Administration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs (2018)

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.

44 The ADA guarantees civil rights protections, including access to public transportation, to people with disabilities. Under U.S.DOT regulations (49 CFR Part 37), public transit agencies that provide local fixed-route bus or rail service must also provide ADA complementary para- transit service to individuals who, because of their disabilities, cannot use the fixed-route ser- vice. A transit agency that provides ADA paratransit service must allow an individual to apply for the service and must have a process to determine if that individual is eligible. The eligibility determination process may yield one of four outcomes for an applicant: unconditional eligibil- ity, conditional eligibility, temporary eligibility, or not eligible. If a transit agency makes a determination other than unconditional eligibility, it must offer the applicant the chance to appeal the decision and must have procedures in place to administer the appeal process. This synthesis describes the policies, methods, and practices transit agencies use to administer the ADA paratransit eligibility appeal process. Survey Results The online survey gathered information from 37 transit agencies on their appeals policies, practices, and outcomes (see Chapter 3). This synthesis aggregates the survey responses on the structure, administration, and recordkeeping of appeal processes; composition of appeal com- mittees; hearing processes; appeal outcomes; budget and resources devoted to appeals; and challenges in carrying out the appeal process. Along with this descriptive information, the syn- thesis develops two metrics and applies them to the survey group. • Percent of initial determinations upheld. This metric provides a measure of consistency between initial determinations and appeal decisions, and potentially, quality of initial determinations. • Ratio of applicants to appeals. This metric provides a measure of the satisfaction of the applicants and the quality of initial determinations. Based on the survey results, the data on appeals is inconsistent. At many agencies, the num- ber of eligibility appeals is small; among the survey respondents, a majority reported 24 or fewer appeals per year (an average of two appeals per month or fewer), with several agencies reporting no appeals in recent years. Several larger agencies reported more than 100 appeals each year. It would be helpful for agencies with this higher volume of activity to track the outcomes and characteristics of the appeals (e.g., disability issues involved, demographics of the appellants, which committee members took part). Agencies that collect the appropriate data could con- duct useful analyses of (1) the distribution of eligibility outcomes (see Chapter 3, Table 7), and (2) the outcomes of appeals for new applicants versus recertifications. C H A P T E R 5 Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research 45 Transit Agency Case Examples The case examples for five transit agencies set forth a variety of approaches for eligibility appeals (see Chapter 4). All five agencies indicated that they were satisfied overall with their respective processes, though they saw ways to improve. Among the challenges mentioned in case example interviews were: • Recruiting appeal committee members from the community who are qualified and under- stand their role. • Providing appropriate training for members coming from a wide range of professional backgrounds. • Inconsistency in the appeal outcomes—both from appeal to appeal, and compared to the initial determinations. • Appellants who “no-show” their hearings. Ongoing Challenges The survey responses and case examples identified agency challenges. The most common issue facing transit agencies is a practical one: the availability of committee members to hear appeals (see Chapter 3, Figure 19). Committees that include agency employees may encounter scheduling problems when the committee work conflicts with the employees’ other responsi- bilities. Getting agency employees to commit to a hearing time is often difficult, as the primary job duties of these committee members—particularly those who work in transit operations— usually take priority. In a related issue, agencies also have problems gaining commitments from committee members from outside the agency. One solution is to have several individuals available to serve in a given committee role, but a potential disadvantage to this approach is that the alternate members may not have the same experience and knowledge as the person they are replacing. The second most frequently cited challenge is recruiting and retaining committee members with the appropriate expertise to hear the appeals. Committees hear appeals from applicants with a wide range of disabilities, including people with mobility impairments but also those with sensory, cognitive, and combinations of disabilities. Eligibility professionals have said that a committee member does not need detailed knowledge of all such disabilities but must under- stand how an applicant’s disability prevents use of fixed-route transit for some or all travel. Such insight comes with appropriate training and understanding of an applicant’s functional abilities and limitations. Suggested Future Research The survey results and case examples point out several areas for future research: • Appeal committee composition. The benefits of different appeal committee types can be explored by comparing the efficacy of a one-person committee versus larger committees (see Chapter 3, Figure 13). Does a one-person committee yield the most effective and consistent decision-making process, provided it is the “right” person? Alternatively, is it inherently better to have several people sharing the decision, applying their collective knowledge and range of experience? Given the range of applicants’ disabilities, what is the most useful mix of knowl- edge and experience? • Appeal committee recruitment and training. Transit agencies with multi-member appeal committees are looking to improve how they recruit and make best use of members of the community to serve on the committees. This effort includes bringing in members of the

46 Administration of ADA Paratransit Eligibility Appeal Programs community who have disabilities, who understand public transit, and/or who understand the ADA and may also include compensating committee members for their efforts. Transit agencies also are looking for promising training practices for their members that reinforce the underlying principles of ADA paratransit eligibility that focus on an applicant’s ability to reach and independently use fixed-route services, rather than on a medical diagnosis. • Costs. It would be useful to conduct a more detailed analysis of the full costs of administer- ing an eligibility appeal process. This synthesis captured some data from transit agencies on hours and dollars allocated to the process; however, most agencies do not separately account for the labor and other resources used for eligibility appeals. The information on average labor hours per appeal can serve as a reference point for other agencies (see Chapter 3, Table 5). However, cost data varies greatly, so it would be valuable to collect more cost information.