Research Results Digest 354 - NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
July 2011
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm-Smith
Research Results Digest 354
A REVIEW OF HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANS
AND GRANT PROGRAMS
This digest presents the results of NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 26, “An
Analysis and Evaluation of States’ Implementation of the FTA 5310, 5316,
and 5317 Programs.” The research was conducted by AECOM, Arlington,
Virginia, with Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning (ITP), Rockville,
Maryland, serving as a subconsultant. Sara Carini of AECOM was the
Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report are Lora Byala, Shana
Johnson, and Eric Randall of Foursquare ITP and Laura Riegel of AECOM.
C O N T E N T S
CHAPTER 1 Introduction, 1
Internet Survey, 2
Telephone Survey, 4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION • Section 5310 Transportation for
FTA Grants Data, 6 Elderly Individuals and Individu-
Conclusions and Findings, 7 Pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flex- als with Disabilities Grant Program
CHAPTER 2 Internet Survey ible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A (1). The program was created in 1975,
of State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), 9
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Fed- under the National Mass Transporta-
Summary of Survey Responses, 10 eral Transit Administration (FTA) insti- tion Assistance Act. The goal of
Conclusions, 24
tuted a planning requirement as a condition Section 5310 is to improve mobility
CHAPTER 3 Telephone Survey of
State DOTs and Representative
of federal funding for its human services- for elderly individuals and individu-
Agencies, 25 related grant programs for individuals with als with disabilities. States are the
Selection of States, 25
Interview Process, 26
disabilities, older adults, and individuals designated recipients of Section 5310
Summary of Survey Responses, 28 with lower incomes. As a result, since 2007, funds, and the funds are apportioned
Conclusions, 48
FTA has required the establishment of a lo- by a formula based on the number
CHAPTER 4 FTA Grants Data, 49
Summary of JARC and NF
cally developed, coordinated public transit/ of elderly persons and persons with
Programs, 50 human services transportation plan (Coor- disabilities in each state. Eligible
JARC Program, 50
NF Program, 51 dination Plan) for all FTA human services activities include capital expenses
Conclusions, 54
transportation programs. The Coordination (e.g., vehicles and communication
CHAPTER 5 Conclusions Plan must be developed through an inclu- equipment); purchase of transporta-
and Findings, 54
Costs Associated with Human sive process that involves representatives tion services under a contract, lease,
Services Transportation Plans
and Grant Programs, 54
from public, private, and nonprofit trans- or other arrangement; and mobility
Successes Associated with Human portation and human services providers, as management.
Services Transportation Plans
and Grant Programs, 56 well as the public. The intent of this require- • Section 5316 Job Access and
Findings, 58 ment is to bring the right people to the table Reverse Commute (JARC) Grant
REFERENCES, 60 to discuss human services transportation Program (1). Section 5316 was es-
ABBREVIATIONS AND issues and identify opportunities to assist tablished in 1998, under the Trans-
ACRONYMS, 60
more people, reduce service gaps and over- portation Equity Act for the 21st Cen-
APPENDIX A—Blank Internet
Survey Form, 61
laps, and increase the cost effectiveness of tury (TEA-21). Section 5316 seeks to
the services provided. improve transportation services that
APPENDIX B—Telephone
Interview Questionnaire, 61 A brief description of each of the FTA provide access to employment and
APPENDIX C—Detailed Telephone
human services transportation programs is employment-related activities for
Interview Summaries, 61 provided as follows. welfare recipients and low-incomeindividuals. Section 5316 also provides for portation (DOTs); performing more detailed tele-
transportation services to suburban or other phone interviews with states, local transit agencies,
reverse commute employment opportunities. private service providers, MPOs, Rural Planning
States are the designated recipients of JARC Organizations (RPOs), and access groups; and ana-
funds in urbanized areas with populations less lyzing FTA and state JARC and NF grant awards.
than 200,000 and in rural areas. In urbanized NCHRP RRD 354 presents the findings of these
areas with populations greater than 200,000, tasks to assist states and grantees in identifying ways
the designated recipient may be the designated to enhance their processes. In addition to state and
recipient of Section 5307 Urbanized Area For- grantee best practices, suggestions made by respon-
mula Program funds, Metropolitan Planning dents for improving the accomplishment and effec-
Organization (MPO), state, or another public tiveness of the human services transportation grant
agency. Eligible activities include capital, plan- programs, Coordination Plans, and the related re-
ning, and operating expenses. quirements are reported. No conclusions are ex-
• Section 5317 New Freedom (NF) Grant Pro- pressed regarding any of the suggested changes in
gram (1). This program was created in 2005, the programs or requirements; the state and local
under SAFETEA-LU, to address the trans- agency comments are reported without elaboration.
portation mobility options available beyond NCHRP RRD 354 is organized as follows. Chap-
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of ter 1 provides an introduction to the research effort.
1990 requirements. The focus of the program Chapter 2 reviews the approach and findings of the
is to assist persons with disabilities in over- Internet survey of state DOTs. Chapter 3 summa-
coming transportation-related barriers to em- rizes the selection of states for further interview and
ployment. States are the designated recipients the results of the telephone surveys. Chapter 4 high-
of NF funds in urbanized areas with popula- lights the JARC and NF appropriations and obliga-
tions less than 200,000 and in rural areas. In tions by state and urbanized areas. Chapter 5 pre-
urbanized areas over 200,000 in population, sents a comparison of the level of effort and success
the designated recipient may be the desig- associated with the development of the Coordina-
nated recipient of Section 5307 Urbanized tion Plans as well as opportunities for improving the
Area Formula Program funds or an MPO, success and effectiveness of the plans and grant pro-
state, or other public agency. Eligible activi- grams. The Internet survey form, telephone interview
ties include capital and operating expenses questionnaire, and individual telephone interview
that support new public transportation ser- summaries are contained in the Appendices of this
vices or alternatives beyond those required by report, which are available online at http://www.trb.
ADA, including job and job-related services org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx.
transportation.
NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 26, entitled “An Internet Survey
Analysis and Evaluation of States’ Implementation
of the FTA 5310, 5316 and 5317 Programs,” focused As part of this study, the research team con-
on two key related, but separate, objectives: ducted an Internet survey of state DOTs. The survey
used multiple choice questions and opportunities for
1. Determine the level of effort and costs asso- additional comments to help: (1) determine the ex-
ciated with the development of coordinated tent to which respondents believe this coordinated
public transit-human services transportation planning effort has met FTA goals of enhancing
plans. transportation access, minimizing duplication of ser-
2. Determine the perceived success of the Coor- vices, and facilitating the most appropriate and cost-
dination Plans and the perceived success states effective transportation possible with available re-
and other grantees are having in awarding
sources; and (2) ascertain the cost of developing and
FTA Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317
maintaining these Coordination Plans (in terms of
NF funds and meeting the Coordination Plan
time and money) to ensure that resources are being
objectives.
used wisely and effectively, resulting in the better,
To meet these objectives, tasks included conduct- more cost-effective and coordinated programs that
ing an Internet survey of state Departments of Trans- the plans are expected to foster.
2The “Human Services Transportation Plans and that the coordination goals of the FTA, state, and lo-
Grant Program” Internet survey completed by 21 state calities continue to be met, while the administrative
DOTs highlights several areas where the Coordination burden these grant programs place on the state and
Plans have been relatively successful, such as enhanc- local agencies is reduced. Nineteen of the 21 survey
ing transportation access for target populations, in- respondents offered suggestions for improving
creasing commitment/participation in the plan devel- these grant programs. All of the survey respondent
opment at both the state and local levels, improving suggestions attempted to improve the management
coordination, and creating a general understanding of of the grant programs and to find means to fund
eligible JARC and NF grants. However, the respon- more projects, whether through proposing consoli-
dents stated that the federal requirement for the Coor- dation with other grant programs, increasing fund-
dination Plans has placed a significant administrative ing, reducing restrictions, lowering operating
requirement on already short-staffed state and local matching requirements, or increasing flexibility.
agencies. Respondents felt that the coordination plan- The suggestions from the survey respondents are
ning process is time consuming and many agencies summarized in Figure 1.
stated they are not able to hire new staff or consultants The most frequently suggested improvement for
to assist with the process. As a result, agencies feel that the JARC and NF grant programs by the survey re-
the responsibilities often fall on existing staff, many of spondents was the consolidation of the Section 5316
whom have already been asked to take on additional JARC and Section 5317 NF grant programs with
responsibilities. other federal grant programs such as Section 5310,
In addition to the administrative responsibilities 5311, and 5307. With consolidation, the respondents
placed on state and local agencies, the survey respon- indicated that the individual grant program goals
dents highlighted several areas of concern in regards could still be reflected in program and planning re-
to obligating the JARC and NF grants. The responses quirements, including dedicating percentages of
indicated that the obligation of these funds generally funding to each program goal. Section 5310, Trans-
has not improved with the Coordination Plan require- portation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals
ment. There frequently is a lag in funding JARC and with Disabilities, was the most frequently mentioned
NF projects, and several respondents have had prob- program for consolidating the JARC and NF grants,
lems obligating these funds before they expire. In and several respondents indicated that these grant
fact, 24 percent of responding agencies reported that programs could also be consolidated with Section
they have had JARC or NF funds expire before they 5311, the Rural and Small Urban Areas grant pro-
could be obligated. The agencies stated that one of the gram. By consolidating the JARC and NF grants
primary reasons that obligating these funds is such a with Section 5310 and/or 5311, the respondents felt
problem for the survey respondents is the difficulty in that the states could manage the program more effi-
identifying local matching funds for projects. Local ciently, while still developing a Coordination Plan
funds are limited and the higher matching require- (as required for Section 5310) and serving similar
ments of the JARC and NF grant programs (particu- target populations.
larly the 50 percent match for operations), coupled Several respondents also felt that consolidating
with the uncertainty that these funds will be there in Section 5316 and 5317 into one grant program
the future, make it more difficult to identify local would allow more flexibility in transferring funds
funds for these projects. The majority of survey re- and meeting the greatest transit needs. They be-
spondents (70 percent) stated that there is reluctance lieved that this would allow the funds to be used to
in their states to start new services with JARC and serve any one of the target populations and fund proj-
NF funds. The primary reason provided by the re- ects that best meet the transit needs of the state. Ad-
spondents (79 percent) was the concern that these ditionally, it was suggested by some that the obliga-
funds are not sustainable. They stated that they do not tion by population size requirement be eliminated
want to introduce new services and then have to take for the new consolidated grant program. The survey
them away when/if these grant programs or the ap- respondents indicated that combining the JARC and
portionments received are reduced. NF grant programs would allow greater flexibility
Given these concerns, the agencies were asked in awarding projects and moving funds from one
if they had any suggestions to improve the use and area to another, and would be more efficient for states
management of the JARC and NF grant programs so to manage.
3What suggestions do you have to improve the use and management of the Section
5316 and 5317 grant programs that could be considered as part of Reauthorization?
Consolidate with 5310
Increase funds
Combine 5316 and 5317
Consolidate with 5310 and 5311
Consolidate with 5311
Lower the operating match
Lessen restrictions
Eliminate obligation by population size
End the local coordinated plan
Consolidate with 5307, 5311
Consolidate with 5307, 5310, 5311
Combine 5317 and 5310
Consolidate with 5309, 5310, 5311
Better coordination between 5316 and 5317
Allow moving funds from area to area
0 1 2 3 4
Number of Respondents
Figure 1 Responses on improving the use and management of JARC and NF grant programs.
Telephone Survey to contact a cross-section of agency types, including
MPOs, RPOs, transit agencies, human services trans-
As part of this study, the research team conducted portation providers, and Non-Governmental Organi-
telephone surveys with contacts in six states. Based zations (NGOs).
on the results of the Internet survey conducted in late The purpose of the interviews was two-fold:
2009, six states were selected to participate in follow-
up discussions via telephone interviews. Only state 1. Determining the extent to which the respon-
DOT representatives that indicated a willingness to dents believe coordinated public transit/human
discuss their responses further were contacted, and services transportation plans have met FTA
the six states were selected with the goal of having a goals of enhancing transportation access, min-
mix of geographic locations, urbanized versus rural imizing duplication of services, and facilitat-
states, and states indicating varying levels of satisfac- ing the most appropriate and cost-effective
tion with the human services Coordination Plan transportation possible with available re-
process and results. The states selected for further dis- sources; and
cussion were: Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South 2. Ascertaining the cost of developing and main-
Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. taining these Coordination Plans (in terms of
Each state DOT representative was contacted for time and money) to ensure that resources are
the purpose of further discussion of their responses to being used wisely and effectively, resulting in
the Internet survey, clarification of their responses (if the better, more cost-effective and coordinated
needed), and identification of agencies and contact programs that the plans are expected to foster.
persons within the state for further discussion. The ob-
jective was to identify a set of agencies within the state A cross-state comparison highlighting some of
to interview for their perspectives on the human ser- the key differences between the states is described
vices Coordination Plans and the associated grant pro- in the following section. It is important to note that
grams. Within each state, the study team attempted the cross-state comparisons are based on generaliza-
4tions made about each state that were derived from ciated funding and the lack of desire by most states
the four or five interviews conducted in each state. to use available funds to establish new services, for
fear of not being able to continue funding them
Perceived Effectiveness of Plans when the grant money ran out. The Missouri, Penn-
sylvania, and Virginia DOTs all indicated that their
One key finding that was fairly consistent preferred projects do not include new operating
across all six states interviewed is that, on the services.
whole, all found the Coordination Plans to be ef-
fective. While some states had individual agencies Indication of Redundant or Burdensome Elements
that reported mixed or negative feelings about the of Plan Development
plan requirement, the overall assessment by all
states interviewed was positive. There were a wide variety of issues raised with re-
gard to parts of the Coordination Plan or planning
Plan Development and Costs process that the states find redundant or burdensome.
The challenges discussed by the respondents ranged
The methods used to develop the Coordination from how projects are prioritized at the local versus
Plans varied from state to state. Except for Washing- state level to concerns about the public meeting and
ton State, most agencies did some combination of Spanish translation requirements. Some states felt
in-house plan development along with the use of that the administration of the plan is burdensome, and
consultants, and in some cases the level of assistance some did not; there was no real consensus between
used by the agencies varied by whether the agency the states on this issue.
was in an urban or rural area. In addition, many local
agencies had a difficult time quantifying the Coor- Project Identification, Prioritization, and Selection
dination Plan development costs, particularly if the
A few states noted that while prioritization is done
plan was developed in-house and the main expense
at the local level, the state makes the final decision on
was staff time. Often the best cost estimate avail-
what to fund, taking away some of the control from
able was an estimate of the number of staff people the locals. Respondents indicated that this is done
or the percentage of a person or team’s time devoted more often in rural areas for which the state DOT is
to the Coordination Plans. As a result, the overall the designated recipient for grant funds, whereas in
costs associated with the development of the Coor- urban areas the designated recipient is more likely to
dination Plans at the local level vary significantly in be a local agency or government. Most states noted
level of detail, ranging from $10,000 to $85,000 or that the prioritization of projects is based on gaps in
one to six staff members working on all aspects of service and where the proposed grant fits into the
the human services transportation grants, including goals and objectives of the Coordination Plan.
Coordination Plans, sub-recipient agreements, con-
tracts, legal, and engineering. Perceived Project Continuation Needs/
Impediments to Using the Grant Programs
Perceived Coordination Plan Results
A common theme across all states interviewed
Most of the states interviewed emphasized im- was that the lack of money available for local matches
proved relationships between public and private becomes a burden in the continuation of projects
agencies as a result of the Coordination Plan, par- funded through the grant programs, as well as an im-
ticularly Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Penn- pediment to using the grant programs in the first
sylvania, Virginia, and Washington indicated that place. The lack of money for the local match seemed
the plans built upon existing coordination that they to be more of an issue in rural areas than it was in
were already doing regarding human services trans- urban areas. Finally, the NF regulation that it be used
portation. Finally, many of the states noted either for new service was also an impediment to using the
that they believe human services transportation did Section 5317 grant program for many respondents,
not necessarily improve because of the plan, or it because these agencies did not feel that they would be
was difficult to tell if it had. One reason for this able to continue to sustain new service when the grant
was the respondents’ concern for the lack of asso- money ran out.
5Sources of Matching Funds they are uncomfortable about reviewing new proj-
ects and the continuation of old projects simultane-
Sources of the local match requirement for the
ously, and that the grant awards do not necessarily
grant programs varied by the state interviewed and by
account for project sustainability beyond the initial
area within these states, with some states providing
grant funding.
the local match and some agencies relying on local
Numerous states interviewed expressed a desire
governments or even local organizations. Often urban
to have the same criteria and rules for both JARC
areas were required to find a local match, while the
state provided the match in rural areas. Pennsylvania and NF, with some respondents suggesting that the
and Washington, however, were two states that pro- programs be combined. However, one state, namely
vided the local match to recipients regardless of their Ohio, suggested that rather than combine the two
location in the state. In a few creative cases, such as very similar programs, the NF program could be dif-
in Ohio, agencies used other federal grants to match ferentiated further to make it more applicable to se-
the Section 5316 and 5317 FTA grant programs. niors who do not have physical limitations that keep
Other states found it was not possible to coordinate them from driving but simply do not feel comfort-
between the human services transportation grant pro- able doing so. Finally, several states expressed a
grams and other federal grant programs. desire for more standardized, outcome-based perfor-
mance measures to review the programs.
Performance Measures
Some states interviewed were more diligent than FTA Grants Data
others in utilizing performance measures for deter- Using data from the FTA website, Fiscal Year
mining grant funding allocations. Missouri, Ohio, (FY) 2006 and FY 2007 FTA Statistical Summaries
Pennsylvania, and South Carolina seemed to have (the FY 2008 FTA Statistical Summary was not
the most consistent processes for utilizing perfor- available at the time of the analysis), and the U.S.
mance measures. These states primarily use standard Government Accounting Office’s (GAO) Report:
service indicators to gauge performance of the pro- Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Eval-
grams funded by the grants. uating the JARC Program (May 2009), the follow-
ing tables examine the portion of JARC and NF
Major Concerns/Desired Changes Expressed funds that have been appropriated to and obligated
A consistent area of concern expressed by the by the states. These tables help identify the extent to
states interviewed was the desire to remove the local which states and their grantees are having difficulty
match requirement due to the difficulty in identify- obligating the appropriated funds before they expire,
ing and sustaining local matching funds. Another as these grants must be obligated within 3 years of
common concern expressed was the lack of under- appropriation. Any funds not obligated after 3 years
standing regarding the requirements for NF grants. will be reapportioned among all recipients in the
A few states also indicated they are unhappy with next FY appropriations, e.g., lapsed FY 2006 funds
the grant administrative process, including the length are reapportioned as part of FY 2009.
of time it takes to apply for and receive the grant Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the total appropri-
money. In addition, some respondents indicated that ated funds (for all states and urbanized area designated
Table 1 Summary of total JARC funds appropriated and obligated between
FY 2006 and FY 2008.
Transferred
Obligated Obligated in Obligated in Out (as of %
FY Appropriated in FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 9/30/08)1 Remaining Unobligated
2006 $136,620,000 $5,291,004 $22,731,680 $87,374,069 $2,621,612 $18,603,175 13.6%
2007 $144,000,000 $7,204,231 $47,596,190 $1,909,878 $87,289,701 60.6%
2008 $156,000,000 $22,376,472 $859,596 $132,763,932 85.1%
Total $436,620,000 $5,291,004 $29,935,911 $157,346,731 $5,391,086 $238,656,808 54.7%
1States are allowed to transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula grant program and Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance
Program.
Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_9293.html .
6Table 2 Summary of total NF funds appropriated and obligated
between FY 2006 and FY 2008.
Obligated Obligated Obligated in Total %
FY Appropriated in FY 06 in FY 07 FY 08 Obligated Unobligated
2006 $77,200,000 $1,269,027 $6,786,605 $59,556,856 $67,612,488 12.4%
2007 $81,000,000 $2,537,311 $28,079,915 $30,617,226 62.2%
2008 $87,500,000 $12,233,883 $12,233,883 86.0%
Total $245,700,000 $1,269,027 $9,323,916 $99,870,654 $110,463,597 55.0%
Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7188.html .
recipients) for the JARC and NF grant programs for New Freedom (NF)
FY 2006 through FY 2008. They reveal that nearly
As shown in Table 2, by the end of FY 2007,
45 percent of the FY 2006 through FY 2008 JARC
only 6.6 percent of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appro-
and NF appropriations have been obligated; however,
priations had been obligated. However, it is impor-
nearly 14 percent of FY 2006 JARC appropriations
tant to note that by the end of FY 2008, an additional
lapsed and more than 12 percent of FY 2006 NF ap-
$87.6 million of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appro-
propriations lapsed. Additionally, roughly 40 percent
priations were obligated, bringing the percentage of
of FY 2007 JARC and NF funds have been obligated FY 2006 and FY 2007 appropriations that had been
and 15 percent of FY 2008 JARC and NF funds have obligated up to 62 percent. The relatively recent in-
been obligated. troduction of the Section 5317 program and the
While the tables indicate that there were some changes in requirements that have taken place have
initial delays in obligating JARC and NF funds, caused some confusion among planning organiza-
they also demonstrate that the amount of JARC tions and transportation providers. As experience
and NF funds obligated in the appropriation year with the programs and coordinated planning process
is increasing and the amount obligated in each continues to grow, more applications are likely to be
successive year is also increasing as states and submitted, further reducing the amount of lapsed
grantees gain familiarity with the required coordi- funds.
nated planning process and grant administration
associated with the new NF program and the new
formula-based allocation of JARC funds under Conclusions and Findings
SAFETEA-LU. The findings from the Internet survey of state
DOTs and the telephone interviews with local coor-
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) dinated planning participants in Missouri, Ohio,
As shown in Table 1, the states and urbanized Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wash-
areas have obligated (or transferred out) $118 mil- ington helped identify the perceived costs and bene-
lion of FY 2006 JARC appropriations (approxi- fits associated with the human services transportation
mately 86 percent), $57 million of FY 2007 appro- Coordination Plans and grant programs. An evalua-
priations (approximately 39 percent), and $23 million tion of these costs and benefits resulted in the devel-
of FY 2008 appropriations (approximately 15 per- opment of several findings in regards to the respon-
cent). While the obligation percentages increased dents’ perceived accomplishment and effectiveness
during the 3-year obligation period after appropri- of the Coordination Plans and the related require-
ation, FY 2006 still had $18.6 million (or 13.6 per- ments for states. The findings from respondents iden-
cent) in JARC appropriations lapse at the end of tified in the following section revolve around three
FY 2008. However, based on discussions with central themes: flexibility, administrative burden,
FTA staff, the amount of JARC funds lapsing con- and transparency.
tinues to decline as states and grantees become • Several respondents suggested the conso-
better acquainted with the process, have identified lidation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317
appropriate grant recipients, and have gained com- grant programs. The most frequently sug-
fort with the Coordination Plan development. gested improvement for the human services
7transportation grant programs was the consoli- several aging and disability organizations have
dation of the Section 5316 JARC and 5317 NF expressed concerns that the consolidation of
programs with other grant programs such as these programs could have unintended con-
Section 5310, 5311, and 5307. Respondents sequences, including reducing the quality of
noted that with consolidation, the individual Section 5310 services because the target popu-
grant program goals could still be reflected in lations of these grants programs do not neces-
program and planning requirements, including sarily have the same transportation needs (2).
dedicating percentages of funding to each pro- In addition, the AARP study highlights that
gram goal. Section 5310 Transportation for there are some major issues associated with the
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Dis- consolidation of these grant programs that have
abilities was the most frequently mentioned not been evaluated sufficiently, including the
program for consolidation with JARC and NF identification of designated recipients and how
and was viewed as the most logical by respon- the grant money would get to providers. Under
dents, given the similar target populations and the current grant programs, the designated re-
requirement for the Coordination Plan. Section cipient is the state for Section 5310 and either
5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program and the state or local agency in large urban areas for
5311 Rural and Small Urbanized Area Pro- JARC and NF. As a result, the suggestion to
gram provide funding for more traditional tran- consolidate these grant programs would need
sit services for general populations, contradict- to be evaluated more closely.
ing the intentions of the Section 5310, 5316, • Suggested federal grant process improve-
and 5317 grant programs. As a result, there was ments. The study respondents indicated that
general agreement by those surveyed and inter- they felt the federal grant process could be im-
viewed that the planning requirements for Sec- proved to be more transparent, timely, sustain-
tion 5310, 5316, and 5317 programs are very able, and flexible. Planning organizations ob-
similar, and that a combination of these grant served that the multiple levels of prioritization
programs would make planning and adminis- and project selection may interfere with trans-
tration easier for all concerned. parency to local officials and stakeholders,
The respondents stated that by consolidat- which would adversely impact the commit-
ing the three grant programs, state administra- ment and perceived benefits of the coordinated
tors would have greater flexibility to meet planning process. These respondents suggested
local customer needs without the multiple re- that more guidance from FTA on the grant se-
quirements associated with each of the indi- lection and prioritization process could im-
vidual grant programs. Many respondents in- prove the understanding of all stakeholders
dicated that they believe the administration of (local and state) in what the federal priorities
multiple funds that are relatively small in are and how grant awards match up with the in-
funding levels is time-consuming and requires tention of the Section 5310, 5316, and 5317
significant staff resources for state and local programs.
agencies that are already short-staffed. Since In addition, respondents stated that im-
many agencies are unable to hire additional provements to the administrative process, par-
staff or consultants to assist with the process, ticularly the length of time it takes to apply for
the responsibilities often fall on existing staff, and receive grant money, are desired. They
many of whom have already been asked to noted that the year it can take between grant
take on additional responsibilities. application and receipt of funds also impacts
While the Internet survey and telephone in- the link between planning efforts and the pro-
terview respondents highlighted the benefits jects. In addition, they believe annual com-
associated with the consolidation of Section petition for funding of long-term, ongoing
5310, 5316, and 5317 grant programs, other or- projects is redundant and wasteful; several re-
ganizations have indicated that there could be spondents felt that distribution of funds on a
potential drawbacks to consolidation as well. A longer schedule (i.e., funding for 4 years) or
recent AARP study on Policy Options to Im- on a programmatic basis would be more effec-
prove Specialized Transportation noted that tive for these types of projects. Many respon-
8dents added that greater flexibility for state and link between the planning process and the
local recipients to redirect at least portions of grants would be appreciated by both the plan-
the grant money to meet emergent needs or ning organizations and the service providers;
redirect funds from projects that no longer need this could be accomplished by providing more
or cannot use the funding in a timely manner technical advice, tying grant money to perfor-
could also improve the grant administration mance measures, and rewarding cooperative
process. efforts.
• Requests for additional federal guidance Many respondents suggested that some
on performance measures. Study respon- funding could be tied to the planning process
dents expressed a strong desire and need for and performance measures, preferably those
additional federal guidance on performance identified at the federal level to help improve
measures that look beyond basic service in- the perceived transparency and equity of fed-
dicators and consider the effectiveness of eral grant distribution. This could include
funded projects in promoting job sustainabil- consideration of the existing conditions and
ity; effectiveness of the providers in supply- backgrounds of areas. Some respondents indi-
ing these services against the baseline condi- cated that performance measures should also
tions (such as unemployment, senior/disabled go beyond basic service indicators or cost data
population, and distribution of customers and to be more results-oriented or outcomes-
destinations); and measuring the number of based. They felt that data should be collected
customers graduating from the need for JARC on the success of projects in getting customers
transportation. Quantitatively, relatively few to the services they need and in the effective-
interviewees mentioned performance measures ness of the providers in supplying these ser-
playing a significant role in evaluating the ef- vices against the baseline conditions.
fectiveness of projects, primarily because they The respondents’ support for performance
believe customer-focused measures have been measures and the perceived opportunity for an
lacking. improved federal grant process comes back to
Those states interviewed that did utilize the effectiveness of the coordinated planning
performance measures in some manner primar- process. These respondents believe that by
ily relied on standard transportation service in- using performance measures and data, and link-
dicators to gauge the performance of the pro- ing federal funds to the results of this process,
grams funded by the grants. However, many coordinated planning could make better use
respondents believe the use of standard perfor- of quantitative information and link plans to re-
mance measures fails to sufficiently measure sults more closely. They believe that stakehold-
the human services aspect of the projects and ers making use of a performance-driven coordi-
often favors urban areas over rural because nated planning process would get even more
often rural areas have higher transportation out of the process of developing and working to
costs due to longer distances, dispersed cus- implement the Coordination Plan.
tomers and destinations, and little other infra-
structure to support human services customers,
which may make rural transportation appear in- CHAPTER 2 INTERNET SURVEY OF
effective or inefficient. STATE DEPARTMENTS OF
• Requests for additional federal guidance TRANSPORTATION (DOTs)
that strengthens the link between the plan- As part of the research effort, the research team
ning process and grant funding. There was conducted an Internet survey of state DOTs. The sur-
concern expressed by some planning organi- vey used multiple choice questions with opportunities
zations interviewed that providers do not for additional comments. The purpose of the survey
always see the benefit of coordinated planning was to help: (1) determine the extent to which respon-
efforts, given the distinction between the dents believed their coordinated planning effort had
planning process and the grant approval and met FTA goals of enhancing transportation access,
disbursement process. Those interviewed felt minimizing duplication of services, and facilitating the
that federal guidance that strengthened the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation
9possible with available resources and (2) ascertain the Table 3 Survey
cost of developing and maintaining these Coordina- responses by region.
tion Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that Northeast 4
Connecticut
resources are being used wisely and effectively, result- Delaware
ing in the better, more cost-effective and coordinated New Hampshire
programs that the plans are expected to foster. Vermont
The questions in the survey were divided into Midwest 5
Michigan
four sections: Minnesota
Ohio
1. Perceived Success of the Public Transit/ Pennsylvania
Human Services Coordination Plans South Dakota
2. Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coor- South 5
Arkansas
dination Plan Development Kentucky
3. Awarding Section 5316 JARC and Section Missouri
5317 NF Grants South Carolina
4. Please Tell Us About Yourself Virginia
Southwest 3
Once a survey was created using SurveyMonkey. Arizona
New Mexico
com, an e-mail invitation to the survey was sent to Nevada
the American Association of State Highway and West 3
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Com- Alaska
Oregon
mittee on Public Transportation members by Shayne Washington
Gill, the AASHTO Public Transportation Program Unknown1 1
Manager. The e-mail invitation described the pur- Total Responses 21
1 One survey respondent declined provi-
pose of the study and the Internet survey, and pro- ding any information about the state in
vided a web link to the survey. The web link could be order to remain anonymous.
forwarded to others within the agency for assistance
with the survey; however, the link created a new sur-
vey response for each person. variety of responses from states throughout the coun-
This chapter summarizes the findings of the try provided a good pulse on the major issues encoun-
“Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant tered with the human services transportation plans
Programs” Internet survey. The results and responses and grant programs. The results of the survey pro-
for each section of the survey are summarized in the vided a solid starting point for the more detailed tele-
following section, “Summary of Survey Responses.” phone interviews conducted during late 2009 and
The final section in this chapter, titled “Conclusions,” early 2010.
highlights the coordination planning successes and The responses for each of the three remaining
challenges reported by survey respondents and iden- sections of the Internet survey are summarized as
tifies respondent suggestions that might alleviate or follows: (1) Perceived Success of the Public Trans-
reduce these challenges. The blank survey form is portation/Human Services Coordination Plans, (2)
contained in Appendix A, which is available online at Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coordina-
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx. tion Plan Development, and (3) Awarding Section
5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF Grants.
Summary of Survey Responses
Perceived Success of the Public Transportation/
Please Tell Us About Yourself Human Services Coordination Plans
Of the agencies contacted, 21 state DOTs com- The first section of the Internet survey focused
pleted the survey, for a response rate of 42 percent. on the perceived success of the Coordination Plans,
Responses represented a valuable mix of regions specifically in meeting FTA goals, as well as state
throughout the country. Table 3 summarizes the re- and/or local goals. The survey attempted to identify
sponses received by region. lead participants in the Coordination Plans, the level
While the sample size of the survey was slightly of success achieved, and whether this level of suc-
smaller than the desired 50 percent response rate, the cess could have been achieved without the plans. All
10Have the Coordination Plans been successful in
enhancing transportation access to target populations?
Significant Success
Moderate Success
Average Success
Little Success
No Success
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 2 Perceived enhancement of transportation access for target
populations.
21 survey respondents completed this section of the State or Local Goals. In determining whether addi-
survey. A few questions were skipped, but there were tional state or local goals were met as a result of the
no fewer than 19 responses to any question in this federally required Coordination Plans, the survey
section of the survey. first explored whether states had any local and/or
FTA Goals. In general, the majority of survey re- state planning requirements already in place that
spondents (62 percent) felt that the Coordination Plans were used to satisfy the federal requirement. Over
were achieving average to moderate success in meet- one-half of the respondents (57 percent) already had
ing FTA’s goal of enhancing transportation access for some local and/or state planning requirements, indi-
the target populations (the collective group of persons cating that the federal requirement did not represent
with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with a completely new process for all states. Figure 5
lower incomes) in their state. However, respondents summarizes the type of state and/or local planning
indicated that the plans have achieved average to little requirements already in place for some of the re-
success in meeting FTA’s goals of minimizing the sponding states. It should be noted that not all states
duplication of transportation services (81 percent) provided an explanation or description of their state
and facilitating the most cost-effective transportation and/or local planning requirements.
possible with available resources (76 percent). Figures Even with more than one-half of respondents in-
2, 3, and 4 highlight the respondents’ opinions on how dicating that they had similar state or local planning re-
well the Coordination Plans have met FTA goals. quirements already in place, 52 percent of respondents
Have Coordination Plans been successful in minimizing
duplication of transportation services for target
populations?
Significant Success
Moderate Success
Average Success
Little Success
No Success
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 3 Assessment of duplication of transportation services for
target populations.
11Have Coordination Plans been successful in facilitating
the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation
possible?
Significant Success
Moderate Success
Average Success
Little Success
No Success
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 4 Perceived facilitation of most appropriate and
cost-effective transportation possible.
indicated that additional state or local goals had been While additional state and local goals have been
met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement. For met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement,
some states the federal requirement tied their local Co- only 26 percent of respondents indicated that the plans
ordination Plans to funding or brought the coordina- have led to additional state funds being allocated to
tion effort up to the state level. These varied additional public transit. Of the five respondents who stated that
goals included the following (one response each): additional funds were allocated, two indicated that the
• State coordination, rather than local additional funding was an indirect result of having the
• Tied coordination plans to funding right people involved in the planning process, which
• Mobility Management projects in areas with- fostered the identification of other sources of match-
ing funds. Additionally, two respondents stated that
out transit
the plans made better use of JARC/NF funding, and
• Developed regional coordination councils
one did not provide an explanation.
• Interagency Committee on Special Transporta-
tion goals Participation in Coordination Plans. In general, a
• Governor created transportation committee wide variety of agencies and groups were involved
• Did not have state/local specific goals in the coordination planning process. The most com-
• Demand response state-funded program monly listed lead participants in the process were
• 5317 provides alternative to paratransit the state DOT (33 percent), MPOs (25 percent), and
Local Planning
MPO Planning
State Fund Planning
Multimodal Planning
Job Access Plan
Coordination for Appropriations
Medicaid Planning
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Respondents
Figure 5 State and/or local planning requirements used to satisfy
federal Coordination Plan requirement.
12Which state and local agencies are taking the lead on
the Coordination Plans?
State transit office
MPOs
Transit agencies
Other
Interest/community groups
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Respondents
Figure 6 Lead agencies for the Coordination Plans.
transit agencies (21 percent). Figure 6 highlights the respondents used the opportunity to describe the situ-
lead participants in the planning process for the re- ation in their states. The two most common explana-
sponding states. tions (with two responses) were that the state paid
The agencies identified by the respondents as for and supported the planning, resulting in higher
“other” included regional planning agencies (three levels of commitment and participation, and that it
respondents) and 5310 recipients, counties, Native was impossible to include all participants in the
American tribal governments, private sector, public process, particularly in terms of attracting new agen-
transit provider, state planning bureau, and transit cies to the process. Respondents felt the funding
districts (each mentioned by one respondent). level and restrictive federal requirements for the
The survey respondents acknowledged that the JARC and NF grant programs often make it difficult
level of commitment/participation in the develop- to attract participants to the process. To increase par-
ment of the Coordination Plans has been relatively ticipation of Section 5310 participants, one state of-
strong at both the state and local levels. Over 70 per- fered an incentive for the participating agencies’ ap-
cent of the survey respondents indicated that the level plications for vehicle grants. The explanations for
of commitment/participation at the state and local
levels of commitment and participation at the state
levels was average or better, as shown in Figure 7
and local level are summarized in Figure 9.
and Figure 8.
When asked to provide an explanation of the Perceptions of Level of Coordination Achieved. The
ratings for state and local commitment/participation, last two questions of this section asked whether the
What level of commitment/participation has been seen
in the Coordination Plans at the state level?
Full Participation
Moderate Participation
Average Participation
Little Participation
No Participation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Respondents
Figure 7 Reported state commitment/participation in the
Coordination Plans.
13What level of commitment/participation has been seen
in the Coordination Plans at the local level?
Full Participation
Moderate Participation
Average Participation
Little Participation
No Participation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Respondents
Figure 8 Reported local commitment/participation in the
Coordination Plans.
state achieved the same level of coordination on state requirements. Additionally, one respondent ex-
transportation for the target populations before the planation indicated that, to date, the achievement of
federal requirements were introduced and whether the plan primarily has been pointing out what ser-
the same program objectives could be achieved vices are lacking.
without the Coordination Plans. Sixty-seven percent While most of the respondents indicated that the
of the respondents believed that the level of coordi- level of coordination had improved after the federal
nation was not the same as before the federal re- requirement for Coordination Plans, 62 percent of
quirement, as shown in Figure 10. Of the 11 respon- respondents believed that the same objectives could
dents that provided an explanation for their answer, be met without the plans, as shown in Figure 11. Of
six (55 percent) indicated that the coordination is the 10 respondents that provided an explanation for
better now, two (18 percent) indicated that there is their answer, five indicated that their state already
now increased awareness and additional stakeholder had the same type of planning requirement in place,
participation, and two (18 percent) stated that the but not the funds to pay for it; two stated that the fed-
federal requirement duplicates or overlaps existing eral requirement sped up the process; two responded
State paid for and supported planning
Impossible to include all stakeholders
FTA guidelines too specific for local agencies
Non-transportation agencies informed but not involved
Not enough funding to engage locals
Some conflict of interest with local agencies and funding
State provided template
State personnel reviewed the plans for compliance
Varies by region
Consultant helped local agencies
0 1 2 3
Number of Respondents
Figure 9 Explanation of levels of commitment/participation at the state and local levels.
14Did your state achieve the same level of coordination on
transportation for the target populations before the
requirements came into being?
No
Yes
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Respondents
Figure 10 Reported change in level of coordination achieved.
that they did not have a similar state planning re- fewer than 19 responses to any question in this sec-
quirement; and one stated that coordination requires tion of the survey.
mandates.
Cost of the Coordination Plans. While the cost may
vary by region/locality, the questions in this portion
Cost of Public Transit/Human Services
of the survey were focused on the total cost for the
Coordination Plan Development
development of all Coordination Plans throughout
This section of the Internet survey focused on the the state. The intent of the questions was to arrive at
cost of developing the Coordination Plans, specifi- a total dollar amount (including both state and local
cally in terms of a dollar amount and/or time spent on money); however, many respondents could only re-
the initial plan development and maintaining the port how much the state spent on the plans (exclud-
plans. The survey attempted to identify where the ing local expenses) because they did not know how
money and time for the Coordination Plan develop- much the MPOs and regions spent. As a result, the
ment is coming from, whether other projects have cost of the plans of responding states was largely less
been curtailed or eliminated to fund the plans, and than $250,000 (57 percent) as shown in Figure 12.
whether any additional costs have been incurred, in- For those states spending more money on the initial
cluding hiring new employees or consultants. All 21 plan development, many indicated that the state was
survey respondents completed this section of the sur- providing a significant portion of the money for the
vey. A few questions were skipped, but there were no Coordination Plan development.
Could the same program objectives be achieved in your
state without the Coordination Plans?
No
Yes
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Respondents
Figure 11 Estimated achievement of program objectives without
the Coordination Plans.
15How much money is being spent for the initial public transit/human services
Coordination Plans in your state (statewide total)?
More than $1,000,000
$750,001–$1,000,000
$500,001–$750,000
$250,001–$500,000
Less than $250,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Respondents
Figure 12 Cost of initial Coordination Plans (statewide total).
Similarly, Figure 13 demonstrates that most of Source of Funding for Coordination Plans. The
the projected annual state costs for maintaining the primary sources of funds for the development of
Coordination Plans are expected to be less than the Coordination Plans for the responding states
$250,000 (86 percent). As mentioned previously, were federal planning/administrative funds (48 per-
many respondents could only indicate how much the cent) and state funds (30 percent). Figure 14 sum-
state is expected to spend on the maintenance of the marizes the funding sources mentioned by survey
Coordination Plans because they were not aware of respondents.
how much the MPOs and regions expect to spend. In addition, five of seven survey respondents in-
Many respondents indicated that the Coordina- dicated that these revenue sources are not sustainable
tion Plans have a “shelf life” of 4 years for non- for Coordination Plan development. The respondents
attainment areas and 5 years for attainment areas, and concerned with sustainability of the revenue source(s)
they do not anticipate that the costs will be in excess primarily depended on state grants. Respondents in-
of $250,000 (at least for the state). Additionally, dicated that many of the state funds came from a one-
while some states paid for the cost of initial Coordi- time source (such as an Executive Order) or were
nation Plan development, no state responded that the taken from funds (both state and federal) that would
state would pay for the maintenance of the plans, have gone toward providing services. These responses
which likely contributed to the lower projected costs indicate that funding for the plans may become increas-
for plan maintenance. ingly a local responsibility.
What is the projected annual cost for maintaining the public transit/human
services Coordination Plans in your state (statewide total)?
More than $1,000,000
$750,001–$1,000,000
$500,001–$750,000
$250,001–$500,000
Less than $250,000
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Respondents
Figure 13 Cost of maintaining Coordination Plans
(statewide total).
16Where is the money to develop these plans coming from in your state?
Federal
State
Local
Executive Order
UWR Grant
Planning Funds
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number of Respondents
Figure 14 Sources of funds for Coordination Plan development.
While some respondents were concerned about participation from either planning commissions or
sustainability of funding sources for the Coordina- service providers.
tion Plans, only two respondents (10 percent) indi- However, when the Internet survey probed fur-
cated that other projects had been curtailed or elim- ther into the additional implementation costs, nine
inated to fund the plans. One respondent stated that respondents (43 percent) had hired consultants or
services were cut or curtailed to fund the plans; the additional employees to help meet the Coordination
other respondent did not describe the project(s) that Plan requirements at the state level, and 53 percent
had been reduced or eliminated. had hired consultants or additional employees at the
local level. In addition, one respondent indicated
Additional Costs or Issues with Preparation of the Co- that they are not allowed to expand staff, even if the
ordination Plans. The majority of survey respondents position is 100 percent grant funded. As shown in
(68 percent) did not identify additional implementa- Figure 15, most of the additional hiring has been for
tion costs or issues with the preparation of the Coor- consultants.
dination Plans. Of the six respondents that identified In addition to hiring consultants or new employ-
additional costs or issues, four were cost related (find- ees, the responsibilities for preparing the Coordination
ing consultants, insurance, additional staff time, and Plans have fallen largely on existing staff. Eighteen
workshops for MPOs and regional planning commis- respondents (86 percent) indicated that the plans have
sions) and two were issues with receiving adequate placed an additional burden on the state transit office.
Consultants
Mobility Manager
County Association
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Respondents
Figure 15 Additional hiring to meet requirement for Coordination
Plan.
17You can also read
