parks & Recreation selected the plant- ing site. U.S. Naval Academy Latino Club members attended a tree-planting workshop, and doubled as bilingual staff volunteers on planting day. In addi- tion, a Spanish-speaking city police representative communicated a message regarding the value of trees in urban areas, healthy streams, rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay. The Anne Arundel County Health Department also participated and shared their knowl- edge of Hispanic culture. Results A grant from the Chesapeake Bay Trust funded the printing of a brochure in English and Spanish on planting trees. Several Hispanic scout and church youth groups continue to care for, and plant, trees in the area. The DNR Forest Service continues to sup- port the project. Steps to Successful Outreach •• Learn about the culture (diversity) of the population. •• Identify groups and opportunities. •• Cultivate relationships and build trust. •• Develop a communications strategy. •• Maintain an outreach work environment. •• Implement community outreach programs. •• Monitor your plan and follow up. culturally competent StrategieS For engaging DiverSe communitieS Morris and Fragla (2010) reported that many agencies are creatively using the processes and examples that current literature identifies, including the following: •• Utilizing the Internet and intranet; •• Using visualizations; •• Holding the meeting in the right place, on the right day, at the right time; •• Leveraging relationships; •• Playing interactive games; •• Taking the time to sit and listen; and •• Using public involvement programs (p. 13).

60 Nonetheless, challenges still exist in outreach and identifying and engaging members from dis- ability and underrepresented communities. Cul- tural, attitudinal, and language barriers may limit or prevent the involvement of individuals from under- represented communities. Other barriers (National Association of Conservation 2003, p. 3) that result in limited participation in transit decision-making by these communities are •• Limited resources, •• Lack of educational opportunities, •• Discrimination, •• Limited English skills, •• Fear and distrust of the government, and •• Limited knowledge about transportation and other programs and services. APPENDIX F Matrix of Successful Public Input Techniques APPENDIX G Matrix of Successful Outreach Strategies Public Information •Community Organizations •Advisory Committees •Disability Organizations Public Information •Staff On Board Buses •Bilingual Minority Staff •Minority Outreach Coordinators Public Information •Direct Mailings •Newsletters in Transit Stations •Local and Ethnic Media Public Information •Faith-Based Organizations •Word of Mouth •In-Person Events •Feedback Targeted Outreach •Minority Outreach Coordinators •Community Event Sponsorship, e.g., Health Fairs Targeted Outreach •Language Line Service (LLS) •Outreach Liaison from Targeted Community Targeted Outreach •Transit Advisory Committees •Outreach at Targeted Transit Centers Targeted Outreach •Community and Neighborhood Organizations •Minority Media Outlets

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. ISBN 978-0-309-25905-7 9 780309 259057 9 0 0 0 0 Subscriber Categories: Public Transportation