Use of Agency Service Agreements in ADA Paratransit Delivery (2021)

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.

11 • Open lines of communications with social service agencies and riders; and • Treatment of each agency as an individual entity. Current Agency Fare $.75 Lesson Learned GTS will continue their policy to charge the same fare for agency service agreement riders as ADA complementary paratransit eligible riders for as long as possible. CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH This section presents an overarching view of the case examples, identifying common threads among transit agencies who imple- mented agency service agreements. The case examples represent practices from transit agencies of all sizes serving various groups of people from across the country. As transit agencies reported on their practices, they identified common themes and individual concerns they believed were important to share with other transit agencies. There were many commonalities among their motivating factors or purpose for seeking an agency service agreement, their challenges, keys to success, lessons learned, and accomplishments. Motivating Factors/Purpose While the motivations or purposes for developing the agency service agreements were described uniquely in the case examples, there were several common themes. Most stated that their primary purpose for pursuing their agreements was fiscal constraints. Other motivating factors included a need for clarity in roles and responsibil- ities, improving service for social service agencies, improving safety and efficiency, and providing/improving access and mobility for people in rural areas. According to the transit representatives, their fiscal constraints resulted from new cost-sharing models with states and counties; privatization of human services transportation; and shifts in funding sources. While some of them negotiated agency fares to recoup lost revenue, it remains the policy of some transit agencies for agency fares to remain equal to the ADA complementary paratransit fare. Challenges and New Ways of Doing Business Transit agencies experienced many challenges drafting and co- ordinating agency service agreements. Their challenges included communicating that agency fares could be greater than the ADA com- plementary paratransit fare, negotiating agency service agreements without documented examples, growing beyond the practice of legacy agreements, reconciling the billing at the end of each month, and maintaining schedules for riders who cannot be left unattended when there is nobody to meet the rider or he/she is a no-show for service. In response to their challenges, they developed new ways of doing business. Their most common challenge was communicating to social service agencies that their agency fares can be more than twice the fixed-route fare. They stated that charging more than the ADA equivalent fare represented a vast departure from the way their tran- sit agency was doing business with the riders and the social service agencies. To support this, they shared the language found in USC 49 Part 37.131 (c) (4): “An entity may charge a fare higher than other- wise permitted by this paragraph to a social service agency or other organization for agency trips,” with the social service agencies. When transit agencies first negotiated agency fares greater than the ADA complementary paratransit fare, they did not have docu- mented examples or past practices to guide them. They developed their processes individually based on their circumstances. As a result, transit agencies stated that their agency service agreements and agency fares are informal, formal, ad hoc, relationship-specific, out- dated, confidential, and/or not widely distributed. Some transit agencies stated that they participated in the interviews for this report so that they could share their experiences with other transit agencies and learn from others. Given the uniqueness of each agency service agreement, agency fares varied greatly among the transit agencies and within the transit agencies surveyed. Transit agencies reported that their agency fares range from $0 to as high as $45.25—more than 10 times the amount of the highest ADA complementary paratransit fare. Clearly, transit agencies whose policy is to charge the same fare for both ADA para- transit riders and agency trip riders did not have this challenge. Most of the transit agencies interviewed brought up a challenge related to these increased fares: legacy agreements. They described legacy agreements as both formal and informal agreements in which the transit agency has a long-standing precedent (in many cases predating the ADA) of providing service to a social service agency for a low fare. They lack strict ADA eligibility and service level requirements. For many transit agencies, some legacy agreements have remained in place even while the transit agency has updated its practices for new agency service agreements with other social service agencies. Several transit agencies would like to re-visit their legacy agree- ments and negotiate new fares. Despite this desire, they are not ready to change or re-visit their legacy agreements because of their long-standing relationships and practice and/or lack of political support to do so. Transit agencies explained that legacy agreements are often difficult to re-negotiate because they meet the basic, day- to-day mobility needs of people who have no other access to trans- portation. They are generally older adults, people with disabilities, children, and veterans. While there may be a fiscal reason to change these agreements, the legacy agreements remain. Another challenge for transit agencies involved developing new business practices for these agreements. Transit agencies are not responsible for determining a rider’s eligibility for the agency trip; the social service agency determines the rider’s eligibility. Furthermore, the rider does not pay the fare; the social service agency pays. Thus, when adopting the agency service agreement model, transit agencies reported that they had to develop new business processes. They no longer had to determine rider eligibility, but they had to collect fares from the social service agency and reconcile the numbers of trips and revenue collected from the social service agencies for all the rides the transit agency provided during the month. Transit agencies identified ways to collect and reconcile payments that they found effective. These methods included selling tickets and vouchers to social service agencies, offering discounted monthly passes, selling single and multiple-ride passes as bulk purchases at

12 their negotiated rates, and tweaking their current electronic billing systems to help them reconcile their accounts. In general, transit agencies reconciled their accounts with agency service agreements monthly. Key to Success All the transit agencies interviewed identified that their key to success for negotiating agency service agreements and their corre- sponding agency fares was partnering with social service agencies. They created and fostered relationships through clear communica- tion and practical education. Every transit agency emphasized the importance of developing a positive relationship with the social ser- vice agency as they negotiated their agency fares—whether they remain equivalent to the ADA complementary paratransit fare or not. Relationship-development strategies included providing travel training to the social service agencies; holding listening sessions; soliciting stakeholders; and surveying riders and community groups. Transit agencies discussed how they built partnerships with the social service agencies when they were negotiating new agency fares. Toward that end, some transit agencies stated that they found it effective to share actual cost models with the social service agencies. Transit agencies found that this strategy was more effective when the cost models were more transparent. Providing background into the cost models encouraged trust between the partners and provided a deeper understanding of the transit agency’s situation necessitating an increase in the fares. Lessons Learned The transit agencies shared their lessons learned from negotiating agency service agreements as part of this report. Once again, they all focused on communication, developing positive relationships, and working with the social service agencies as partners. In some cases, transit agencies are also currently relying on and working cooper- atively with their state-wide and federal colleagues to help them advocate and provide guidance. According to the transit agencies interviewed and surveyed, clear communication and discussion were vital for transit agencies to edu- cate social service agencies and the public on their array of services and operations; identify each party’s goals, objectives, roles and responsibilities; and share their funding concerns. Transit agencies found it helpful to hold regularly scheduled meetings to develop professional relationships with the social service agencies. They also stated that it was helpful to work with state representatives and orga- nizations to discuss changes in state legislation and its impacts on public transit agencies. Accomplishments The transit agencies interviewed reported that they accomplished a variety of goals and overcame challenges by negotiating agency service agreements. They developed: • Clear lines of communication that resulted in improved on-time performance and increased service; • Better informed clients; • Agency fares they believed were reasonable and conformed with their public policies; • Agency fares that helped transit agencies recoup costs; • Agency fares that were consistent with private providers for NEMT; • Ticketing and voucher agreements that negated the need for formal agency service agreements; • Business and billing practices to reconcile reports on agency trips; • Agency service agreements that approved transit agencies as NEMT providers for MCOs; • Options they had not considered in the past to provide more service to more people; • Increased service in rural areas; • Cooperative relationships with state representatives/organization to support, guide, and/or advocate for them; and • Agreement with federal agencies to provide a local match. This digest provides information and case examples on the use of agency service agreements. Transit agencies are partnering with social service agencies to provide services for people in urban, sub- urban, and rural areas. As a result of the agency service agreements, transit agencies are improving safety, providing more service to more people, and improving the experience for the transit agency, the social service agency, the rider, and the rider’s family. Further Research This digest represents a small group of representatives with current experience; however, there is more to be learned and shared by taking the next research steps. This may include developing a data- base for transit agencies to share the fundamentals of their agency service agreements, a methodology for transit agencies responding to MCPs for NEMT, and a handbook for negotiating agency service agreements. This is one of the first documented research projects that address agency service agreements; and among those interviewed, they would like to learn more. Thus, establishing an agency service agree- ment national database would provide a platform for those who would like to share their experiences and practices. Transit agencies would learn from peers as well as from state-wide representatives and organizations. The database would provide information to transit agencies seeking to negotiate agency service agreements, estab- lish new agency fares, share new ideas and methods for improving agency trips, and add services for social service agencies. This digest also brings forth an opportunity for transit agencies to learn from others as they respond to the growth of managed care programs for NEMT. Various transit agencies stated they have lost ADA complementary paratransit riders to private providers, but they have benefitted from implementing agency service agreements as they have become approved NEMT providers. Research of case examples and current practices for developing agency service agree- ments for NEMT could provide a framework for transit agencies seeking approval for becoming a provider and negotiating agency fares that are consistent with Medicaid rates. Overall, providing NEMT could increase the number of people they serve and recoup some of the costs associated with these rides that transit agencies may already be providing.