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.

10 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS: TRANSIT AGENCY INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS INTRODUCTION This is the first of two chapters that present the results of a survey of transit agencies regarding their interactions with people who are homeless. The survey solicited infor- mation on policies, actions implemented and their effects, challenges, lessons learned, and guidance for other agen- cies. Chapter four focuses on agencies’ evaluations of their efforts. This chapter addresses the following: • The extent to which homelessness is a challenge for transit agencies • Agency policies and procedures • Actions taken • Responsibilities and resources • Partnerships and community education • Challenges. Thirty-four completed surveys were received from the 40 agencies in the sample, a response rate of 85%. Transit agen- cies listed in APTA’s directory were then offered the oppor- tunity to participate in the survey; we received responses from 21 additional agencies, bringing the total to 55 agen- cies. Appendix A lists the 55 responding agencies. People who are homeless are often viewed as a homo- geneous group, but the National Coalition of the Homeless defines three categories of homelessness (National Coalition for the Homeless 2015): • Chronic homelessness includes persons such as the stereotyped profile of the “skid row” homeless, for whom shelters are essentially long-term housing rather than an emergency arrangement. These individuals are likely to be older and part of the “hard-core unem- ployed,” and many of them suffer from disabilities and substance abuse problems. • Transitional homelessness includes individuals who enter the shelter system for one short stay. Such persons are typically younger and may be recent members of the precariously housed population. Many of them have become homeless as the result of a catastrophic event and spend a short time in a homeless shelter before mak- ing a transition into more stable housing. Transitionally homeless individuals account for the majority of people experiencing homelessness over time. • Episodic homelessness includes persons who fre- quently shuttle in and out of homelessness. They are most likely to be young, but unlike those in transitional homelessness, many episodically homeless individuals are chronically unemployed and experience medical, mental health, and substance abuse problems. Some survey respondents acknowledged differences among people who are homeless, whereas others did not. The perception of a homogeneous versus heterogeneous population appeared to influence choices regarding strate- gies and actions. IS THIS AN ISSUE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES? To what extent is the homeless population an issue for transit agencies? The study was undertaken with the assumption that interacting with people who are homeless was challenging for transit agencies, but is that assumption true? The literature review included many studies and reports from large transit systems in big cities; are there issues in smaller cities as well? Table 2 shows that 91% of responding agencies perceive people who are homeless as either a minor or major issue. Table 3 breaks down responses by agency size. All the large agencies (1,000+ peak vehicles) cite people who are home- less as a major issue; 93% of mid-sized agencies (250 to 999 peak vehicles) and 88% of small agencies (less than 250 peak vehicles) report that people who are homeless are either a major or minor issue. TABLE 2 EXTENT TO WHICH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS ARE AN ISSUE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES Extent No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Minor issue 33 60 Major issue 17 31 Not an issue 5 9 Total Agencies Responding 55 100 Source: Survey results. To gauge the extent of homelessness, respondents were asked to estimate the approximate size of the homeless popula-

11 tion that affects their transit system daily. Table 4 shows that many respondents had difficulty making this estimation. Tran- sit agencies in larger metropolitan areas made higher estimates. TABLE 3 EXTENT TO WHICH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS ARE AN ISSUE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES BY AGENCY SIZE Extent Small Agencies (<250 peak vehicles) Mid-size Agencies (250–999 peak vehicles) Large Agencies (1,000+ peak vehicles) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Minor issue 23 70 10 72 0 0 Major issue 6 18 3 21 8 100 Not an issue 4 12 1 7 0 0 Total Agencies Responding 33 100 14 100 8 100 Source: Survey results. TABLE 4 NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS IMPACTING THE TRANSIT SYSTEM DAILY Number of Persons No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Not sure 17 39 Fewer than 100 12 27 100– 499 8 18 500–999 4 9 1,000+ 3 7 Total Agencies Responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. AGENCY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Most responding agencies have developed informal policies and procedures for interacting with people who are home- less, as shown in Table 5, but only five agencies post their policies and procedures on their websites. One agency indi- cated that it does not share informal policies with the public because some of these bend formal rules (e.g., softening the no-loitering policy to allow a person to take shelter in a facil- ity as long as he or she is peaceful). Table 6 shows that most agencies’ policies and proce- dures do not differ for the various groups (e.g., veterans or families) that make up the homeless population. This reflects a consistent theme throughout the survey: policies, procedures, and actions target behaviors rather than status. “Other” responses include special rules for youth, place- ments for families and some veterans, involuntary removal for individuals at risk to themselves or others, and free travel to extreme weather shelters. TABLE 5 AGENCY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Policies and Procedures No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Informal 28 57 Formal 14 29 None 7 14 Total Agencies Responding 49 100 Source: Survey results. TABLE 6 DIFFERENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR DIFFERENT HOMELESS POPULATIONS Difference No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding None 28 70.0 For people appearing to have men- tal illness or substance abuse issues 6 15.0 For veterans 2 5.0 For youth 2 5.0 For families 1 2.5 For older persons 1 2.5 Other 4 10.0 Total Agencies Responding 40 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Table 7 shows that policies and procedures are more likely to differ based on the behavior of people who are homeless. A majority of respondents indicate no difference, but 37% note that there are different rules for loud or disruptive people who are homeless. “Other” responses include a written policy for people with mental health or behavioral issues (whether homeless or not) and differences in enforcement (as opposed to policies and procedures) for customers who are causing a disturbance. TABLE 7 DIFFERENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BY THE WAY PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS PRESENT THEMSELVES Difference No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding None 23 56 Yes, for loud or disruptive behavior 15 37 Other 3 7 Total Agencies Responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. ACTIONS TAKEN Table 8 summarizes the types of actions taken by transit agen- cies with regard to people who are homeless. The responses

12 echo the dual approach that emerged as an ongoing theme throughout the literature review: transit agencies pursue partnerships with social service agencies while enforcing laws and agency rules. “Other” responses include distribu- tion of discounted passes through social service or nonprofit agencies, a “three-end-of-line” policy that requires an addi- tional fare after reaching the end of the line three times, a focus on prevention of disruptive behavior, and an aware- ness that, while enforcement is necessary, enforcement alone cannot solve the problems associated with homelessness. TABLE 8 ACTIONS TAKEN BY TRANSIT AGENCIES WITH REGARD TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Action No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Partnerships with social service or nonprofit agencies to encourage people who are homeless to seek assistance 32 71 Partnerships with local law enforcement agencies 31 69 Enforcement of anti-loitering laws 28 63 Additional cleaning of transit vehi- cles and facilities 23 51 Periodic sweeps of areas where people who are homeless are known to congregate 18 40 Requirement that riders exit the bus or train at the last stop and pay an additional fare to reboard 16 36 Discounted fares for people who are homeless 13 29 No specific actions undertaken 3 7 Other 13 29 Total Agencies Responding 45 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. The majority of respondents reported that interaction with people who are homeless is relatively constant year-round, as shown in Table 9. Thirty percent of the agencies indicated more extensive interaction in cold winter months. Surpris- ingly, only one of the agencies that reported more extensive interaction in hot summer months is in the Sunbelt. Table 10 shows the extent to which interaction with people who are homeless varies by mode. The bus mode includes on the bus and at bus stops. One respondent noted issues in the rail right-of-way. RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES Table 11 shows which departments have responsibility for implementing agency policies and procedures regarding people who are homeless. Multiple answers were allowed, because responsibility is generally spread over more than one department. Operations supervisors were named by a majority of respondents, followed by city or county police and transit police. Transit police were cited by all agencies that have their own police force. “Other” included bus opera- tors, contracted security forces, management, maintenance workers, other city departments, and customer service. TABLE 9 SEASONAL CHANGES IN EXTENT OF INTERACTION WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Extent No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Constant year-round 28 62 More extensive in cold winter weather 13 29 More extensive in inclement weather (snow, heavy rain) 7 16 More extensive in hot summer weather 5 11 Total Agencies Responding 45 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 10 EXTENT OF INTERACTION WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS BY MODE Extent No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding We only operate one mode 15 35 No difference by mode 9 21 More extensive on bus 9 21 More extensive in bus transit centers 8 19 More extensive on rail 8 19 More extensive in rail stations 3 7 More extensive on paratransit 0 0 Total Agencies Responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. TABLE 11 RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Responsible Party No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Operations supervisors 32 73 City or county police 18 41 Transit police 17 39 Other 18 41 Total Agencies Responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%.

13 Sixty percent of respondents indicated that responsibili- ties are shared among multiple parties. Among the 40% that reported that one group has the lead role, transit police were named most often. Table 12 summarizes responses. TABLE 12 LEAD ROLE AMONG AGENCIES REPORTING ONE PARTY WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY Lead Responsibility No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Transit police 6 35 Security 3 18 City or county police 2 12 Operations department 2 12 Other agency departments 3 18 Other city departments 1 6 Total Agencies Responding 17 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Table 13 indicates a fairly even split regarding the per- ceived need for training related to interactions with peo- ple who are homeless. Forty-one percent of respondents conduct or sponsor training for first-line employees (bus operators, customer service personnel, and transit police), and 41% do not offer any training. Large agencies are much more likely to conduct training. Seven agencies reported that their employee training addresses conflict resolution or disruptive passengers but is not specifically targeted to people who are homeless, and one agency trains all employees on this subject. TABLE 13 TRAINING FOR INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Training No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding For first-line employees 18 41 No 18 41 Not specific to homeless 7 16 For all employees 1 2 Total Agencies Responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. The literature review indicated that when homelessness first emerged as an issue, transit agencies were very con- cerned about bearing the costs of a problem that was not solely theirs to address. This concern prompted the inclusion of a question about whether agencies have defined the budget impacts related to interacting with people who are homeless. Table 14 indicates that most have not done so, although about one-quarter of respondents were not certain. TABLE 14 DEFINING BUDGET IMPACTS RELATED TO INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Budget Impacts Defined? No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding No 28 64 Not sure 10 23 Yes 6 14 Total Agencies Responding 44 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Only one of the six agencies that had defined budget impacts reported an annual total of more than a million dol- lars. Two reported a total between $250,000 and $500,000, and two reported a total under $250,000. One agency did not provide a figure. Three of these six agencies indicated that the funds were spent to provide free or reduced-cost fares; the other three agencies used these funds for extra cleaning crews, outreach services, added staff at the transit center, and a crisis intervention training program. Only seven agencies (16%) have dedicated staff to interact with people who are homeless, as shown in Table 15. Four of the six respondents with dedicated internal staff are large agencies. TABLE 15 DEDICATED STAFF TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS No. Staff Positions No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding 0 38 84 1 3 7 2 2 4 3 1 2 Contractor provides staff 1 2 Total Agencies Responding 45 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION The literature review revealed that, even more than 20 years ago, transit agencies had discovered the benefits of partner- ships to address homelessness in transit facilities. Table 16 shows that 75% of respondents currently partner with others in their interactions with people who are homeless. Table 17 indicates that partnerships with social service agencies, nonprofit agencies serving the homeless, city police, and homeless shelters are most common for the 33 agencies that reported some type of collaborative effort. There may be some overlap among the agency types listed

14 in Table 17. Social service agencies are units of local gov- ernment, nonprofit agencies are nongovernmental orga- nizations, and private-sector agencies are businesses or business groups such as chambers of commerce or down- town associations. “Other” includes mental health pro- viders, local churches, syringe-exchange programs, and university students. TABLE 16 COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WITH OTHERS Partnerships No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Yes 33 75 No 11 25 Total Agencies Responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. TABLE 17 PARTNERS IN COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS Partners No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Social service agencies serving people who are homeless 28 85 Nonprofit agencies serving people who are homeless 26 79 City police/county sheriffs 26 79 Homeless shelters 21 64 Private-sector agencies serving people who are homeless 8 24 Other 3 9 Total Agencies Responding 33 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Agencies were asked to describe the nature of these col- laborations, including how they began and how they work. Table 18 summarizes the responses by category. TABLE 18 NATURE OF COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS Category of Response No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Process/beginning 13 46 City police 10 36 Social service/mental health groups 10 36 Fares 10 36 Homeless shelters 8 29 Winter transportation 4 14 Local communities 4 14 Total Agencies Responding 28 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Transit agencies described the beginning of a partner- ship in many different ways. Several noted that a specific incident triggered the partnership. In one case, the col- laboration began around enforcement and then expanded to include social service agencies. Another agency hired a social worker who coordinated all needed services. Often the first step was a willingness to partner with anyone who could provide assistance. Some agencies were asked to part- ner with a specific group, while others sought out partner- ships with agencies that deal with people who are homeless. One agency asked key officers in local police departments throughout its service area to invite the transit agency to committee meetings or forums concerning people who are homeless. However the partnerships began, a common ele- ment was ongoing contact among all partners to identify issues and assess progress. Police departments are a natural partner for transit agen- cies, even for those with their own police forces. One agency stated that a purpose of the partnership was to adopt “soft- handed” tactics. An agency with a transit police depart- ment noted that its officers could make voluntary rotations with the city police department’s Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) program. Each team includes a mental health profes- sional, and the transit police officers become familiar with the various social service agencies that partner with the HOT program. Transit agencies also collaborate with social service and mental health agencies. Partnerships are a two-way street, with the transit agency educating others about its services and obtaining new perspectives on people who are homeless from those who work with them most closely. The shared information can lead to collaboration on action plans. Many transit agencies offer reduced fares for people who are homeless and conduct outreach with social service agen- cies to ensure broad awareness of these programs. A typical arrangement is for social service agencies to purchase dis- counted passes or tickets and then to distribute these to their clients. The social service agency and not the transit agency is responsible for identifying qualified recipients. One transit agency has had a program of free rides for people who are homeless; it is facing resistance from its partners to imple- menting a shared-cost approach. Several transit agencies work directly with homeless shel- ters. This can involve provision of discounted tickets, tracking the number of people who are homeless housed each day, and providing transportation between a central location and home- less shelters or between day and night shelters. One agency noted that it provides an early morning trip from an overnight shelter (clients must leave early in the morning) to its transit center, where connections to other locations can be made. The agency commented that many people who are homeless wait in the transit center until the main library opens.

15 friendly atmosphere for relaxed, informal one-on-one con- versations. Transit and city police in Salt Lake City serve coffee and hand out donuts to people who are homeless. As conversations occur, tension eases and people who are homeless speak about their concerns. UTA police were able to answer transit-related questions. People who are home- less offered ideas for future Coffee with a Cop get-togethers, including handing out personal hygiene products or socks instead of donuts. The one-on-one connections begin the process of building trust between police officers and indi- viduals who are homeless. TABLE 20 TYPES OF COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS Type of Effort No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Homeless committees 3 20 Summits/workshops/seminars 3 20 Outreach efforts 3 20 Veterans Administration/veterans’ groups 2 13 Social service agency initiatives 2 13 City/downtown associations 2 13 Other 3 20 Total Agencies Responding 15 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. CHALLENGES IN AGENCY INTERACTIONS Respondents described various challenges in agency inter- actions with people who are homeless. Table 21 displays the results. Funding and the extent of homelessness were the only challenges rated as “major” by at least 25% of respon- dents. Large agencies were more likely than mid-sized or small agencies to rate various challenges as “major.” At least half of all respondents reported legal issues, unclear policies and procedures, ability to develop effective partnerships, lack of emphasis, and opposition from community activists as “not a challenge.” Other factors mentioned included secu- rity, difficulty in determining whether someone is homeless, and inadequate alternatives. Respondents also answered an open-ended question ask- ing them to describe the major challenge in agency interac- tions with people who are homeless. Table 22 summarizes the responses. Verbatim examples of specific responses are shown here: The lack of public restrooms. They relieve themselves at bus stops and on the grounds of nearby businesses and even on buses. Some stops have to be (or should be) cleaned daily for this reason and some business owners have felt aggrieved for long periods of time. Severe winter weather is an inducement to collaboration. In cities with winter-only homeless shelters, the transit agencies provide service to these shelters. In other cases, connecting services between day and night shelters is provided only dur- ing winter months. One agency provides free rides for people who are homeless on nights when the temperature drops below freezing. Another sends modified buses to specific locations to serve as overnight shelters during especially cold nights. Many agencies reported formal and informal contact with local cities on a regular basis to discuss issues and strategies. These discussions are based on the recognition that home- lessness is a challenge that extends beyond transit. Table 19 shows that most transit agencies do not partici- pate in community educational efforts related to the chal- lenge of homelessness; however, more than 85% (6 out of 7) of the large agencies participate in such efforts. No transit agency in the survey took the lead in these efforts. TABLE 19 TRANSIT AGENCY PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS Participation No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding None 26 58 As a participating agency 19 42 As the lead agency 0 0 Total Agencies Responding 45 100 Source: Survey results. Table 20 shows the types of community educational efforts in which transit agencies participate. Some cities have homelessness committees, and transit agency represen- tatives describe their services and pass programs. Other cit- ies host summits or workshops on homelessness, and transit is often invited to participate. Transit agencies are asked to assist in outreach efforts. Some agencies work with veterans’ groups or social service agencies. “Other” includes emer- gency responders, service organizations, and job fairs. One agency makes announcements encouraging its customers to contribute to homeless organizations in lieu of giving money directly to people who are homeless. “COFFEE WITH A COP” One particularly interesting community outreach program is Coffee with a Cop. The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Police Department has adapted this national program (Cof- fee with a Cop 2015) in partnership with the Salt Lake City Police Department as a means to engage individuals who are homeless. The intent of Coffee with a Cop is to replace the crisis situations that typically define interactions between law enforcement officials and community members with a

16 We run a public service that does not question the customer’s purpose of travel. If they can pay the fare they can ride. While on the vehicle and property, they must follow the same code of conduct that applies to all other customers. Transit staff are compassionate and want to help, so we have information printed and available on board the vehicles about how someone can obtain social services and connect to housing options. Unfortunately, many of the homeless have been turned away from shelters because of a lack of space available or rules unique to the shelter. It is difficult to convince someone they should try the system again if they believe it has failed them in the past. Our largest transfer facility is also a large building with public toilet access. It is just a few blocks away from a recently closed (by the city) informal homeless encampment. When the site was closed, many migrated to the transfer station and have tried to set up semi- permanent camps in the area. The city is actively reaching out to the homeless and trying to connect them to other services. We have to protect our property for our tenants and customers. Finding an alternative for the homeless is challenging at best. Homeless folks will camp out in a corner of the convention center which is immediately adjacent to our busiest downtown stop. The excuse offered when they are asked to move is that they are waiting on the bus. The bus comes and goes and they are still there. This is a major turnoff to convention goers and visitors to our city. Homeless individuals use transit facilities for bathing, washing, and sleeping on a frequent basis. Bus stops have also become used by homeless for sleeping/living; while we do not own the bus stop, this affects the passengers wishing to use the stop to access our service, and cities often request that we address the issue even though they own the actual stop. Funding to support programs for homeless individuals is a major factor in our community. There is a strong recognition of the need and most agencies are doing a great job with what they have. However, the need far exceeds the resources and the result is an overflow of individuals lacking the support they need to make a lasting impact on their homeless condition. Table 23 summarizes strategies or tactics used to address major challenges. The primary agency strategies are part- nerships and consistent enforcement. Partners include social service agencies, local police departments, other municipal departments, courts, college students (through programs or internships for outreach), and any alternative to enforcement alone. Two agencies mentioned partnerships with home- less coalitions in their cities and noted that the coalitions’ approach was more thorough and achieved more permanent results than simply calling the police. CHALLENGES IN CUSTOMER REACTIONS Respondents described various challenges in terms of cus- tomer reactions to people who are homeless. Table 24 dis- plays the results. Personal hygiene issues were cited by a majority of respondents as a major challenge. Issues related TABLE 21 RATINGS OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGES IN TRANSIT AGENCY INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Potential Challenge Major Challenge Minor Challenge Not a Challenge No. Agencies Responding Extent of homelessness 27% 59% 14% 49 Balancing cus- tomer concerns with humane actions 10% 63% 27% 48 Funding to sup- port programs 34% 34% 32% 47 Support from city/county 13% 44% 44% 48 Training of agency personnel 9% 46% 46% 46 Legal issues 6% 44% 50% 48 Unclear policies and procedures 10% 39% 51% 49 Ability to develop effec- tive partner- ships with social service or other agencies 4% 40% 56% 48 Lack of empha- sis within transit agency 6% 26% 68% 47 Opposition from commu- nity activists 9% 20% 72% 46 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 22 ONE MAJOR CHALLENGE IN TRANSIT AGENCY INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Challenge No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Behavioral issues 12 28 People who are homeless congre- gating on vehicles or in transit centers/terminals 11 26 Misleading perceptions 4 9 Limited alternatives 4 9 Lack of information (agency or others) 3 7 Unwillingness to accept help 3 7 Conflicts with municipalities 3 7 Cost 2 5 Fare payment 1 2 Total Agencies Responding 43 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Hostile, aggressive, loud, and disruptive segment of homeless population who use the public transit system create fear and apprehension in other riders and transit staff.

17 to customer reactions were much more likely to be rated as challenges than issues surrounding agency interactions with people who are homeless (shown in Table 21). The percent- age of “not a challenge” responses ranged from zero to 21% for elements regarding customer reactions in Table 24, com- pared with the percentage of “not a challenge” responses ranging from 14% to 72% for elements regarding agency interactions with homeless persons in Table 21. Other com- ments noted that these were not an issue for most riders and that the issues were greatest at night, at certain locations, or on certain routes. TABLE 23 AGENCY STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME MAJOR CHALLENGES Strategy No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Partnerships 16 39 Consistent enforcement 14 34 Training 4 10 Empower staff 4 10 Communication/outreach 4 10 Treat homeless person like any other customer 4 10 Changes to fares/fare media 3 7 Provide/modify restrooms 2 5 Total Agencies Responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Respondents also answered an open-ended question ask- ing them to describe the major challenge in terms of customer reactions to people who are homeless. Table 25 summarizes detailed responses. Fear and reaction to personal hygiene issues were mentioned most often. Table 26 summarizes strategies or tactics used to address any major challenges. The primary agency strategies are enforcement/police presence, coordination, and training of frontline agency personnel. “Other” responses included employing a social worker on staff, more frequent cleaning, rebuilding the worst location, a low-income pass, and mak- ing restrooms available at the discretion of staff. SUMMARY This section summarizes the key findings of the agency sur- vey regarding the extent to which homelessness is perceived to be an issue, policies and procedures related to people who are homeless, actions taken, responsibilities and resources, and challenges. TABLE 24 RATINGS OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGES REGARDING CUSTOMER REACTIONS Potential Challenge Major Challenge Minor Challenge Not a Challenge No. Agencies Responding Personal hygiene issues 55% 45% 0% 44 Discomfort in the presence of people who are homeless 30% 66% 5% 44 Cleanliness of transit facilities/ vehicles/seats 43% 48% 9% 44 Fear 25% 66% 9% 44 Experience of aggressive/dis- ruptive behavior 27% 61% 11% 44 Effect on willingness of customers to use transit 21% 58% 21% 43 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. TABLE 25 ONE MAJOR CHALLENGE IN CUSTOMER REACTIONS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS Challenge No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Reaction due to personal hygiene issues 12 30 Fear 10 25 Less willing to ride 5 13 Sense of discomfort 4 10 Nothing specific/very few complaints 4 10 Homeless take up too much space 3 8 Lack of compassion/confusing mental health and drug issues with homelessness 3 8 Total Agencies Responding 41 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding. Is homelessness an issue? Ninety-one percent of respond- ing agencies perceive impacts related to homelessness as either a minor or major issue. The issue is not confined to large transit systems; 93% of mid-sized agencies and 88% of small agencies view homelessness as a major or minor issue. Many agencies had difficulty estimating the size of the homeless population that affects their transit systems daily. Among those who offered estimates, transit agencies in larger metropolitan areas reported higher numbers of people who are homeless.

18 TABLE 26 AGENCY STRATEGIES TO OVERCOME MAJOR CHALLENGES REGARDING CUSTOMER INTERACTIONS Strategy No. Agencies Responding % Agencies Responding Enforcement/police presence 11 29 Collaborations with police and/or social service agencies 9 24 Training of operators/supervisors to defuse situation 7 18 Streamlined complaint process plus immediate response 5 13 Public education 4 11 Nothing specific 4 11 Media support 2 5 Other 5 13 Total Agencies Responding 38 100 Source: Survey results. Note: Multiple responses allowed; percentages do not add to 100%. Agency policies and procedures. Most responding agencies have developed informal policies and procedures for interact- ing with people who are homeless, but very few agencies post their policies and procedures on their websites. These policies and procedures do not differ for different homeless popula- tions, reflecting a consistent theme throughout the survey that policies, procedures, and actions target behaviors rather than status. Loud and disruptive behavior by any customer, not only people who are homeless, is not tolerated. Actions taken. Actions taken by transit agencies with regard to people who are homeless echo the dual approach that emerged as an ongoing theme throughout the literature review: transit agencies pursue partnerships with social service agen- cies while enforcing laws and agency rules. The majority of respondents reported that the extent of interaction with people who are homeless is constant year-round, although 30% indi- cated more extensive interaction in cold winter months. Responsibilities and resources. The operations depart- ment, specifically operations supervisors, was named by a majority of respondents as having responsibility for imple- menting agency policies and procedures regarding people who are homeless, followed by city or county police and transit police. Multiple jurisdictions can be a complicating factor: 60% percent of respondents indicated that responsi- bilities are shared among multiple parties. Among the 40% that reported that one group had the lead role, transit police were named most often. Forty-one percent of agencies con- duct or sponsor training for first-line employees (bus opera- tors, customer service personnel, and transit police) related to interactions with people who are homeless, whereas 41% do not. Some agencies reported that their employee training addresses conflict resolution or disruptive passengers but is not specifically targeted to people who are homeless. The literature review indicated that when homelessness first emerged as an issue, transit agencies were very con- cerned about bearing the costs of a problem that was not solely theirs to address. Most responding agencies have not defined the budget impacts related to interacting with peo- ple who are homeless, although one-quarter of respondents were not sure whether their agencies had defined these or not. Only one of the six agencies that had defined budget impacts reported an annual total of over a million dollars. Three of these six agencies indicated that the funds were spent to provide free or reduced-cost fares, whereas the other three agencies used these funds for extra cleaning crews, outreach services, added staff at the transit center, and a crisis intervention training program. Only seven agen- cies (16%) have dedicated staff to interact with people who are homeless. Partnerships and community education. Seventy-five per- cent of respondents partner with others. The partnership might have been triggered by a specific incident or simply by the agency’s willingness to partner with anyone who could pro- vide assistance. In one case, the collaboration began around enforcement and then expanded to include social service agen- cies. Another agency hired a social worker who coordinated all needed services. Some agencies were asked to partner with a specific group, whereas others sought out partnerships with agencies that deal with people who are homeless. One agency asked key officers in local police departments throughout its service area to invite the transit agency to committee meetings or forums concerning people who are homeless. One transit police department joins with the city police department to host Coffee with a Cop. However the partnerships began, a com- mon element was ongoing contact among all partners to iden- tify issues and assess progress. City police departments are a natural partner for transit agencies, even for those with their own police forces. Tran- sit agencies also collaborate with social service and mental health agencies regarding homelessness. Several transit agen- cies work directly with homeless shelters. Partnerships are a two-way street, with the transit agency educating others about its services and obtaining new perspectives on people who are homeless from those who work with them most closely. The shared information can lead to collaboration on action plans. Many transit agencies offer reduced fares for people who are homeless and conduct outreach with social service agen- cies to ensure broad awareness of these programs. Severe winter weather is an inducement to collaboration. In cities with winter-only homeless shelters, the transit agen- cies provide service to these shelters. In other cases, con- necting services between day and night shelters might be provided only during winter months. One agency provides free rides for people who are homeless on nights when the temperature drops below freezing. Another sends modified

19 to enforcement alone. Two agencies mentioned partnerships with homeless coalitions in their cities and noted that the coalitions’ approach was more thorough and achieved more permanent results than simply calling the police. Challenges in customer reactions. Agencies were more likely to characterize challenges in customer reactions (com- pared with challenges in interactions with people who are homeless) as “major.” Personal hygiene issues were cited by a majority of respondents as a major challenge, fol- lowed by cleanliness of transit facilities/vehicles/seats and rider discomfort in the presence of people who are home- less. Additional comments noted that these were not issues for all riders and that the issues were greatest at night, at certain locations, or on certain routes. Fear and reaction to personal hygiene issues were mentioned most often as the major challenges in customer reactions to people who are homeless. Primary agency strategies to address these chal- lenges are enforcement/police presence, coordination with police or social service agencies, and training of frontline agency personnel. buses to specific locations to serve as overnight shelters dur- ing especially cold nights. Most responding agencies (58%) do not participate in com- munity educational efforts related to the problem of home- lessness. Among the 42% that are involved in community education, many work with homeless committees in the cities to describe their services and pass programs. Some cities host summits or workshops on homelessness, and transit is often invited to participate or asked to assist in other outreach efforts. Challenges in interactions. Funding and the extent of homelessness were the only challenges rated as “major” by at least 25% of respondents. When asked to describe the major challenge in agency interactions with people who are homeless, agencies cited behavioral issues and people who are homeless congregating on vehicles or in transit centers/ terminals. The primary agency strategies to address these challenges are partnerships and consistent enforcement. Partners include social service agencies, local police depart- ments, cities, courts, college students, and any alternative