AARP Public Policy Institute INSIGHT on the Issues Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Specialized transportation is vital to helping people with mobility limitations live as independently as possible. Authorization of the next surface transportation law provides an opportunity to improve specialized transportation services, particularly those funded by the Federal Transit Administration. This report recommends that policymakers take steps to strengthen coordinated planning, increase support for mobility management, and improve data collection and reporting on these services. The congressional authorization of the surface transportation law, coupled with Background the growing demand for specialized transportation, presents an opportunity to Congress and interested stakeholders improve the services targeted to have begun preliminary work on the Americans with mobility limitations nation’s next surface transportation law. caused by age, disability, or income This law could improve the delivery of constraints. Improvements would allow specialized transportation services. more of these vulnerable citizens to live In addition, the administration has in the settings of their choice, including launched a partnership for sustainable their own homes and communities, and communities involving the Department of to access employment opportunities in Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the suburbs that are not well served by the Department of Transportation (DOT), public transportation. Given this historic and the Environmental Protection Agency opportunity, the AARP Public Policy (EPA). One major objective of this joint Institute is publishing this paper to effort is to “provide more transportation  describe specialized transportation, choices” that are “safe, reliable, and and how it is funded and delivered; economical” and that “decrease household transportation costs…and promote public  highlight emerging best practices; health.” Adequately funded and and effectively delivered specialized  offer policy options for improving transportation will help to achieve these specialized transportation. national goals.1 In October 2009, the AARP Public Policy Institute convened a two-day roundtable of experts in specialized transportation, including consumer representatives, federal and state transportation officials, transportation providers, and researchers. Although not all the policy options embody the views of these participants, their expertise and feedback, along with an extensive literature review, helped to inform this paper. The views expressed herein are for information, debate, and discussion, and do not necessarily represent official policies of AARP. Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Demographic trends indicate that demand What Is Specialized for public transportation—in particular, Transportation? specialized services—will grow. From 2007 to 2030, the population aged 65 and Specialized transportation services—via older is projected to grow by 89 percent, van, small bus, or taxi—provide more than four times as fast as the essential transportation and population as a whole, which is expected independence for those who have to grow by around 20 percent.2 difficulty using traditional fixed-route service3 because of disability, age- The next generation of older adults is related conditions, or income constraints. expected to be healthier than the current Specialized transportation is a form of one on average, and disability rates “demand-response service” that appear to be declining. But the sheer responds to riders’ individual requests growth in population means many more (or demands) for service. older adults and more persons with disabilities will need transportation to Specialized transportation and other remain in their community settings. demand-response services fall under the umbrella of paratransit, a term coined in Professionals on aging have defined the 1970s to encompass a continuum of transportation as foundational for the transportation services between the private aging services network. For those with automobile and conventional fixed-route mobility limitations, specialized service, including taxis, jitneys, and car- transportation provides the same and vanpools, in addition to demand- foundation and is necessary to enable response transportation.4 them to live independently and maintain their quality of life. Figure 1 Projected Growth in the Older Population in the United States as a Percentage of 2000 Census, by Age Group, 2000–2030 240% 220% Population (% of 2000 Census) 200% 180% 85+ 160% 140% 65-74 50-64 120% 75-84 100% 80% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: AARP Public Policy Institute, Across the States: Profiles of Long-Term Care and Independent Living 2009; calculated using data from U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Specialized transportation should be $324 million for its three specialized distinguished from Americans with transportation programs.10 Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit, which is a more restrictive demand-response Specialized services are delivered in service mandated by the 1990 ADA for myriad ways. With federal and state persons formally identified as functionally funds and supplemental match funds, unable to use fixed-route service. local agencies purchase transportation services from existing public and private How Are Services Funded and sources, contract for service from private Delivered? providers, and purchase vehicles that they operate directly to serve their own Funding for specialized transportation clients. In the third group are hundreds services comes from many sources, of human service agencies that transport primarily the federal government, but their clients to and from services with also state and local entities.5 The DOT’s federally funded vehicles. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides three key funding programs, The Long History of Efforts to but the largest source of specialized Coordinate Specialized service funding originates with the U.S. Transportation Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with additional funding Observers have noted that the vast array from such federal agencies as the of specialized transportation services Departments of Labor and Education. creates “a complex web of providers and Together, these federal agencies sponsor services:”11 Specifically, they note that more than 60 programs that support special transportation services for older  many transportation providers adults, persons with disabilities, and duplicate services and expenditures; persons with low incomes.6  vehicles and related resources are often underutilized; Available data on funding amounts are dated but provide perspective: In fiscal  service quality and safety vary year (FY) 2001, the identified federal significantly from program to programs spent at least $2.4 billion on program; and specialized transportation, with state and  information is lacking about local agencies contributing several available services, particularly for hundred million dollars more, typically persons who need transportation.12 to fulfill matching requirements that range from 5 to 50 percent of total Since the 1970s, transportation experts program costs.7 have recognized the problems created by this complex web, and the federal and One HHS program—Medicaid—spends many state governments have attempted far more than any other program on to coordinate services to improve transportation. In FY 2001, federal transportation for target population spending for Medicaid transportation groups. was roughly 40 percent of the total federal funds identified for specialized Coordination is difficult for various transportation.8 More recent data for reasons, but particularly because federal Medicaid found that the program spent agency funds often flow down to the slightly more than $3 billion on state and local levels encumbered with transportation in FY 2006.9 In the same each program’s specific rules and fiscal year, FTA apportioned regulations. This “silo funding” 3 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation constrains the ability of the programs to initially directed to nonprofit human work together, even if the agencies serve service agencies for the purchase of the same people or those with similar or vehicles. An underlying premise was even identical transportation needs. that these agencies would operate the FTA-funded vehicles with funding from This paper focuses on the three their own programs sponsored by non- specialized transportation programs DOT agencies; for example, HHS funded and administered through the through such local entities as the Area FTA. New requirements for these Agencies on Aging. programs have recently spurred significant steps toward coordination. Over the years, the FTA has made changes to Section 5310 to encourage The FTA’s Three Specialized greater coordination of specialized Transportation Funding Programs transportation, a strategy well- recognized to improve such services. The FTA’s three specialized Changes introduced in 1991 allow public transportation funding programs are (1) agencies that coordinate services to be Section 5310, the Elderly Individuals Section 5310 subrecipients and allow the and Individuals with Disabilities purchase of transportation services as program; (2) the Section 5316 Job well as capital purchases. These changes Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) promote the use of private sector program; and (3) the Section 5317 New providers and coordination with other Freedom program. JARC provides funds human service agencies and public not only for specialized transportation transit providers. but also for more traditional fixed-route service. While all three programs fund The FTA provides Section 5310 funds specialized transportation, they reflect directly to the states, using a formula different legislative objectives and based on each state’s proportionate share histories (see the Key Characteristics of of older adults (aged 65+) and persons the Section 5310, JARC, and New with disabilities. As the designated Freedom Programs table at recipients,14 the states have latitude to http://www.aarp.org/research/ppi/liv- make funding decisions according to com/ for reference). their needs. States distribute the funds to local agencies (subrecipients) in a Section 5310 variety of ways, most commonly through Section 531013 was established in 1975 a discretionary selection process that is to address deficiencies in traditional typically competitive. public fixed-route transit service; specifically, where public transit service Section 5310 funds flow primarily to is “unavailable, insufficient, or nonprofit human service agencies. inappropriate.” The program predates Transportation Research Board (TRB) the FTA’s rural funding program, research (2008) found that nonprofit Section 5311, so the funding was agencies constitute 86 percent of total particularly important in its early years Section 5310 grantees and receive for rural areas and for urban areas with 78 percent of the funding.15 The program limited fixed-route service. is primarily a capital program, and a number of states restrict the use of funds With a legislative goal “to improve to capital purchases, such as buying mobility for elderly individuals and vans. A pilot project in a few states is individuals with disabilities throughout testing the use of program funds for the country,” Section 5310 funding was operating purposes.16 4 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation The FTA does not impose any limits on funding decisions (although some the types of trips taken by the riders flexibility is allowed to move JARC transported with Section 5310-funded funds among population categories). vehicles. The grants support a range of trips, including quality-of-life trips (such States are the designated recipients of as visiting friends) as well as life- JARC funds for both small urban and sustaining trips (e.g., food shopping and rural areas. For large urban areas, medical appointments). identification of the designated recipient is more involved and is based on a planning process that includes the state, Section 5310 funds flow mostly to local officials, and the public nonprofit human service agencies. transportation provider. Typically, the These agencies constitute 86 percent of designated recipient is the local total Section 5310 grantees and receive metropolitan planning organization 78 percent of the funding. (MPO) or the public transportation —Transportation Research provider. The designated recipients in Board, 2008 the three population areas apply to the FTA for funds on behalf of subrecipients in their respective areas. Job Access and Reverse Commute New Freedom Enacted in 1998, JARC was created to support federal welfare reform efforts. Established in 2005, the New Freedom The goals of JARC are to improve program is the latest of the FTA’s three access to jobs and job-related services specialized transportation programs. The for low-income persons and to provide program’s goals include reducing reverse commute services to suburban barriers to transportation services and employment opportunities for all expanding mobility for persons with workers. JARC was considered a disabilities, including access to transitional program, with funding employment. The 1990 ADA aimed to provided on a competitive, discretionary fully integrate persons with disabilities basis. With the passage of the 2005 Safe, into society, including public Accountable, Flexible, Efficient transportation, but Congress determined Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for that additional efforts were necessary. Users (SAFETEA-LU), however, JARC Thus, New Freedom funding must be became an established formula program. used for transportation purposes that go “beyond the ADA”; for example, the JARC funds are divided across the expansion of ADA paratransit service country on the basis of proportionate beyond the required three-quarter-mile shares of low-income and welfare corridors around fixed routes. beneficiaries, with 60 percent of the funds distributed among designated The New Freedom program follows the recipients in large urban areas (200,000 same parameters as JARC in terms of its population and greater), 20 percent to funding formula, with the same 60-20- the states for small urban areas (between 20 percent split (although the 50,000 and 200,000 population), and proportionate shares are based on 20 percent to states for rural areas (less persons with disabilities) and the same than 50,000 population). This funding parameters regarding designated formula gives more funding to larger recipients. With similar program metropolitan areas, effectively limiting characteristics, New Freedom is states’ discretion to make their own typically administered together with JARC by the designated recipients. 5 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Unlike JARC, however, designated mandate does not extend to non-DOT recipients may not move New Freedom transportation programs, such as funds among population categories. Medicaid transportation. (For summaries of the three programs, Although it is referred to as a “local see the Key Characteristics of the plan,” the newly required coordinated Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom public transit–human services Programs table at transportation plan may be developed at http://www.aarp.org/research/ppi/liv- the local, regional, or statewide level. com/ for reference).  The lead planning agency is decided locally; it does not have to be the state or Emerging Practices Hold Promise the particular agency that is the for Improved Specialized Services designated recipient of FTA funds. It can be the MPO (the regional planning The FTA’s new requirements for entity), a county or city, the local public coordinated planning for its three transportation provider, or the state. specialized transportation funding programs and a new emphasis on While flexible on the lead planning mobility management show significant entity and the planning process itself, the promise for improving specialized FTA is quite prescriptive regarding the transportation. actual plan and the participants. The participants should include the area’s Coordinated Planning Requirements transportation planning agencies, public Formally Connect FTA’s Three and private transportation providers, Specialized Programs passengers and advocates, human Beginning in 2007, the FTA required the service agencies, and others, such as development of a coordinated public emergency management agencies, faith- transit–human services transportation based organizations, and school districts. plan from which all projects funded by It is important that representatives of the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom target populations—older adults, persons must be derived. This is not a plan for with disabilities, and people with low coordination but rather a plan created incomes—be at the table. using a coordinated process. This Among the required elements of the process is designed to bring together a coordinated plan are strategies, services, wide range of providers and agencies and projects to meet the identified that operate and fund specialized transportation needs; these must be transportation, as well as persons who prioritized for funding and use the three FTA programs. The implementation. The plan must be process must address “opportunities to adopted through a locally determined improve efficiencies in service process. delivery.”17 The resulting plan may include a specific strategy or strategies Competitive Selection Process for Priority to improve coordination among Projects in the Coordinated Plan specialized transportation providers, but that is not a requirement. Beyond the requirement of inclusion in the coordinated plan, the FTA mandates This new mandate for coordinated that projects funded by JARC and New planning follows various federal Freedom (but not by Section 5310) must government efforts over the past several be selected through a fair and equitable decades to encourage the coordination of competitive process. The agency serving specialized transportation. However, the as the designated recipient of the FTA 6 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation incorporated into the broader Convincing stakeholders—including transportation plans. The projects that nontraditional transportation providers are selected for funding—including such as human service agencies and JARC and New Freedom as well as Medicaid—to participate in developing Section 5310 (all of which must come the coordinated plan was among the from the coordinated plan)—must be top three challenges reported by state incorporated in both the Transportation DOTs responsible for the coordinated Improvement Plan (TIP) and the plan. Statewide Transportation Improvement —Preparing Coordinated Plan (STIP) in urbanized areas and in the Transportation Plans: A Guidebook STIP for rural areas. for State Departments of Mobility Management Offers Potential to Transportation, Research Results Stitch Together the Funding Silos Digest 331, April 2009. Mobility management is a systems approach to managing transportation funds (the state for small urban and rural resources; it seeks to optimize all areas and the locally selected agency in transportation resources in a community. large urban areas), which may or may Instead of focusing on one mode or on not be the agency leading the coordinated planning process, is responsible for designing and conducting What Is Mobility Management? this competitive process. Mobility management emphasizes the Section 5310 projects, however, are following: selected through state-defined processes. The states and the locally selected  Movement of people instead of agencies in large urban areas then use vehicles varying approaches to merge the state-  Customer needs and the discrete designed selection process for Section travel needs of individual 5310 with the mandated process for consumers JARC/New Freedom selection to  The entire trip, not just that determine final funding awards. Federal portion of the trip on one mode or regulations stipulate that the states and another designated recipients in large urban  Improvements to the areas certify that all projects finally effectiveness, efficiency, and selected for funding must be derived quality of the travel services from the coordinated plan. being delivered Incorporation of Projects in Metropolitan and  Design and promotion of transit- State Transportation Planning Processes oriented development, livable communities, and energy-efficient The coordinated planning process and sustainable communities the transportation planning processes  Improvements in the information required for metropolitan areas and that is available about those states overlap to some extent. The services coordinated plan may be developed as part of already required metropolitan and —National Resource Center statewide transportation planning for Human Service processes.18 Or the coordinated plan can Transportation Coordination be developed separately and then 7 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation specific services, mobility management low-density suburban locations to enable takes a broad approach: matching the low-wage workers to access jobs (these transportation needs of individuals— are often unproductive routes for fixed- including older adults, persons with route operators). Given the increasing disabilities, and those with low numbers in these groups, it will be incomes—with a range of transportation essential that Congress increase funding options and solutions available in the for specialized services. community. This evolving concept has garnered much enthusiasm among Strive for Full Accessibility transportation professionals. Across the country, public transportation systems have made great strides toward Policy Options accessibility,20 and efforts must continue. Where transit systems have fully Authorization of the next surface accessible vehicles, stations, stops, and transportation bill offers Congress the services, all riders benefit, especially opportunity to build upon the persons with disabilities. For example, momentum of these programs and requirements for fixed-route operators to emerging best practices, and to address announce stops benefit riders with vision several areas in need of improvement. disabilities as well as riders who are Increase Overall Funding for Public unfamiliar with the route; curb-cuts and Transportation, Especially Specialized ramps at stations and stops benefit riders Transportation who use mobility devices as well as those with wheeled luggage and baby strollers. Funding for all public transportation— traditional public transit as well as Recognize that Specialized Needs Often specialized transportation—should be Require Specialized Services increased. Traditional fixed-route transit plays an important role in the mobility of While traditional transit serves many many older adults, persons with older adults, persons with disabilities disabilities, and persons with low income, and low-income individuals—who and increasing investment allows transit collectively take a significant portion of agencies to continue efforts to serve them the 34 million transit trips each better. Transit agencies’ purchase of weekday21—many in those special accessible buses and operation of special population groups must rely on the neighborhood routes are just two of the specialized services funded through the many investments that directly benefit FTA’s three programs: Section 5310, people with mobility limitations. JARC, and New Freedom. Increasing investment also allows transit agencies to continue specific efforts to Increase FTA Research and Technical serve older riders. A 2007 survey found Assistance Budgets that virtually all public transit agency Increased federal funding for improved respondents provide special services for and meaningful data tracking and older adults, including reduced and free dissemination is needed for more robust fares, travel training, and flexible routes.19 assessment of specialized services beyond the standard counts of But many people in the three target passengers and trips. Enhanced data population groups rely upon specialized collection should investigate and services, such as door-through-door measure increased specialized service for riders who are frail or those transportation as it relates to broad with disabilities (services beyond ADA societal objectives such as improving paratransit) and late-night shuttles to 8 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation health outcomes and allowing older includes FTA guidance on planning adults to remain in their homes and live components (e.g., how the designated independently. recipient should structure the required competitive selection process) as well as Funding for service demonstration grants technology support. Assistance with would encourage innovation in specialized such technology tools as geographic transportation. These grants could be information system (GIS) mapping structured similarly to the federal software can strengthen the planning government’s Service Methods and process, especially for newcomers to Demonstration grants in the 1970s. The transportation planning. GIS maps grants would help FTA program provide visual aids that make the subrecipients experiment with pilot discussion of transportation needs and services to meet local needs, including available services more relevant and creative services under the broad meaningful. definition of mobility management. Additional funding for research and Encourage Non-DOT Representatives to technical assistance should not mean Participate in the Coordinated Planning reductions in funds allocated to service Process provision. A particular coordination challenge has Strengthen Coordinated Planning been securing the participation of specialized transportation providers that The mandated FTA coordinated planning are funded through HHS and other non- process has real value, especially in DOT agencies. Medicaid transportation bringing new stakeholders to the table. providers are key stakeholders for As states and designated recipients work coordinated planning, but they often through their learning curve with the choose not to participate in local requirements, important relationships are planning efforts. In many areas of the built among transportation and human country, state-level brokers for Medicaid service providers, a critical link for transportation have not participated. coordinating and improving specialized transportation. The process does require Increase Efforts to Bring Underrepresented time and resources, and some Groups to the Planning Table communities lag far behind others in their progress. Low-income persons and veterans have not been well represented in the Promote Coordinated Planning coordinated planning process. FTA guidance specifies that representatives of The FTA should promote coordinated the targeted populations (older adults, planning by sharing model plans, best persons with disabilities, and people practices, and success stories, and in with low incomes) should be invited to particular by providing technical participate in the planning process. The assistance. guidance spells out notification and Information sharing can improve and outreach efforts to invite these groups facilitate the coordinated planning and stakeholders to the planning table. process. For example, posting sample Lead planning agencies should increase plans on the state DOT website can give their efforts to include stakeholders lead planning agencies across the state representing low-income persons, models they can emulate.22 veterans, and other underrepresented Increased technical assistance can also groups in their local planning process. improve coordinated planning. This 9 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Grant FTA the Authority to Review the persons). It may also result from an Coordinated Planning Process administrative mismatch, as project selection for Section 5310 awards is made The FTA should review the coordinated through a state-administered process planning process used by the lead separate from that for JARC and New planning agency (not the actual plan) as Freedom. Or it may result from an overly part of its required triennial reviews to general coordinated plan. Additional ensure that the lead agency made best clarification in the guidance, along with efforts to bring all stakeholders to the implementation of the other measures to table. Nationwide, the results have been strengthen coordination offered in this mixed regarding the range of stakeholders paper, could address this problem. who participate in the coordinated planning process.23 In its review, the FTA Retain the Current Flexibility of the Lead should emphasize the importance of Planning Agency ensuring that stakeholders representing the three target population groups actively There are pros and cons regarding which contribute to the process. The more agency should serve as lead planning consumers are represented in the planning agency for the coordinated planning process, the more the resulting plan and process. In some cases, a local entity projects will reflect their needs. such as the public transit provider has successfully led the planning effort. In other cases, it has been difficult to Policy Options identify local agencies to take on the lead planning role, so the state has  Increase overall funding for stepped in. Several different types of public transportation, especially entities—the state, a local government specialized transportation. transportation agency, an MPO—can,  Strengthen coordinated planning. and have, effectively brought the  Continue to support mobility requisite stakeholders to the table and management. facilitated a viable planning process. The  Collect and analyze smarter data FTA guidance rightly allows flexibility to strengthen programs. in this regard.  Expand program flexibility. Better Define the Competitive Selection  Study the impact of consolidating Process the FTA’s three specialized transportation programs. The FTA requirement for a competitive process to select JARC and New Freedom funding awards has been interpreted in many ways. The FTA’s intent is not Provide Stronger Language than “derived necessarily to require a formal request for from the coordinated planning process” proposal process but to ensure an open and While the law stipulates that projects competitive process that results in a broad selected for funding must be “derived range of projects being considered. from a locally coordinated public transit- Designated recipients would benefit from human services transportation plan,” the additional guidance on this aspect of the chosen projects do not always best meet required process. the transportation needs of the community’s three target groups. This may happen as a result of underrepresentation of hard-to-reach consumer groups (e.g., low-income 10 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Strengthen Coordinated Planning with the Promote Mobility Management as an Eligible Broader Transportation Planning Processes Activity under Non-DOT Programs The lead planning agency may develop The inclusion of mobility management as the coordinated plan either as part of or eligible for funding through non-DOT separately from the federally required programs would strengthen coordination metropolitan and statewide among the FTA’s three programs and the transportation plans. If the plan is various specialized transportation developed separately (the more common programs provided through other federal approach), it must later be incorporated agencies, especially HHS. Mobility into the regional TIP and STIP so that management’s ability to stitch together the selected projects from the coordinated various transportation programs would plan receive final funding approval. The increase if it were included as an eligible TIP and STIP planning processes are expense in the non-DOT programs. well-established, open, and public. Key stakeholders, especially consumers of Retain Flexibility for Funding the Broad the services, should be made aware of Range of Mobility Management Activities this formal approval step and invited to One of the strengths of mobility provide public input. management is the breadth of activities that fall under its definition. Services as Continue to Support Mobility disparate as centralized call centers, Management volunteer driver programs, and high-tech States and localities are increasingly automatic vehicle locator systems (which using FTA specialized transportation allow dispatchers to track vehicles in real funds for mobility management time for improved service) have received activities. Recent research shows that funding. Communities embarking on mobility management projects have been mobility management can choose from a the second most common New Freedom long menu of activities, selecting the most activity: 10 percent of projects in FY appropriate and tailoring them to meet 2007 and 18 percent in FY 2008.24 local needs. The large majority of FTA funds for Provide Continued Support and Increased mobility management (about 70 percent) Technical Assistance for Mobility Managers come from JARC and New Freedom. Few states use Section 5310 for mobility Mobility management is a new field, and management, but that number is mobility managers need support and increasing. technical assistance. Several factors make such support and assistance Retain Mobility Management as an Eligible particularly important: Mobility Capital Activity managers may come from a wide range of backgrounds outside of transportation; Mobility management is an eligible mobility management activities are capital expense under the three FTA many and varied, with some requiring specialized transportation programs, significant technical skills (e.g., with up to 80 percent federal funding computerized scheduling/dispatch); and available rather than the 50 percent information sharing among mobility federal match afforded transit operating managers can help jump-start projects, activities. The higher federal funding lessening the learning curve that often share encourages implementation of challenges new projects. The American mobility management activities. Public Transportation Association (APTA), with FTA funding support, is 11 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation developing a best practices document for benefits of these human service-oriented mobility management, as well as a systems could be greatly extended by mobility management curriculum to help including information on specialized transit agencies develop this new field. transportation. Support and technical assistance are critical to realize the full potential of Collect and Analyze Smarter Data to mobility management to improve Strengthen Programs specialized transportation. Tension exists between the desire for less data collection and reporting to ease Support Mobility Management the administrative burden on program Demonstration Programs managers and service providers and a Funds for demonstration grants for need for more data to make informed innovative mobility management decisions. The different reporting cycles activities, similar to the Service Methods of the FTA, states, and localities add to and Demonstration grants of the 1970s, the complex reporting requirements would allow mobility managers to test placed on FTA grant recipients and new and creative approaches to the many subrecipients. At the same time, activities eligible under the FTA stakeholders understand the need to program guidance. The enthusiasm for establish more meaningful person- mobility management among centered data to assess program transportation and human service outcomes that go beyond counts of trips professionals is genuine and substantial, and miles. The data should tell the story, and demonstration grants are one way to not just report the facts. take this enthusiasm into the field in The FTA recently implemented innovative ways. (Support for extensive data reporting procedures for demonstration grants is also described the JARC and New Freedom programs above under “Increase FTA research and technical assistance budgets.”) (July 2009) and issued new instructions for Section 5310 data reporting (October Link Mobility Management with Other 2009). Using the new JARC and New Information and Referral Programs Freedom data, the FTA conducted an evaluation of the two programs25 that Mobility management includes an array of provides extensive information on, for activities (sometimes referred to as a example, estimates of jobs accessed and “family of services”), such as shuttle the expansion of ADA paratransit services, taxi subsidy programs, volunteer services. Narrative profiles are included, driver programs, vouchers, travel training, in which grantees provide project and ride sharing, among others. Mobility descriptions that complement the management also includes centralized quantitative data. This evaluation one-call services, which collect and share provides a foundation for JARC and information on the specialized New Freedom reporting. transportation services in the community. These transportation and information Standardize Data Definitions in the Program activities should be linked to the broader Guidance centralized information and referral The FTA could improve data reporting services that exist in many communities, and performance assessment for its three especially those developed for human specialized transportation programs by services. The 2-1-1 systems, for example, standardizing the definitions of data are designed with an easy-to-remember terms used in FTA circulars and number to connect people with critical supplementary guidance. For the Section community and human services. The 12 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation 5310 program, for example, states count human services data for stronger and categorize ridership in many program evaluation. This study would different ways, with particular confusion explore the feasibility of using cross- in reporting riders who are both elderly agency data and developing measures and disabled.26 Other important data that bridge the two halves of terms—including trip, cost, and specialized transportation: the expense—lack consistent definitions in specialized human service side relating recipients’ and subrecipients’ data to the needs of the three target reports. Standardizing these key data population groups and the elements is an important first step in transportation side of vehicles, miles, strengthening program assessment. and rides. Evaluate Overall Program Effectiveness This effort could build on the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Program recipients need to monitor the Statistics, which produced Older services of their subrecipients, but they Americans 2008: Key Indicators of Well- should make additional efforts to assess Being.27 As a start, the DOT should overall program effectiveness. How become a member of this forum. successful has JARC been in moving low- income persons to jobs and job-related The research study would identify services? What quantifiable progress has existing databases on the human service been made in addressing the gaps in side (e.g., the National Health Interview services for older adults and persons with Survey) and those used for disabilities through the Section 5310 transportation (e.g., the National program? The recently issued JARC and Household Transportation Survey). New Freedom evaluation begins to From these, measures could be identified address program effectiveness, at least for to link data that demonstrate the broader these two programs. achievements of specialized transportation program investments. For Programs need to tell their story; to example, what quantifiable measures demonstrate the human side of their could be used to demonstrate the achievements. At the same time, they need benefits realized when specialized to use the powerful management tools of transportation enables older, frail data and performance measures to assess individuals to remain in their homes—to their internal operations. Assessments age in place—rather than entering must include cost measures, which should nursing homes? This study could further be used in appropriate ways. For some develop meaningful benchmarks, at least program reviewers, cost measures may be preliminary ones, that could in turn attractive for peer reviews and inform program targets. comparisons among programs. However, because of the differences among Include Transportation Elements in National programs and the environments in which Survey Efforts they operate, cost measures alone should not be used to measure program Various federal agencies and effectiveness. organizations fund extensive national surveys to measure a wide variety of Appropriate Funds for Research to Link person-centered outcomes; for example, Transportation and Human Services Data the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, which assesses health-related A research study should be included in behaviors. These broad efforts provide the next transportation authorization to an opportunity to test links with investigate linking transportation and 13 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation transportation and could augment efforts recipients, especially states, address described above to obtain better, smarter locally determined needs. Funding silos data to strengthen the evaluation of are key deterrents to specialized specialized transportation programs. The transportation coordination; as part of a FTA should work with the sponsors of surface transportation authorization, these surveys to include transportation- Congress should consider measures that related questions. would loosen the silos within the FTA’s funding programs. Establish a Central Clearinghouse of Information Provide Local Discretion to Flex Funds Across Geographic Categories A central clearinghouse should be created to store comprehensive, smarter data on With greater ability to transfer funds the specialized transportation programs, across geographic categories, the states including program outcomes and results. could target JARC and New Freedom to Such a central, public repository of data areas and projects that are most in need. and narratives would facilitate Needs for specialized services may be communication about specialized greater in rural areas, but these areas transportation program investments. have more limited funding. Expand Program Flexibility Retain Flexibility to Locally Determine the Differences among states—and certainly Designated Recipient for JARC and New among large urban, small urban, and Freedom Funds rural areas—make it difficult to design a For large urban areas, the designated one-size-fits-all program structure. The recipient for JARC and New Freedom ability to use funds flexibly varies across funds is determined through a locally the three FTA programs. The JARC and negotiated process involving the state, New Freedom programs are structured various local officials, and the public so that funding is distributed among transportation provider. This process large urban, small urban, and rural areas often results in the identification of the by a 60-20-20 percent split. This local MPO or the public transportation distribution limits states’ ability to target provider as the designated recipient. No funding to areas they determine are most single entity is always the perfect one to in need. Section 5310 funding, on the fulfill this role. Localities appreciate the other hand, is provided directly to the flexibility to determine the appropriate states, giving them freedom to allocate recipient for their area. resources as they determine best for their individual state. Because of minor Retain Non-DOT Funds and In-kind differences in the statutory authority of Contributions as the Local Match the two programs, the FTA does allow limited transfer of funds among Federal non-DOT funds and in-kind population categories for the JARC contributions are among eligible sources program28 but not for New Freedom. of the local match required for Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom. Increased Flexibility Would Help Remove SAFETEA-LU expanded the options for Funding Silos meeting local match requirements, and this expansion benefits subrecipients, Significantly greater flexibility to which in many cases have limited transfer funds across the geographic opportunities to secure matching funds. categories would help designated 14 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation Rationale for Consolidation Rationale Against Consolidation Consolidation would mean optimal flexibility The needs of low-income workers without for designated recipients to administer disabilities (JARC’s target group) are specialized transportation funding. different than those of older adults and persons with disabilities. Consolidation would reduce the administrative burden. The merger of programs could introduce competition among the target groups for a The transportation needs of the target share of the funds. population groups are more similar than different, so three separate programs are not Consolidation could mean the loss of the necessary. more specialized and lower-cost services offered by nonprofit human service transportation providers. Study the Impact of Consolidating the The complexity of multiple funding FTA’s Three Programs programs spills down to the local operator level as well and hampers Several transportation organizations— coordination efforts. Many local transit most notably APTA and the American operators, particularly in small urban and Association of State Highway and rural areas, receive funding from more Transportation Officials—have proposed than one of the FTA grant programs and consolidating two or three of the FTA find it almost mandatory to run separate specialized transportation programs in services just to satisfy the rules and the next transportation bill, primarily to reporting requirements of the separate increase program flexibility and reduce grants. As a result, they might have one administrative burden. Program route in their system funded through administrators would like to be able to JARC, another service that “goes beyond use grant monies to meet locally the ADA” funded with New Freedom determined needs without rigid funding dollars, and a third senior shuttle silos. These stakeholders cite operated with a Section 5310-funded increasingly time-consuming and vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is used complex management requirements for multiple programs that must be met with primarily for 5310 purposes. To meet the reporting requirements of the various decreasing staff resources in state grant programs, different data are DOTs.29 collected and reported for each of these Proponents also point to lapsed funds as routes and services. a rationale for program consolidation, Aging and disability organizations— although this problem is largely confined including AARP, the National to the New Freedom program, especially Association of Area Agencies on Aging, in small urban areas. Local officials say Easter Seals, Jewish Federations of they sometimes cannot spend New North America, and other members of Freedom grants in a timely manner the Senior Transportation Task Force— because of their inability to flex funds are concerned that consolidation of the across population categories, the smaller programs could lower the quality of apportionments allotted to small urban service provided under the Section 5310 and rural areas, and limited local funds program and lead to other unintended to meet match requirements. consequences. A particular concern for these organizations is that older adults, 15 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation persons with disabilities, and low- case for Section 5310 funding), or income populations do not have identical should it flow to the designated transportation needs that can always be recipient via the 60-20-20 percent met by the same service. In an effort to distribution among population meet the needs of each group, advocates categories (as is the case for JARC could find themselves pitted against one and New Freedom)? Stakeholders do another in unproductive competition. not concur on the best funding These organizations also believe that structure. They generally agree that consolidation would remove the current the 5310 funding structure works priority for nonprofit human service well for the state-administered 5310 providers under the Section 5310 program. They also believe quite program. Many feel that these nonprofit strongly that the JARC and New providers, given that their primary Freedom apportionment boundaries institutional purpose is to meet human established among the three service needs, are best able to offer the population categories should be high-quality, specialized service that loosened to provide more flexibility many older adults and persons with to fund locally determined needs. disabilities require. Consolidate FTA Grant Programs for Rural Additional study is needed to understand Areas Only whether consolidation can streamline program administration and at the same An option is to combine FTA grants time improve the delivery of specialized available for rural areas only—Section services to older adults, persons with 5311, Section 5310, JARC, and New disabilities, and low-income workers. Freedom—while retaining all activities now available under the separate Two thorny issues arise in considering programs. Rural transit services typically the details of implementing focus on riders with special needs, consolidation: including older adults, persons with disabilities, and low-income persons.  Identification of the designated Merging the programs would allow rural recipient. If the three programs transit operators to provide transit merged into one, a single entity services without the constraints of would become the designated separate grant agreements and recipient. Would it be the state—the requirements. designated recipient for the long- standing Section 5310 program? Or This option entails a number of caveats. would the designation follow the First, Section 5311’s focus on general practice of the newer JARC and New public service should remain; services to Freedom programs, under which (at those with special needs should not least for large urbanized areas) the preclude services for the general public. designated recipient is determined Second, a consolidated rural program through a local collaborative would need to define an appropriate process? Potential conflicts of funding level for Section 5311(f), the interest could arise if the designated Intercity Bus Program. Under the current recipient for JARC and New rural program, states must spend at least Freedom is also an applicant for 15 percent of their annual Section 5311 those program funds. apportionment to support intercity bus transportation (unless the state certifies  Flow of funds. Should the money that needs for such services are met). flow to the state (as is currently the Third, some stakeholders question 16 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation whether this option would reduce state to at least one stakeholder, “want administrative efforts, since Section nothing to do with” the more specialized 5310, JARC, and New Freedom would services intended for JARC funding. remain separate programs for urban Furthermore, when operated by the areas. public transit operator, the specialized JARC routes become prime candidates Consolidate Section 5310 and New Freedom for elimination when budgets are tight, Another option is to consolidate Section because they often fail to meet 5310 and New Freedom, since both productivity standards. A final concern focus on persons with disabilities relates to TANF (Temporary Assistance (Section 5310 targets older adults as for Needy Families) funds, which have well). These target groups are quite historically served as a match for the distinct from those of JARC ( low- operation of JARC routes. Some income persons and reverse commuters stakeholders believe that the availability regardless of income). The of TANF for match funding would likely transportation services developed for end if JARC funds were bundled with older adults and persons with disabilities Section 5307 funds that go to the public are similar and often identical, such as transit operator. door-to-door demand-response programs. JARC services tend to be Conclusion more traditional fixed-route transit, Specialized transportation is a lifeline serving employment centers at scheduled for many older adults, persons with times. Given the commonalities between disabilities, and low-income workers. Section 5310 and New Freedom, a Authorization of the next surface consolidation of the two may be transportation law provides an appropriate. The issues of designated opportunity to improve the services recipient and flow of funds remain funded by the three FTA-administered stumbling blocks with this option. programs. Enhancements to the coordinated planning process and Consolidate JARC and Section 5307 renewed support for the promising field A third permutation could be merging of mobility management are two areas JARC with Section 5307, the FTA’s that could be strengthened through the Urbanized Area Formula Assistance authorization. Improved data collection Program that provides federal funds for and reporting are fundamental to urbanized areas (50,000 and greater understanding the full value of the population). In many such areas, Section programs and identifying where 5307 transit operators provide JARC improvements are needed. services. Thus, merging JARC with Section 5307 could eliminate the While stakeholders recognize that administrative issues involved with current program structures would benefit managing and operating two separate from increased flexibility and reduced grant programs. administration burden, wholesale changes to the program structure— However, many stakeholders consider specifically, program consolidation— this option problematic. Such a merger could result in unintended consequences might preclude the more innovative for the beneficiaries of these programs. JARC services operated in some Any program restructuring must strive, communities by nontraditional providers above all, to improve transportation for such as taxi companies. Additionally, older adults, persons with disabilities, some public transit operators, according and persons with low incomes. 17 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation 11 “Report to the President: Human Service Transportation Coordination Executive Order 1 Accessed December 15, 2009, 13330,” 2005, available at http://www.epa.gov/dced/partnership/index.html. http://www.unitedweride.gov/1_866_ 2 eng_html.htm. “Across the States, 2009: Profiles of Long-Term 12 Care and Independent Living.” Accessed J. Burkhardt et. al., Economic Benefits of February 1, 2010 at http://www.aarp.org/ Coordinating Human Service Transportation research/ppi/ltc/other/articles/across_the_states_ and Transit Services, TCRP Report 2009__profiles_of_long-term_care_and_ 91.Washington, DC: Transportation Research independent_living.html. Board, 2003. 3 13 Fixed-route public transportation refers to The Section 5310 program was originally public buses and trains that follow an established called the Section 16 (b)(2) program. service route according to a fixed schedule. 14 Fixed-route systems typically include city bus The FTA uses the term “designated recipient” systems, commuter bus systems, subways, light to refer to a public body that has the legal authority to apply for, receive, and dispense rail systems, and intercity rail transportation. federal funds. 4 KFH Group et al., Guidebook for Measuring, 15 Assessing, and Improving Performance of KFH Group, Inc., Current State Eligibility Requirements for Grantees to Qualify for Demand-Response Transportation, TCRP Report 124. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Federal Section 5310 and Section 5311 Funds, Board, 2008; and R. Kirby, Paratransit: National Cooperative Highway Research Program 20-65(16) final report. March 2008. Neglected Options for Urban Mobility. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1974. The report found that private nonprofit agencies comprise 86 percent of total grantees and receive 5 U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation 78 percent of the funding; local governments and Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal independent public transit districts comprise Programs Fund Transportation Services, but 13 percent of grantees and receive 22 percent of Obstacles to Coordination Persist. June 2003, the funding; and tribal governments comprise p. 12. less than 1 percent of grantees and receive less 6 than 1 percent of the funding. Ibid, p. 8. This report found that the full extent 16 of spending on specialized transportation is not SAFETEA-LU included a pilot project that known, because complete spending information allowed seven states (Alaska, Louisiana, is not available for some federal programs. Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, South Spending information provided in the report is Carolina, and Wisconsin) to use up to 33 percent of based on information available for 29 of the their respective annual Section 5310 funds for 62 programs identified. According to available operating assistance, with a 50 percent local share data, HHS programs together spent the most on requirement. (Wisconsin later decided not to specialized transportation in the fiscal year participate.) SAFETEA-LU required the states to studied. prepare a report assessing the pilot. According to a 7 DOT letter to Congress (available at Ibid, pp. 12–14. http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_ 8 Ibid, p. 13. financing_8353.html), because the pilot was slow 9 getting started, the study found insufficient data to S. Rosenbaum et al., Medicaid’s Medical report the pilot’s effectiveness. Also, the study Transportation Assurance: Origins, Evolution, found that, because of increasing coordination of Current Trends, and Implications for Health Section 5310 with other human service Reform, Policy Brief. Washington, DC: George transportation activities, “it is difficult to isolate the Washington University School of Public Health impacts of this Pilot Program from other and Health Services, July 2009. programs.” The FTA said in this letter that it 10 expected that adequate data would not be available FTA apportionments for FY06: for 5310, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/ to asses the pilot before the end of FY 2009. grants_financing_8352.html; for JARC, 17 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/ Transit Administration, Circulars FTA C grants_financing_7176.html; for New Freedom, 9070.1F; 9045.1; 9050.1, May 1, 2007. http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/ 18 grants_financing_7187.html. For information on required metropolitan and statewide planning requirements, see, for 18 Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation example, “The Transportation Planning Process: includes the Administration on Aging, Centers Key Issues,” a publication of the Transportation for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Planning Capacity Building Program, Federal National Institute on Aging), Housing and Urban Highway Administration and Federal Transit Development, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Administration, available at Environmental Protection Agency, Office of http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/ Management and Budget, and Social Security briefingbook/bbook.htm. Administration. INSIGHT on the Issues 19 28 The Beverly Foundation, Public A state may transfer funds among small urban Transportation Programs for Seniors, and rural areas if it certifies that all JARC 2007 Final Report. Washington, DC: American objectives are being met in the area from which Public Transportation Association, December funds are being transferred. JARC funds 2007. apportioned for rural areas and small urban areas 20 may also be transferred anywhere in the state, Since the ADA was signed into law, public including to large urban areas, if the state has a transit buses have become nearly universally statewide JARC program (but not the reverse, from accessible to persons using wheelchairs. As large urban areas to small urban or rural areas). reported by APTA, a sampling of the bus fleet 29 finds that 99.3 percent of public buses have As documented in NCHRP Research Results wheelchair lifts or ramps, up from 40.2 percent Digest 314, state program administrators are in 1990 (APTA, 2009 Public Transportation required to manage parallel and often identical, Fact Book, Table 20). Much work is still needed overlapping, or concurrent elements, including to make the sidewalk network around bus stops rules and regulations related to funding flow, accessible. A smaller percentage of the separate and discrete application processes and commuter and light rail vehicle fleet is accessible documents, necessary certifications, fund (86 percent and 84 percent, respectively). tracking for obligations and payments, project 21 review and evaluation processes, and ongoing According to APTA, more than 34 million program oversight and reports. public transportation trips are taken each weekday. Public Transportation Takes Us There, Fact Sheet, at http://www.publictransportation.org. Insight on the Issues 39, April 2010 22 NCHRP Research Results Digest 331, April 2009. Written by Elizabeth Ellis, KFH Group, and 23 Ibid. Jana Lynott and Wendy Fox-Grage, 24 Commonwealth Environmental Systems and AARP Public Policy Institute, TranSystems, Connecting People to Employment 601 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20049 and Enhancing Mobility for People with www.aarp.org/ppi Disabilities: An Evaluation of Job Access and 202-434-3890, ppi@aarp.org Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom © 2010, AARP. Program Services Provided in 2007 and 2008, Reprinting with permission only. Final Report. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration, November 2009. 25 Ibid. 26 A. Enders and T. Seekins, A Review of FTA Section 5310 Programs’ State Management Plans: A Legacy Program in Transition, Technical Report. Missoula, MT: University of Montana Rural Institute, February 2009. 27 Information on the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics can be found at http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/ main_site/default.aspx. At present, the following federal departments are forum members: Commerce, Health and Human Services (which 19