Transit Agency Practices in Interacting with People Who Are Homeless (2016)

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.

5 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW safety and security needs, health concerns, and increased costs to the transportation system. The article also cited tran- sit agency strategies ranging from enforcement to provision of alternatives to partnerships with social service agencies. An article by Ryan (1991) reported on a survey of 45 transportation systems and 100 airports in 15 cities. The study found that all were affected to some degree by the presence of homeless people in and around their facilities. The article recognized the need for a satisfactory policy to treat this plight that has no simple cure. Later in the 1990s, two books examined various aspects of policing at transportation facilities. DeGeneste and Sul- livan (1994) provided strategies for dealing with security issues across modes and promoted awareness of possible future security risks, with special consideration of the home- less and mentally ill populations in transportation facilities. Nelson (1999) offered a systematic approach to bus, light rail, and station security requirements. This book addressed specific topics—including terrorism, gangs, and the home- less—in the overall context of security needs. Two papers at a 1995 conference are worth relating in detail as examples of transit agency programs to combat homeless- ness at this time. Schwartz (1995) described Operation Alter- native, a program designed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey that offered persons in need an alternative to staying in the agency’s Manhattan Bus Terminal through two onsite social service providers. The service-resistant segment of the homeless population presented the most difficult chal- lenges. Operation Alternative was an attempt to balance the needs of the traveling public, vendors, and people who are homeless. The program combined clear rules and regulations regarding conduct for everyone who uses the terminal, training for all personnel from maintenance workers to police, consis- tent enforcement, and referrals to skilled outreach workers at onsite social service agencies. As part of this paper, Schwartz reviewed a federal demonstration project addressing home- lessness in transportation facilities in three cities, The findings supported the lessons from Operation Alternative: although a transportation agency cannot by itself solve the problem of homelessness, its willingness to use its own funds and to col- laborate with social service providers onsite can improve both the lives of people who are homeless and the attractiveness and security of its transportation facilities for all customers. INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes findings from a literature review related to transit agency interactions with people who are homeless. A TRID search was conducted using “homeless” as the keyword. Reports are grouped into three categories: (1) older studies from the 1980s and early 1990s, when home- lessness first emerged as a societal issue; (2) more recent studies that report on successful strategies; and (3) stud- ies that approach the issues from the perspective of people who are homeless, including examples of an emerging field of study focused on social exclusion. The final section of this chapter reviews policies and practices at public libraries regarding interaction with people who are homeless. OLDER STUDIES Among the reports and articles from the 1980s and early 1990s, most were in response to the increasing numbers of homeless people congregating in public transportation facilities. These reports and articles tend to emphasize the broader nature of the issue and its causes as well as how transit facilities—as public spaces that provide shelter from the elements—were especially affected. Many of the early studies addressed issues in New York City. Sullivan (1986) cited statistics concerning the homeless population, the number who sought shelter in transportation facilities, and the extent of alcoholism or mental illness. The report suggested a reevaluation of the role of the New York state hospital system and its deinstitutionalization policies. Schwartz (1988, 1989, 1995) identified issues related to the presence of homeless people in transportation facilities, reviewed experiences and strategies elsewhere, and reported on Operation Alternative, a program developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey at its midtown Man- hattan Bus Terminal (described in detail later). The effects of homeless people congregating in public transportation facilities may have been more obvious in a large city such as New York during the 1980s and early 1990s, but similar effects were being experienced across the country. Keeney (1990) summarized issues associated with people who are homeless from the transit agency perspec- tive: passenger complaints, low worker morale, increased

6 Mason-Ailey (1995) described MTA/Connections, a program implemented by the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in two commuter rail sta- tions and the subway system in New York City. Staffed by 22 persons, 18 of whom were trained clinicians, the program’s major functions were outreach to people who are homeless and case management. Outreach evolved over time into a referral-based activity in which transit police and other employees referred specific individuals to clinicians. Case management involved monitoring the progress of home- less people referred to offsite social service agencies and of those who refused referrals. The success of the program was reflected in the finding that less than 1% of homeless people placed offsite returned to MTA property. Customer surveys indicated that homelessness and panhandling were perceived as less prevalent and the sense of customers’ per- sonal security was improved. The report acknowledged the limits to what a single program can accomplish but noted that a key element in its success was that it addressed some of the root causes of homelessness. 2000 AND BEYOND After an interval during which very few articles on the topic of homelessness appeared in the transportation literature, more recent studies have reported on successful strategies and programs. Many studies in the post-9/11 period saw an intermingling of security needs with concerns about the impacts of people who are homeless on public transit facili- ties and operations. Rudy and Delgado (2006) described a collaboration among transit, police, and social service agencies in the formation of a homeless outreach team in Orange County, California. The impetus for this collaboration was an increasing number of disruptive incidents by homeless and possibly mentally ill persons on Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) buses. The team, consisting of two deputies and one mental health clinician (with active involvement by bus operators), identified problem locations and bus routes and focused on developing a trusting relationship with members of this high- risk population, with the goal of linking them to the available resources to end their continuing cycle of problematic home- lessness, mental illness, and personal health care issues. The outreach team made more than 200 contacts in slightly more than a year, and many of these contacts led to placement in county programs. OCTA experienced a decrease in customer complaints related to homelessness. Turner et al. (2010) illustrated the complexity of communi- cating with vulnerable populations in emergency evacuations through a critical review of the existing literature and state- of-the-practice information gathered from transportation and emergency management agency personnel. The paper was presented as a foundation for developing a framework for effective communication strategies, policies, and practices that focus on vulnerable populations before, during, and after all-hazards emergencies. These strategies can also be applied in communicating with vulnerable populations, such as peo- ple who are homeless, in nonemergency situations. Bassett et al. (2012) investigated responses to homeless encampments on rights-of-way owned by departments of transportation (DOTs). Of 69 responses to the survey (rep- resenting 25 U.S. states and British Columbia), 48 respon- dents (70%) reported that they or others at their agency had encountered homelessness, and 27 (40%) indicated that their agency “considers homelessness an operational challenge.” The most successful approaches—the ones that resolved property maintenance issues and had the fewest negative effects on the homeless population—typically involved collaboration among transportation agencies, law enforcement agencies, and human services/housing/ homelessness agencies. Successful responses fell into three main categories: (1) humane displacement, (2) short-term accommodations, and (3) long-term arrangements. Suc- cessful strategies typically included both a “push” element (from law enforcement and other criminal justice agen- cies) and a “pull” element (from human services, housing, or homelessness agencies). Flexibility and a willingness to consider the human dimensions of the issue were key ingre- dients for success. Some transit agencies are using buses as overnight shel- ters for people who are homeless. The Washington Metropol- itan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) deploys “warming buses” at various locations as part of a larger effort to get people who are homeless to safety during extremely bitter weather (“DC Metro Dispatches Buses to Warm Homeless Residents,” 2014). Food and water are available on the buses, and portable restrooms are placed nearby. More than 200 homeless people were reported to have used the buses during one frigid winter night (Klinger 2014). The Hub of Hope project in Philadelphia (Project HOME 2014) was designed to serve people where they already were, co-locating physical and behavioral health services (integrated health services) with housing-focused case management. The Hub of Hope began in 2012 as a walk- in engagement center located under Two Penn Center in downtown, providing social and health services to people who were experiencing long-term homelessness and living in and around the subway concourses from January through early April each year. Goals of the project were to (1) tran- sition people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing; (2) provide easy, centralized access to integrated health care services and connect people to ongoing primary care; and (3) deepen the understanding of necessary, stra- tegic, and effective tools and methods to better assist and end homelessness for people who were living in the subway concourses. Lessons learned included these:

7 • A centralized, convenient location promoted initial access and follow-up—connecting disconnected indi- viduals and bolstering support systems already in place. • A strategy was required that acknowledged the real- ity of large crowds of homeless people gathering in the concourse in the morning after they were dismissed from overnight shelters and had nowhere to go, espe- cially in inclement weather. • A strong collaboration among Philadelphia Outreach teams, Mental Health Association Peer Ahead, Pathways to Housing, Southeastern Philadelphia Transportation Authority (SEPTA) police, and other case managers to collaborate and assess, engage, plan, and follow up with people living in and around the con- course made for a strong project. King County–Seattle in Washington State, King County Transit, the sheriff’s office, and other first responders occa- sionally use the Crisis Solution Center to help people strug- gling with mental health and homelessness issues (Jutilla 2014). The Crisis Solution Center includes (1) a crisis diver- sion facility (CDF), a 16-bed facility where police and other first responders can refer/bring individuals in crisis for eval- uation, crisis resolution, and linkage to appropriate commu- nity-based care; (2) mobile crisis teams, each consisting of two mental health professionals, that can help first respond- ers find appropriate resources or transport individuals to the CDF; and (3) interim respite housing for individuals who are ready to leave the CDF but in need of temporary housing while permanent supported housing is being arranged. The intent of this diversion program is to reduce the cycling of people with mental health or substance use disorders through the criminal and crisis systems and facilitate links to appro- priate services. Individuals who are stopped for various mis- demeanor offenses (including unlawful bus/transit conduct) may be diverted by law enforcement officers through these crisis diversion services programs if they agree to participate in services to avoid facing any potential criminal charges. A recent article by Sneider (2015) discussed efforts by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco and the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) in Montreal, Quebec, to connect homeless individuals with community services that can help them improve their lives. In 2013, BART’s police department hired a full-time crisis interven- tion training coordinator and community outreach liaison to train BART police officers in how to identify and interact with people who are homeless without having the contact escalate into a threatening confrontation. The coordina- tor (one of only a few full-time U.S. transit agency staffers whose job is dedicated to addressing the homelessness prob- lem) also helps connect transients with the appropriate social and health service providers. The hiring of this coordinator is part of a broader initia- tive to provide an alternative to BART facilities for people who are homeless when they are not using the system for transportation. Each day, BART police give the coordinator a priority case list of individuals found in the BART sys- tem who are chronically homeless. The coordinator reviews the cases and communicates with social service and men- tal health/addiction treatment professionals in the counties served by BART to coordinate services for these priority cases. Sometimes the coordinator is able to locate individu- als on the list, talk with them directly, learn more about their personal situation, and offer assistance. About half refuse help. The coordinator tries to build rapport and trust with as many as possible. There have been several successes, but BART believes that this will be a long-term process. The STM in Montreal developed a pilot project that uses some of its Metro subway stations as service points for peo- ple living on the streets. Under the program, an outreach per- son meets individuals who are homeless in Metro stations and tries to put them in touch with needed social, medical, or mental health care. After launching the project at one Metro station two years ago, STM expanded it to five other stations last year. Not every community takes a sympathetic approach to the presence in transportation facilities of people who are homeless. At the time of this review, officials from the city of Lancaster, California, claimed that the number of people who are homeless in their city grows daily because of an alleged migration through Metrolink commuter rail from Los Angeles (Cuevas 2014). To curb this apparent surge of homelessness, the city has considered closing the sole com- muter train station linking Lancaster to Los Angeles. SOCIAL EXCLUSION STUDIES Recent studies have examined the problem from the perspec- tive of people who are homeless rather than from the view- point of transit or law enforcement agencies. These studies are examples of an emerging field of study focused on social exclusion (Popay et al. 2008). Mooi (2009) reports on a needs assessment conducted in Ontario, Canada, by the York Region Alliance to End Home- lessness. Data were collected through health and human ser- vice agency and community organization questionnaires, as well as from a series of focus groups. Bus tickets (71%) were the main forms of transportation support that agencies offered. Most agencies (64%) said that they had no data on transportation needs or services provided to their clients. The most common agency-identified barrier to accessing adequate transportation was the cost of transportation and a related lack of resources (71%), followed by infrequent, inadequate, or inconsistent transit service schedules (57%). Half of agencies that responded did not identify any exist- ing partnerships with transportation agencies. On the basis

8 of these data, the report concluded that the lack of afford- able, accessible, and safe transportation is a major barrier to the ability of homeless and at-risk men, women, and youth to access resources such as housing, education, employ- ment, and health care. Priority recommendations included (1) coordinating a collaborative approach to developing sustainable options for improved transportation in the York Region; (2) ensuring that frontline staff are trained in how to help clients navigate the transit network; (3) supporting a 50% reduced York Region Transit fare rate (in line with best practices from other regions for people who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless); and (4) installing a bus stop with a shelter at each homeless shelter location served by an existing bus route. Jocoy and Del Casino (2010) examined the mobility pat- terns and public transit use by people who are homeless in Long Beach, California, in the context of “spaces of contain- ment”—sites in which marginalized populations, such as the homeless, are maintained through the creation of social and spatial barriers to their mobility. The study evaluated the extent to which the mobility provided by public transit constrains or enables the ability of people who are homeless to navigate between stigmatized and nonstigmatized places. Relevant findings included the following: (1) public trans- portation is a primary source of mobility for people who are homeless; (2) 74% of the homeless people surveyed reported an experience in which bus or train operators were helpful, 37% reported an unhelpful experience, and 12% had been harassed by other passengers; (3) travel for medical care and social services comprised almost half of transit trips taken by homeless people; (4) cost is a major constraint on transit use by people who are homeless (fare structures provide dis- counts for those who can afford more expensive daily and monthly passes); and (5) the lack of integrated cost struc- tures among the transit agencies operating in and around Long Beach creates an additional financial constraint. Hui and Habib (2014) focus on transportation-related exclusion of the at-risk community in Toronto, with empha- sis on access to public transportation services in the city. Their research relies on a sample survey conducted among low-income people and people who are homeless in Toronto, in which the frequency of public transit services is identified as the key factor defining transport-related social exclusion experienced by the at-risk community. Among the interest- ing findings are that half of the homeless people surveyed rated their experience with bus and train operators as good or very good, 25% reported satisfactory experience, and 25% reported unsatisfactory experience. Among the social ser- vice agencies surveyed, 57% provide some financial assis- tance for their clients to use transit and 85% have criteria to determine eligibility, but the number of tokens and passes provided is low. The report recommends policy changes to increase inclusion of the at-risk community in transportation planning processes, increase transit accessibility for low- income neighborhoods, discount transit fares for particular groups in the community, and increase policy integration among the different levels of government. LIBRARIES Libraries are similar to public transportation agencies in offering services to all members of the general public, including people who are homeless. Like transit centers and rail stations, libraries are often seen as a safe haven by such people, especially in inclement weather. This section of the literature review examines library policies and procedures related to people who are homeless. Libraries have refrained from policies targeting a spe- cific group in favor of policies targeting specific behavior. The American Library Association (ALA) has developed guidelines for the development of policies and procedures regarding user behavior (ALA 1993/2005). Section 8.d of the guidelines states: Policies and regulations that impose restrictions on library access should be based solely upon actual behavior and not upon arbitrary distinctions between individuals or classes of individuals. Policies should not target specific users or groups of users based upon an assumption or expectation that such users might engage in behaviors that could disrupt library service. The guidelines also note the need for evenhanded enforce- ment of all policies and regulations. Many libraries have relied on these guidelines in drafting rules of behavior. A typical example requests that library patrons refrain from 15 specific behaviors to allow all patrons and staff to use the library’s facilities without disturbance or undue interference and to provide a clean, pleasant, and safe environment (City of San Diego 2011). The ALA has also developed a toolkit to help librar- ians and library staff create meaningful library services for people who are experiencing homelessness (ALA n.d.). The toolkit includes a “Steps to Getting Started” section and notes that libraries can play a key role as resource providers, community centers, and facilitators for collaborations and partnerships. Several model programs are listed at the end of the toolkit. A presentation at the 2013 ALA conference highlighted innovative approaches that libraries have taken with regard to people who are homeless (ALA 2013). Three examples are discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs. The San Francisco, California, Public Library (SFPL) partners with the San Francisco Police Department, the Department of Public Works, and the Department of Pub-

9 SUMMARY The literature review spans a 40-year time frame, from the early days when homelessness was first recognized as a significant issue for transit agencies to current approaches that include new, successful strategies. The review includes recent studies that approach the issues from the perspec- tive of people who are homeless, including examples of an emerging field of study focused on social exclusion. Because public libraries are similar to public transportation in offer- ing services to all members of the general public and in being viewed as a safe place for people who are homeless, this literature review also examined library policies and pro- cedures related to people who are homeless. The review reveals that transit agencies and public librar- ies have taken care to draft policies and procedures that target behavior as opposed to a specific group of individuals. The literature review also suggests an evolution in how transit agencies interact with people who are homeless. The initial reaction is a reluctance to expend resources on a problem that clearly goes beyond the transit agency. Next is a realization that customers are unhappy and something needs to be done. The most obvious action is enforcement. When enforcement alone does not solve the problem, agencies move toward part- nerships with social service and nonprofit agencies. The literature review was used in the development of a sur- vey instrument to gather input from transit agencies. Results are generally in accord with literature findings. The conclu- sions in chapter six reflect the literature review as well as the survey and case examples. Further research needs have been developed based in part on unclear or conflicting information. The next two chapters present the results of a survey of transit agencies regarding their interactions with people who are homeless. Survey results provide a snapshot of the cur- rent state of the practice. lic Health to enhance access for individuals who are home- less to existing resources, including shelter, food, clothing, showers and laundry facilities, storage, legal aid, and medi- cal and mental health care. Inspired by the Free Library of Philadelphia’s collaboration with Project HOME, the SFPL hired a social worker at its main library to reach out to patrons who are homeless to connect or reconnect them with social services and to train, supervise, and mentor health and safety associates. All of these associates have experienced and overcome homelessness and are former or current clients of the San Francisco Homeless Outreach Team. Their duties include monitoring the bathrooms for illegal activity, pro- viding resources, and reporting illegal activities to security staff. SFPL combines outreach with behavioral guidelines that set clear expectations, a process of uniform enforce- ment with consistent consequences for violations, and a fair appeals process. The partnership has resulted in per- manent housing for 100 library patrons, assistance to more than 1,000 patrons, a decrease in inappropriate use of public bathrooms at the library, and assistance to library staff with patrons in need of social services. The San Jose, California, Public Library initiated a panel discussion that brought together library professionals, students, and social workers. The library has also provided small group training, hosted neighborhood discussions on homelessness issues, and started a Social Worker in the Library program. The Richland Public Library in Columbia, South Carolina, sought out agencies that help people who are homeless and offered space in the library for case workers to meet privately with their clients. The library also began a partnership with Transitions, a homeless recovery center that provides people who are homeless with a place to stay as they transition from the streets to permanent housing. The partnership established a library at Transitions to provide educational and entertain- ment opportunities, teach 21st century job skills as well as timeless life skills, and connect the residents with job training.