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.

35 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this synthesis is to report on major issues and successful approaches regarding transit agency practices in interacting with people who are homeless. The literature review, survey of transit agencies, and case examples pro- vide a snapshot of current interactions and offer a general overview of how interactions with people who are homeless have evolved. The survey of transit agencies was important to define the current state of the practice with regard to agency interac- tions with individuals who are homeless. Thirty-four com- pleted surveys were received from the 40 agencies in the sample, a response rate of 85%. Transit agencies listed in the APTA directory were also invited to participate in the survey; we received responses from 21 additional agencies, bringing the total to 55. Survey results address the extent to which people who are homeless are a challenge for transit agencies, agency policies and procedures, actions imple- mented and their effects, responsibilities and resources, partnerships, community education, challenges, benefits and drawbacks of actions taken, and lessons learned. Case examples provide additional details on challenges, solutions, partnerships, and lessons learned. Six agencies were selected as case examples: • 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 This chapter summarizes key findings, presents conclu- sions from this synthesis project, and suggests areas for future study. Findings from the literature review, survey responses, and especially the case examples identify and assess the factors that contribute to the success of agency interactions with people who are homeless. The chapter is organized into five sections: 1. Findings from the survey and literature review 2. Agency assessments 3. Lessons learned—survey respondents 4. Lessons learned—case examples 5. Conclusions and areas for future study. The areas suggested here for further research include actions that transit customers view as most helpful; the effectiveness of various approaches, especially with regard to the rate of recidivism; optimal training programs for frontline transit personnel; benefits of in-house social work- ers; the role of a “champion”; dissemination of findings; and the usefulness of an information-sharing peer work group. FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY AND LITERATURE REVIEW • Is homelessness an issue for transit agencies? Ninety-one percent of responding agencies perceive impacts related to homelessness as either a major or minor issue. The issue is not confined to large transit systems; 93% of mid-sized agencies and 88% of small agencies view individuals who are homeless as a major or minor issue. • Policies target behavior, not a specific group of indi- viduals. Most responding agencies have developed informal policies and procedures for interacting with people who are homeless, but very few agencies post their policies and procedures on their websites. The literature review examined library policies and proce- dures related to people who are homeless. Both transit agencies and public libraries have taken care to draft policies and procedures that target behavior rather than a specific group. • Evolution of interactions with people who are home- less. Within the time frame of the literature review, an evolution can be seen 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, agen-

36 cies move toward partnerships with social service and nonprofit agencies. Survey responses reflect agencies at all points along this continuum. • Actions taken. Actions taken by transit agencies with regard to people who are homeless reflect the dual approach that emerged as an ongoing theme throughout the literature review: transit agencies pursue partner- ships with social service agencies while enforcing laws and agency rules. The majority of respondents reported that the extent of interaction with people who are home- less is constant year-round, although 30% indicated more extensive interaction in cold winter months. • Responsibilities and resources. The operations department was named by a majority of respondents as having responsibility for implementing 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. Sixty percent of respondents indicated that responsibil- ities are shared among multiple parties. Transit police were named most often among the 40% indicating that one group had the lead role. Agencies were evenly split on whether they conduct or sponsor training for first- line employees related to interactions with people who are homeless. Several agencies reported that employee training addresses conflict resolution or disruptive pas- sengers but is not specifically targeted to people who are homeless. • Budget impacts. Most responding agencies have not defined the budget impacts related to interacting with people who are homeless. Only one of the six agencies that had defined budget impacts reported an annual total of more than a million dollars. Three of these six agencies indicated that the funds were spent to pro- vide free or reduced-cost fares, while the other three agencies used these funds for extra cleaning crews, outreach services, additional staff at the transit center, or a crisis intervention training program. Only seven agencies (16%) have dedicated staff to interact with people who are homeless. • Partnerships. Seventy-five percent of respondents partner with others. One respondent specifically noted that the collaboration began around enforcement and then expanded to include social service agencies. Another agency hired a social worker who coordinates all needed services. Some agencies were asked to part- ner with a specific group, while others sought out part- nerships 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 con- cerning 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 common element was ongoing contact among all partners to identify issues and assess progress. • Agency partners. City police departments are a natural partner for transit agencies, even for those with their own police forces. Transit agencies also collaborate with social service and mental health agencies regarding homeless- ness. Several transit agencies work directly with home- less shelters. Fares are an important area for partnerships: many transit agencies offer reduced fares for people who are homeless and conduct outreach with the social service agencies to ensure broad awareness of these programs. 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. • Weather. Severe winter weather is an inducement to col- laboration. 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 are provided during 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. • Community education. Most responding agencies do not participate in community education efforts related to the problem of homelessness. Among the 42% that are involved in community education, many work with homeless committees in the cities to describe their ser- vices and pass programs. Some cities host summits or workshops on homelessness, and transit is often invited to participate in these and 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 homeless people congregating on vehicles or in transit centers/terminals. The primary agency strategies to address these challenges are partnerships and consistent enforcement. Two agencies that mentioned partnerships with homeless coalitions in their cities noted that the coalition’s 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 (as opposed to challenges in interactions with people who are homeless) as “major.” Personal hygiene issues were cited by a majority of respondents as a major challenge, followed by cleanliness of tran- sit facilities/vehicles/seats and rider discomfort in the presence of people who are homeless. At some agen- cies, challenges were greatest at night, at certain loca- tions, or on certain routes. Fear and a negative reaction to personal hygiene issues were mentioned most often as the major challenges in customer reactions to peo- ple who are homeless. Primary agency strategies to

37 address these challenges are enforcement/police pres- ence, coordination with police or social service agen- cies, and training of frontline agency personnel. AGENCY ASSESSMENTS • Assessments of the success of actions taken are neu- tral to positive. Most respondents (53%) rated their actions as “somewhat successful,” and 40% rated their actions as “neutral.” • Reasons for these ratings varied. On the positive side, respondents reported good relationships with partners, clear rules, effective enforcement, and a focus on behavior. Respondents were frustrated by limited resources and the seemingly intractable nature of the homelessness issue and the underlying factors. One response summarized a common theme: “We are doing a reasonable job with the available resources.” • The primary benefits of these actions are connecting those in need with services and enhancing customer comfort, safety, and understanding. Other benefits include a pleasant environment for transit, improved interactions with people who are homeless, effective enforcement, clear customer expectations, relation- ships with social service agencies, fair treatment for all customers, and bus operators who feel supported by the transit agency. • The major drawbacks of these actions are insuf- ficient resources, aspects of the homeless popula- tion (personal hygiene, unwillingness to accept assistance), and the difficulty in addressing issues underlying homelessness. Insufficient resources were seen at both the transit agency and social service agency levels. Fifteen percent of respondents reported no drawbacks to their efforts. • Partnerships and outreach were most frequently mentioned as successful actions, followed by consis- tent enforcement, training for agency staff (especially frontline staff), and fare policies (including low- income passes, reduced-price passes for social service agencies, and elimination of free fares). • Strengthened partnerships with social service and nonprofit agencies and internal training programs were most frequently mentioned in response to the question “If you could change ONE aspect in the pro- cess of your agency’s interactions with people who are homeless, what would you change?” Sixteen percent of respondents would not change any aspect of their efforts. LESSONS LEARNED: SURVEY RESPONDENTS Survey respondents shared lessons learned from efforts to improve agency interactions with people who are homeless. Lessons learned emphasized the following points: • Consistent enforcement and partnerships with agencies that work with people who are homeless. Consistency in the application of behavior-based rules of conduct benefit all riders by clarifying what will and will not be tolerated. Transit agencies can encourage dialogue with city/county agencies that have resources to address the issue. Dedicated staff who get to know the clients and establish relationships can often be suc- cessful in getting these individuals, who may initially be service-resistant, to accept services. • Ongoing community outreach to individuals who are homeless. Community outreach is worth the time and resources. Agencies report that time expended on inter- vention and prevention pays off exponentially and that success is always dependent on knowledge and relation- ships built over time. It takes patience and endurance. Be patient and empathetic with people who are homeless. • Training frontline staff in conflict resolution and in treating all customers, including people who are homeless, with respect. Respect the humanity of the per- son. When transit agency staff treat people who are home- less with respect, customers get the message that these people are not violent or unwanted and are less likely to disrespect homeless people riding on the system. • Hiring the right staff and establishing a dialogue across departments within the agency. Interpersonal skills are equally as important, if not more impor- tant, than technical skills among frontline employees. Internal communication within the transit agency helps ensure a consistent message in interactions with people who are homeless. LESSONS LEARNED: CASE EXAMPLES Several themes ran through the case examples in terms of lessons learned, including these: • Partnerships are critical to success. Social service and nonprofit agencies have a much greater understanding than transit agencies of issues surrounding homeless- ness. Programs in which the intake process is done in the field at transit stops and facilities offer considerable promise. Transit agencies reported that partnerships result in enhanced customer security and perceptions, provision of help for those who need it, and increased sensitivity to the people and issues involved. • If you do not know where to begin to build partner- ships, start with the local (city or county) human services agency. Agency staff will direct you to agen- cies and provide contacts within those agencies. • Be creative. Enforcement alone does not work. The transit agency cannot police its way out of the issue. Inducements are needed along with penalties. • Leadership is important. Be proactive. Develop part- nerships with local police departments as well as with

38 agencies that work directly with people who are home- less. Join committees that deal with homelessness. Implement and follow through on training, coordina- tion, and outreach liaison, and encourage other agen- cies to participate. • Fares and fare media can be roadblocks. Establish a consistent fare policy and be aware that changes to fare media (specifically fare media offered to social service agencies) can have unintended consequences. • Riders who are homeless are not that much different from other riders. Foster an attitude of respect toward all riders through training of frontline personnel. • Patience is necessary. Allow time for the partnerships to bear fruit. • Additional funding is needed to implement innova- tive efforts. Social service agencies are chronically understaffed and underfunded. • Assess gateway crimes (e.g., loitering, urinating, trespassing, littering, and carrying open containers) and understand the ramifications if these crimes are not addressed. CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE STUDY • People who are homeless are a challenge regardless of transit agency size. Larger agencies are more likely to characterize homelessness as a major issue, but small and mid-sized agencies reported homelessness as at least a minor issue on their transit systems. Customer discom- fort in the presence of people who are homeless—whether because of hygiene issues, fear, or other factors—emerged as a consistent theme among survey respondents. • Successful policies target behavior, not specific groups. The literature review of policies and proce- dures at public libraries reinforced this finding. • Consistent enforcement clarifies agency expecta- tions. Several agencies noted that individuals who are homeless are not the only or even the primary target of enforcement efforts. Codes of conduct are common at public libraries and among transit agencies. • Training frontline staff (at a minimum) in conflict resolution and in treating all customers, including the homeless, with respect is an important compo- nent of enforcement. • People who are homeless are often viewed incorrectly as a homogeneous group. Survey results, the literature review, and case examples reveal that this is not true, which means that a single approach will not work. • Leadership is important. Be proactive. Implement and follow through on training, coordination, and outreach liaison, and encourage other agencies to participate. • Enforcement alone does not work. Partnerships are essential. Case workers and others at social service and nonprofit agencies have a much greater understanding of people who are homeless and can persuade these individuals, who may initially be service-resistant, to accept services. Respondents to the survey repre- sented many different departments within transit agen- cies; law enforcement personnel from transit police or security departments consistently stressed the need for partnerships and the options these partnerships offered their police officers. • If you do not know where to begin to build partner- ships, 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. • Onsite drop-in centers staffed by social service agencies and other means of offering immediate assistance to people who are homeless at transit facilities are an emerging trend. Initial results sug- gest that the ability to conduct client intake onsite at the transit station or center is very effective in persuading individuals who are homeless to seek and accept help. • Transit agency interactions with people who are homeless will never solve the problem of homeless- ness in today’s world. This is important to remember when frustration sets in as issues related to home- lessness remain challenging. Actions taken by transit agencies have resulted in enhanced safety and comfort for all customers. In addition, many respondents and nearly all case examples reported successful outcomes for specific individuals who are homeless, along with improved satisfaction among all customers. In the absence of a broader societal fix for homelessness, agencies can (and deserve to) acknowledge their role in these success stories. Findings from this synthesis suggest seven areas for future study: • What actions do transit customers view as most help- ful? Fear and discomfort in the presence of people who are homeless are challenges for many agencies. There is a sense in the survey responses that customers prefer enforcement actions. Is this true? How do cus- tomers view more nuanced approaches involving part- nerships? Does increased customer understanding of transit agency interactions with people who are home- less change perceptions? The answers are important for transit agencies. • Optimal training approaches for frontline personnel. Are de-escalation skills integrated into the training program? Who receives the training—is it for super- visory personnel only, all frontline staff, all managers? Does the training focus on crisis prevention or crisis intervention? Are onsite protocols, including a clear chain of command at the scene, specified to maximize the safety of all involved in the interaction? • The benefits of in-house crisis intervention special- ists or community outreach liaisons. A few transit

39 agencies have added community resource specialists to their staff. What are the benefits of this approach? Are there any drawbacks? What is the efficacy of using the crisis intervention team model in transit? • Formal assessments of the success of various types of approaches in reducing homelessness. This is not necessarily within the domain of transit agencies, but the rate of recidivism is an especially important fac- tor from the transit perspective. Frustration over the revolving door aspects of enforcement has led transit agencies to partner with others. It would be extremely useful to know whether innovative programs (e.g., those that provide intake at transit stops and facilities) are more likely to result in reduced recidivism. • The role and importance of a champion within the transit agency. What is the appropriate role for the champion? Advocate? Trainer? Facilitator of partner- ships with social service agencies, law enforcement, and other municipal or county departments? Are there specific circumstances in which an in-house champion is particularly useful or effective? For smaller agencies with limited budgets, can there be an external champion? • Dissemination of the findings of this report. As noted earlier, survey responses were received from many different departments within transit agencies. A webinar may be useful to share the study’s perspec- tives, encourage effective approaches, and gain further insight on successful strategies. • Peer information-sharing work groups. Members of the panel who have been very active in this area found new approaches and strategies for interactions with homeless persons through this study. Would an ongo- ing peer information-sharing work group be useful, especially given the involvement of so many different departments within and outside of transit agencies? How would this group most effectively be set up? If done electronically, what platform would host the group? How could it be publicized? Are there models in other subject areas to guide the development of such a group?

40 ACRONYMS ALA American Library Association BART Bay Area Rapid Transit CDF crisis diversion facility CIT crisis intervention team DOT Department of Transportation HOT homeless outreach team MDFT multidisciplinary forensic team MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority NTD National Transit Database OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority SFPL San Francisco Public Library STM Société de transport de Montréal STOP Surface-transportation Top Offender Program TRID Transportation Research Information Database UTA Utah Transit Authority WHO World Health Organization WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority