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.

26 CHAPTER FIVE CASE EXAMPLES INTRODUCTION Synthesis survey results provide an overview of transit agency efforts to interact with people who are homeless. Fol- lowing a review of these results, six agencies were chosen as case examples. Personnel directly involved with policies and outreach to individuals who are homeless were interviewed by telephone. The case examples provide additional details on challenges, solutions, partnerships, and lessons learned. The selection process for case examples had several cri- teria: (1) transit agencies of various sizes in different parts of North America, (2) agencies that have taken innovative approaches in their interactions with people who are home- less, and (3) agencies that provided detailed survey responses and interesting observations. Almost 75% of responding agencies offered to serve as a case example. The six agencies chosen provide an overview of current strategies to improve transit agency interaction with people who are homeless. Figure 2 in chapter one showed the location of the case example cities. The six case example cities and agencies are— • Fort Worth, Texas: Fort Worth Transportation Authority • Madison, Wisconsin: Metro Transit • Oakland, California: Bay Area Rapid Transit • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority • Phoenix, Arizona: Valley Metro • Washington, D.C.: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Table 36 provides a basic description of the transit agencies included in the case examples, including ridership, service area population, and peak bus requirements. Figure 3 pres- ents this information in graphic form, with peak vehicles on the x-axis, service area population on the y-axis, and annual ridership reflected by the size of the bubble for each case example agency. Sources are the FY 2013 National Transit Database (NTD) reports and data provided by the agencies. The case examples are reported in each agency’s own words and summarize survey responses and interview observations from each agency. The interviews explored issues raised by the survey responses in greater depth. FORT WORTH TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (THE T, FORT WORTH, TEXAS) The T is the transit provider in Fort Worth, Texas. The service area population of Fort Worth and Tar- Figure 3 ridership, service area population, and peak vehicles for case example agencies.

27 rant County is 2 million in a region of 7 million people that includes Dallas and other nearby counties. The T operates 140 fixed-route buses. Ridership in FY 2014 was 11 million, with 2 million of those trips taken on the Trinity Railway Express, a commuter rail line that connects Fort Worth and Dallas and is co-owned and operated with Dallas Area Rapid Transit. TABLE 36 CHARACTERISTICS OF CASE EXAMPLE AGENCIES Agency Annual Ridership (million) Service Area Population (million) Number of Peak Vehicles Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Fort Worth, TX 11.0 2.0 140 Metro, Madison, WI 15.0 0.25 175 Bay Area Rapid Transit, Oakland, CA 126.5 3.3 534 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, PA 330.2 5.4 1,948 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 55.1 3.6 418 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC 413.6 4.6 2,171 Source: FY 2013 NTD reports and agency data. Issues The T views several factors related to people who are home- less as major challenges. The primary challenge is who pays for the rides of clients of the social service agencies, including individuals who are homeless. In the past, the transit agency gave away 100,000 free day passes per year to 140 social service agencies at a cost to the agency of up to $350,000 in annual lost revenue and with no accounting for the use of these passes. In the most recent budget preparation process, The T realized that it cannot afford to continue this practice. Complicating this issue was the fact that some nonprofit agencies were buying passes at a reduced cost. The policy was inconsistent and unfair to those who did pay. Transit in Fort Worth has been perceived as a social service agency rather than a transportation agency, and the free fares for social service agency clients reinforce this perception. Until the agency dispels this image, it will have a hard time attracting new riders. A free service is often seen as having no value, and some in the community see a free service as only for “losers.” This issue is not directly related to interactions with people who are homeless. The transit agency stated that its interactions with individuals who are homeless are no more challenging than interactions with the community at large. Solutions The T notified all nonprofit agencies a year in advance that the free fare program would not be continued beyond September 30, 2015, and it is actively pursuing dialogue with the community to dispel its image as a social service agency. Forcing the non- profit community to buy their passes helps create the impression that The T is managing its system in a businesslike fashion and encourages more residents and visitors to try the service. Training for operators does not focus on dealing with people who are homeless but addresses relationships with all customers. Like many transit agencies, The T has lots of rules. Dealing with belligerent customers is part of the train- ing. Operators are taught to understand situations in which common sense and compassion are more important than strict observance of the rules; for example, when a mother cannot fold up a stroller on an uncrowded bus. One person on The T staff is assigned as liaison with the city’s Homeless Commission. The agency also works with nonprofit and social service agencies to ensure that any new facility is on a bus route. The primary benefit from the agency’s efforts to improve interactions with people who are homeless is a generally pleas- ant environment on all of its vehicles. The agency selects super- visors and security staff carefully to ensure that enforcement of rules and regulations for behavior is balanced with compassion. If The T could change one aspect of its interactions with people who are homeless (more specifically, with the agencies that serve this population), it would be that these agencies would take a greater role in and responsibility for funding and supporting transit services. Advice to Other Agencies The T offers the following lessons learned from its interac- tions with people who are homeless: • Examine your entire ridership base and develop pro- grams that benefit all riders. • Be aware that riders who are homeless are not that much different from other riders. The percentage of problem riders among people who are homeless is sim- ilar to the overall percentage. • Establish a consistent fare policy. The T’s fare structure needs to address how to price tickets/fares fairly for all bulk-purchase customers, whether for-profit or nonprofit. METRO TRANSIT SYSTEM (METRO, MADISON, WISCONSIN) Metro is the transit provider in Madison, Wisconsin, with a service area population of 253,000 (FY 2013 National Tran-

28 sit Database). Metro directly operates 175 buses in maxi- mum service. Ridership in 2013 was 15 million. Issues Metro noted that the extent of homelessness in Madison is a major challenge. Cold winters raise particular concerns about the physical safety of people who are homeless. Both candidates in the recent mayoral election listed equity, trans- portation, and the homeless population as key issues. As a city, Madison embraces the “Wisconsin idea” of benefiting the lives of everyone in the state and looking con- stantly for ways to improve. In that vein, the City Council was concerned in 2009 when a fare increase was proposed for Metro that the burden would fall disproportionately on low-income persons. Solutions The City Council approved the fare increase in 2009, along with a low-income pass program that provides half-price monthly passes for low-income individuals. At the begin- ning of each month, 300 low-income passes are available for purchase at Metro, City Hall, and the Dane County Human Services Job Center (100 at each location). An additional 150 passes are available at mid-month. Low-income persons self-certify as eligible. The low-income bus pass has been a helpful way to encourage customers, homeless or not, to access transporta- tion. One concern is differences between the county and city in the way they fund the low-income bus pass. This is a topic of ongoing discussions. Cost-sharing arrangements that are consistent and fair to all parties are necessary if the program is to be expanded. Metro provides transportation between overnight and day homeless shelters when the wind chill factor drops below minus 35 degrees and school is canceled. Buses are freed up to provide this service when schools are not in session. Metro has developed a partnership with Porchlight, a very active nonprofit organization that serves as a coordi- nating group for homelessness-related issues. Both agencies work with other nonprofits, city departments, and down- town business groups to ensure that homelessness issues are addressed and that the safety/security issues are not unattended. Porchlight can steer people who are homeless toward treatment for mental health and addiction issues, and other needed social services. People who are homeless usually do not cause public safety/security issues: Metro reports that 99% of individu- als who are homeless are like any other customers. Interact- ing with people who are homeless is covered in the training program for all Metro bus operators, with an emphasis on treating every customer with respect. Customer complaints about people who are homeless are relatively rare and occur only when an individual is exhibit- ing belligerent or otherwise unacceptable behavior. Metro typically hears about these incidents first from bus opera- tors. Passengers inform bus operators about issues at a bus stop. The biggest customer safety/security issue is with stu- dents, not with people who are homeless. Metro has a partnership with the Madison Police Department and credits the Police Department for its skill at working with the community to build respect. Metro established a program in which police officers who are willing to work overtime are trained for special duty at transfer points within the system at busy or challenging times of the day. The Police Department trains on the enforcement aspects and Metro trains on the bus-related aspects, such as how to determine whether an individual is a real transit rider. Every few months, Metro and the Police Department review issues and how they are being addressed. For example, when a zero-tolerance program for policy violations on Metro buses was proposed, the Police Department and the school district—after review- ing national efforts—persuaded Metro not to institute the program. The key point regarding partnership with the police is that the officers get to know Metro’s drivers and passengers through daily interaction. According to Metro, the primary benefit of these efforts is progress: Metro is better suited to deal with people who are homeless now than it was 10 years ago. However, the number of individuals who are homeless is growing. If Metro could change one aspect of its interactions with people who are homeless, it would improve communications with county human services and nonprofit agencies. The communications are good, but they could be better. Advice to Other Agencies Metro offers the following lessons learned from its interac- tions with people who are homeless: • Build relationships with social service and nonprofit agencies. If you do not know where to begin, start with the local (city or county) human services agency. Staff will direct you to agencies that work with people who are homeless and will provide contacts within those agencies. • Join committees that deal with homelessness issues. This is a way to understand the issues from an outside perspective and to share the agency’s perspective with others. • Develop partnerships with the local police department(s).

29 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART, OAKLAND/SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) BART is the heavy rail transit provider in the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California. The service area population is 3.3 million. BART directly operates 534 heavy rail cars in maximum service. Ridership in 2013 was 126.5 million. Issues BART identified the extent of homelessness as a major chal- lenge. The agency perceives three major issues related to people who are homeless on its system: 1. Effect on customers. The riding public wants the areas within the stations clean, with no encampments of people who are homeless, and expects any issues to be resolved immediately by means of enforcement. 2. Engagement between law enforcement and people who are homeless. The BART Police Department follows the engage-identify-connect model in its out- reach to individuals who are homeless. The availabil- ity of resources is a challenge, temporally outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and physically with a lack of sufficient beds/shelters. Individuals who are home- less are often not willing to accept offers of shelter and assistance. 3. Political pressure. Stakeholders want the “problem” solved with no negative repercussions. The lack of training to identify and respond appropriately in dealing with difficult and challenged individuals has been a major problem for BART in its interactions with people who are homeless. Solutions The BART Police Department implemented crisis inter- vention team (CIT) training, philosophy, policies, and pro- cedures for all populations, not only for people who are homeless. The agency hired a CIT coordinator and estab- lished a Multi-Disciplinary Forensic Team (MDFT) and a support system. MDFT is a collaborative work group that identifies individuals who have multiple contacts with law enforcement (“high calls for service”). These individuals are likely to have psychiatric issues and are in danger of slipping through the cracks in the system. The MDFT work group collectively shares the responsibility of addressing and assisting those in need of services and outreach. The MDFT is a voluntary coalition of Alameda County law enforcement agencies, Alameda County Behavioral Health Care, and allied service providers who agree to meet for the purpose of assisting those individuals with mental illness, substance abuse, and co-occurring disor- ders who are at high risk of frequent welfare checks or involuntary hospitalization, or who are arrested for behav- iors and activities related to their disabilities. The MDFT is committed to helping these individuals obtain evaluation, treatment, and ongoing services leading toward recovery and reducing recidivism for the benefit of both the indi- vidual and the community. The BART system serves a four-county area. Each county has its own court system, which presents a unique challenge when dealing with a multi-county offender/tran- sient. A critical collaboration has been to have the district attorney or designee participate in each county with the MDFT work group. Each county has its own version of a mobile support team, homeless outreach team, or crisis response team, with clinically trained outreach workers who work directly with officers in the field. The MDFT is an excellent forum for constructive venting about issues and concerns that law enforcement has to address day in and day out, which leads to the development of strategies to address these challenges. What happens in a specific case depends on the perspec- tive of the individual. If the person is receptive to help, he or she is committed (or recommitted) to a program. This approach is successful with a combination of willingness and the right resources. If the person is resistant, the officer is a little more persistent in attempts to persuade the individ- ual to accept help. If the person is threatening with no regard for others, the officer will arrest him or her. Throughout the process, the goal is to encourage the individual to get help voluntarily, which reduces recidivism. The MDFT provides an effective support system for law enforcement. CIT training is provided for all law enforcement personnel at BART, including dispatch, community service officers, and administrative personnel. CIT is also offered to other first responder agencies (fire, emergency medical transport, psychiatric hospital security, and college security). Mental Health First Aid is an excellent training that is also offered to other agency professionals (station agents, train operators, system service workers, trainers, and administrative person- nel). The integration of training across agencies and depart- ments has been very helpful and effective. BART recognizes how important it is for operations personnel and police to work together to address these systemwide challenges. The benefits of these efforts include the following: • Establishing rapport with at-risk populations through persistent outreach efforts.

30 also seek shelter in remote locations where physical security measures were weakest. In 1995, Project HOME, a Philadelphia nonprofit organi- zation that has been a leader in providing comprehensive and effective services to persons who experience chronic home- lessness, began to evaluate a partnership with the SEPTA Police Department. In response, SEPTA launched a para- digm shift in its approach to managing the homeless popula- tions in its transit system. Solutions In the initial phase of the partnership, Project HOME, the City of Philadelphia’s Department of Housing, professionals from the various mental health agencies, other volunteers, and SEPTA police began to jointly canvass the stations and underground concourses frequented by homeless people. The four goals of this street assessment were— 1. To assess the conditions; 2. To identify homeless individuals and their personal needs; 3. To cultivate confidence among that population to vol- untarily seek shelter and accept available services; and 4. To provide relief for law enforcement in their daily contacts. SEPTA quickly saw an improved travel environment and noticed that permanent solutions were established for many of the people living on the streets. The canvassing endeavor was named Point in Time and is conducted four times a year. In recent efforts, more than 35 staff members from Project HOME and other social services, possessing various skills, have worked with SEPTA police to canvass several major cen- ter city stations and the connecting underground concourses. Project HOME also worked with local churches and other private groups to open “cafes”—temporary overnight shel- ters located near transit stations (the SEPTA system is closed between 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m.). When SEPTA police encoun- ter people who are homeless, they can direct them to these sites. SEPTA and its partners at Project HOME continued to look for new ways to manage the homeless population and strategically direct limited resources to where they would be most effectively utilized. In the winter of 2011 a program was unveiled by Project HOME, numerous social service agencies, the city of Philadelphia, SEPTA, and local busi- ness groups that had worked together to establish a walk-in outreach center at SEPTA’s largest rail center. The center, named the Hub of Hope, was located in a small retail space at the Suburban Station, just under the Two Penn Cen- • Developing a support system in each county, consistent collaboration, education, and training. • Reducing repeat incarcerations and hospital visits among those individuals who have a history of multiple contacts with law enforcement officials. The primary drawback is the inconsistency of collab- orative efforts with individual counties within the BART service area. If BART could change one aspect of its inter- actions with people who are homeless, it would update and increase training—especially in the areas of homeless and mental illness awareness and de-escalation skills—for per- sonnel who deal with difficult and challenging individuals. Advice to Other Agencies BART offers the following lessons learned from its interac- tions with people who are homeless: • Leadership is a critical element. The department leader is the one who implements and follows through on CIT coordination and outreach liaison, and encourages other law enforcement agencies to participate. • CIT coordination provides a direct support system to line staff. • CIT and MDFT provide a peer support system for law enforcement officers. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SEPTA, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA) SEPTA is the primary transit provider in the five-county southeastern Pennsylvania metropolitan area. SEPTA oper- ates multiple modes, including bus, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail service. The service area population is 5.4 million. SEPTA directly operates 1,172 buses, 334 com- muter rail cars, 286 heavy rail cars, 126 streetcar rail cars, and 30 trolleybuses in maximum service. Ridership in 2014 was 330.2 million. Issues SEPTA views the extent of homelessness as a major chal- lenge. The response in the late 1980s and early 1990s was left to enforcement by SEPTA’s Transit Police Department. Many officers were frustrated, feeling that they were only moving the homeless from place to place. Homeless people tended to congregate in the underground concourses of cen- ter city and at SEPTA’s two largest rail stations, Suburban and Jefferson (formerly Market East) Stations. They would

31 ter high-rise office complex. The Hub provides social and health services to individuals who are experiencing long- term homelessness and who are living in and around the subway concourses during the winter months, when the homeless population seeking refuge is at its highest. The area is patrolled by SEPTA police officers, who check on the well-being of outreach staff and prevent congregating of individuals who refuse services or those who seek to take wrongful advantage of homeless people trying to find help. Establishing a walk-in center within the transit system for people who are homeless has many advantages: 1. It serves people who are homeless where they are, making access to services much more convenient and allowing for continued follow-up with individuals. 2. Project HOME staff can engage individuals who need care at a “treatable moment” when they may be more receptive to offers of help. 3. SEPTA police officers have options in their dealings with people who are homeless. Instead of repeatedly removing them from the system, they can direct them to the center. In January and February 2014, Project HOME reported that 359 individuals were placed into shelter, treatment, and other housing options (Project HOME 2014). Of these, 232 were categorized as long-term homeless/fragile individuals. SEPTA reports the following benefits from its efforts to improve interactions with people who are homeless: • A reduction in the homeless population within the tran- sit system. The Hub of Hope’s success in placing indi- viduals who are homeless into housing and programs is a major factor in this reduction. Veterans are directed to the Veterans Administration hospital for services. • A great partnership with Project HOME that creates opportunities to address underlying issues that contribute to homelessness along with day-to-day behavioral issues. • A reduction in customer complaints related to people who are homeless. One drawback is the uncertain availability of space for the Hub for Hope from year to year. In general, the center city business community has been supportive of Project HOME’s efforts, but some members of the business commu- nity are strongly opposed to providing a space for homeless outreach efforts. Advice to Other Agencies SEPTA offers the following lessons learned from its interac- tions with people who are homeless: • Creativity. The transit agency cannot succeed with enforcement alone. • Partnerships. By working together, the transit agency, the city, and social service agencies can meet the needs of all parties involved. Enhanced customer security and perceptions, help for those who need it, and increased sensitivity to the people and issues involved have been direct results of the SEPTA– Project HOME–city partnership. • Funding. If SEPTA could change one aspect of its interactions with people who are homeless, the agency would welcome a consistent, continuing source of funding in support of the partnership’s efforts. • Patience. Success does not happen overnight. Give the process time to come together. VALLEY METRO (PHOENIX, ARIZONA) Valley Metro is the primary transit provider in Phoenix, Ari- zona. It operates multiple modes, including contracted bus and rail service. The service area population is 3.6 million. Valley Metro oversees operation of 392 buses and 26 light rail cars in maximum service. Ridership in 2013 was 55.1 million on bus and rail. Issues Valley Metro views people who are homeless as a minor issue. For many years, persons who were homeless were arrested and cited if they did not follow the rules for con- duct on the transit system. This type of enforcement was not effective and led to a revolving door: the violators were often back on the street at the same location within 4 or 5 hours, because the offense was minor. The contractor responsible for removing violators from the system was doing its job; expectations had not been established beyond that. Many homeless people were extremely resistant to accepting any type of help. Services offered were voluntary; no one could force a person to seek help. The new director of safety and security, who came to Val- ley Metro from the Phoenix Police Department, suggested that the agency exclude people from its system if they did not follow the rules. Although initially unwilling to do this, Val- ley Metro began asking whether it should expect more from its enforcement efforts. The opening of a high-profile light rail line crystallized the need for a new approach.

32 Solutions The Phoenix Police Department launched the Surface-trans- portation Top Offender Program (Operation STOP) in 2011 to address issues with behavior and code of conduct as well as “gateway” crimes (e.g., loitering, urinating, trespassing, littering, carrying an open container of alcohol). STOP was designed to connect people to social services and to restrict their use of the system until probationary requirements or terms of release through plea hearings were met. Acting as an agent of Valley Metro, the Police Department issues warnings for first violations; these warnings require that the person stay away from the transit system, rail stations, and bus stops for a period of 60 days. If the person returns within this period, he or she can be arrested and then is under a court order to work with a counselor from a social service agency (through the Department of Human Services) and stay away from transit until the probationary period is over. Approximately 420 persons have been in the program; 65% of the warnings and arrests were issued or made at bus stops. Several key aspects contribute to the effectiveness of STOP: 1. It does not rely on enforcement alone. Social ser- vice agencies work with the city and Valley Metro to address the underlying problems contributing to homelessness. A key to the program’s success is the ability to gain the trust of the homeless person. 2. STOP combines real penalties (being barred from the system) with inducements (getting help for underly- ing problems) to encourage changes in behavior. 3. The Phoenix Police Department and Valley Metro work with the courts and the prosecutors to gain their buy-in by convincing them that the behavior is chronic and negative, the program is not simply puni- tive, and the penalties are necessary to encourage extremely resistant persons to seek and accept treat- ment for underlying issues often related to mental health and addiction. 4. The navigation model through the system provides consistent guidance to individuals identified as chronically homeless. By providing them with a “way out,” it encourages these individuals to change their behavior and seek treatment while holding them to their probation terms and hopefully working toward success and return to the public transit community. STOP closes the gaps and avoids the previous revolving door pattern by involving law enforcement, the Department of Human Services, social service agencies, prosecutors, and the courts. There is no guarantee of success: many of the top offenders are chronically homeless and extremely resistant to any kind of aid, and there is recidivism. But there are also successes; for example, Valley Metro’s director of safety and security is always happy to attend a “key cer- emony,” where a formerly homeless person is welcomed to his or her new apartment. The biggest obstacle to success is lack of funding: social service agencies are chronically understaffed and under- funded. Valley Metro would like to take proactive actions similar to a 90-day campaign in 2012 involving teams of social service agency personnel who sought out homeless people and encouraged them to accept assistance. The intake process was done on the spot. An additional benefit to this sort of action is that social service agency personnel know their clients and have the training to handle any situation that arises; however, staff are not always available from the social service agencies to conduct a campaign. Another example of partnerships was a joint outreach effort with the Veterans Administration in 2012 to assess and then contact homeless veterans at stops and on vehicles. A near-term goal for Valley Metro is to conduct more out- reach efforts rather than simply respond to requests from outside agencies. The Police Department participates in crisis intervention team training, but there are no formal training programs for operators or other Valley Metro staff related to interac- tions with people who are homeless. Because 65% of warn- ings and arrests happen at bus stops and not on the bus, bus operators do not have extensive contact with people who are homeless. Operators notify dispatch if they observe a cus- tomer passed out at a bus stop. Advice to Other Agencies Valley Metro offers the following lessons learned from its interactions with people who are homeless: • Partnerships are critical to success. The transit agency (and, more broadly, the city) cannot police its way out of the issue. Partnerships with prosecutors, the courts, and the Human Services Department through Operation STOP were essential to connecting home- less people to the help they needed. • A successful program has penalties as well as induce- ments. It is not enough to offer assistance to people who are homeless. To change behavior, a combination of penalties and inducements is necessary. • Be proactive. If Valley Metro could change one aspect of its interactions with people who are homeless, the agency would be more proactive in its approach. • Assess gateway crimes (e.g., loitering, urinating, trespassing, littering, carrying open containers) and understand the ramifications if these crimes are not addressed. These actions have a strong effect on per- ceptions of the transit system.

33 WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY (METRO, WASHINGTON, D.C.) Metro is the regional transit provider in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, with a service area population of 4.6 million. Metro directly operates 1,293 buses and 878 heavy rail cars in maximum service. Ridership in 2013 was 413.6 million. Issues Metro identified most challenges in interactions with people who are homeless as minor. Its biggest issue was fare payment. When Metro introduced its SmarTrip cards in 2011, it discon- tinued tokens as a fare payment medium. Metro distributed several thousand free SmarTrip cards to homeless shelters and county/city human service agencies, and Metro staff organized training for the various agencies on how to load fares onto each customer’s card. Reduced fare applications were distributed and processed so many customers with disabilities could be issued a reduced fare SmarTrip card. Full fare and reduced fare SmarTrip cards were designed to look identical. Metro experienced a higher than anticipated number of lost and replaced reduced fare SmarTrip cards, indicating possible fraudulent use of these cards. In addition, some fare cards were empty and disagreements arose between custom- ers and Metro staff regarding the “faulty” cards, fare evasion, and sharing or inappropriate use of customers’ SmarTrip cards. Metro staff do not want to be confrontational with any customers, but they often encountered the same individuals with the same not-able-to-pay issues on a daily basis. Metro does receive complaints from its customers about personal hygiene of some riders and urination at certain sta- tions and in station elevators. Solutions Tokens have been reinstated. Tokens can be used to pay the fare on a bus or they can be added to the SmarTrip card. In addition, the customer’s name, photograph, ID number, and expiration date are now included on the reduced fare SmarTrip card. Metro staff can ask to see any card that the customer is requesting assistance with and collect any card that appears not to belong to the holder. Metro can suspend any card with suspicious activity or that has been reported as stolen or lost. The agency noted that people who are homeless who rou- tinely use its system are not unlike other customers. As long as customers who are homeless do not exhibit behaviors that are offensive or disruptive, everyone appears to coexist. To protect the rights of all customers, any person who is indulg- ing in loud, offensive, or dangerous behavior is contacted by Metro staff or police. Anyone who refuses to pay is reported to the Metro police. Metro has developed partnerships with 68 homeless shel- ters and works with indigent populations through schools, clinics, and hospitals. Travel training and train-the-trainer courses are offered. The agency conducts outreach to non- traditional housing organizations. Metro also partners with the District of Columbia’s Home- land Security and Emergency Management Agency to pro- vide designated “warming buses” around the city in extreme winter weather conditions. Food and water are available on the buses, and portable restrooms are located nearby. Advice to Other Agencies Metro offers the following lessons learned from its interac- tions with people who are homeless: • The policy of opening our doors to everyone as long as they behave appropriately on our system fosters respect and appropriate behavior among most riders. Enforcement is required to deal with the small percent- age of customers who do not comply with the rules, but these are not all people who are homeless. TABLE 37 HOW-TO MATRIX SUGGESTED BY THE CASE EXAMPLES Question Approach How do I begin? Establish policies based on behavior. How do I enforce the policies? Work with transit police (if existing) and local law enforcement to devise effective enforcement strate- gies with the goal of ensuring and enhancing the safety and comfort of all customers. Real penalties are an important aspect of enforcement. Will enforce- ment alone work? Experience suggests that inducements are needed along with penalties to make real changes in individ- uals’ behavior. Partnerships with social service agencies and others can yield important benefits. How do I find partners? If you do not know where to begin, start with the local (city or county) human services agency. Agency staff will direct you to agencies and provide contacts within those agencies. How do I fund a program? Funding is challenging for all parties, but partner- ships help to share the cost. Seek out grant opportu- nities. Keep in mind that actions to address disrup- tive behavior are important to your customers and affect their perceptions of your agency. Anything else? One agency noted that training “cultivates percep- tions” at all levels: agency personnel, law enforce- ment, customers, and the broader community.

34 • Changes to fare media can have unanticipated conse- quences among social service agencies that distribute fares to their clients. • The warming buses provide shelter for individuals who are homeless on bitterly cold winter nights. The warm- ing buses also provide a safe haven for people who are homeless and want help but may not know where to find it or whom to trust. CASE EXAMPLE SUMMARY The case studies were selected to provide examples of the wide variety of strategies used by transit agencies in their interactions with people who are homeless. Rather than summarizing the results in very different situations, Table 37 offers how-to guidelines suggested by the case examples.