Transportation decisions can enhance or limit community participation and employment opportunities. Historically, the lack of transportation has been consistently reported as one of the most significant barriers to community participation, particularly by rural people with disabilities.  A person with a disability affecting his or her mobility in the community may have to base housing and employment choices primarily on transportation connectivity. Lack of transportation may force an individual with a disability to relocate to an area with available transportation services, and/or never consider living in a location with inadequate transportation.

The 1970 amendments to the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act (Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970, P.L. 91-453) established as national policy that:

...elderly and handicapped persons have the same right as other persons to utilize mass transportation facilities and services;  that special efforts shall be made in the planning and design of mass transportation facilities and services so that the availability to elderly and handicapped persons of mass transportation which they can effectively utilize will be assured; and that all Federal programs offering assistance in the field of mass transportation (including the programs under this Act) should contain provisions implementing this policy.

This national policy statement pre-dated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by twenty years.  Since its passage in 1990, the ADA has guided national policy toward integrated accessible public transit and changed the nature of transportation services. The Federal Transit Administration’s Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program (section 5310) has been in place since 1975 and has been particularly important in filling gaps in accessible transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities. The Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities conducted a  transportation policy analysis to [1] learn more about the similarities and differences among states in their approach to, policy content of, emphasis on, and organization of  transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities; [2] identify current practices, approaches, and innovations; and [3] serve as a resource to allow state policymakers, administrators, and advocates to learn from and build on each other’s work.

We reviewed state management plans that were in place prior to the August 2005 passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Public Law 109-59) to establish a consistent baseline among states which can be used to measure the program’s impact and progress in achieving national goals.

We framed this analysis within a post-ADA context, assuming (as stated in the 1970 national policy) that the desired outcome of the §5310 program in this century is an integrated public transportation system accessible to all, including people with disabilities and elderly individuals.

Surprisingly, our review of state §5310 program management plans identified considerable ambiguity about expected program outcomes, and even about which services and systems are expected to be coordinated.  Almost 20 years post-ADA, we were surprised to find ourselves raising the issue about state interpretations of whether or not "special" transportation services are included in development and coordination of public transportation systems.

The section 5310 program has two major parts. Though the second part, a state grant program, gets most of the attention, the important first part provides the authority for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to support public transportation services planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities within its other capital assistance grant programs. The section 5310 state grant element, (a)(2), is a “safety net” which states can use to fill gaps when section 5310(a)(1) transportation services are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. Neither federal statute nor FTA guidance define these words, which are used to determine need. Their interpretations probably have changed considerably in the past 38 years. Some states consistently have used their federal allocations to address rural transportation needs, while others have used these dollars to fill other public transportation system gaps. This report shows that states have many different interpretations of how to focus and distribute FTA’s Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program grant resources. This important small federal program has evolved over the years. It is important to remember that the first 5310 program state grants were awarded in 1975, 15 years before the ADA mandated investment in accessible transportation.

As the §5310 program has evolved over the last 30 years, states have taken different approaches, and each appears to follow one of three pathways. This may not be readily apparent, because states may use similar words (e.g. “coordination”) to refer to different activities. They base implementation on differing assumptions and measure success with different implicit outcome measures. Some states (e.g. Iowa) have used section 5310 funds to build inclusive, accessible transportation systems for the general public. This is more common in rural areas where no public transportation had been available. Where human service agencies for seniors and people with disabilities provided the only available transportation, states may have developed or are developing a general public transportation on the backbone of the §5310 program (e.g. Idaho, Nevada). States with some limited transportation may have used §5310 to supplement rural and/or regional transportation systems (e.g. North Carolina, Iowa, Rhode Island).States with more-developed public transportation systems use §5310 to fill general transportation gaps and to support human service agencies that are still an important resource in filling those gaps (e.g. California, Maryland, Ohio).

Our review may raise more questions than it answers. Some are basic questions at the heart of national policy goals. For example: Should we invest in turning human service agencies into transportation providers, or in developing the capacity of public entities to provide/coordinate transportation for the entire community? What transportation should be coordinated?  Are special separate transportation systems acceptable?

The essential question may be how to address special needs. Do you plan, design, and implement transportation systems (or any system) to include the special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities? Do you focus on developing separate systems (e.g. human service transportation models that are not functionally part of the public transportation system)? A case can be made that:

1. People may have special needs, but we should define the needs functionally.
2. Special attention and investment may be needed to develop and operationalize generic systems designed to incorporate a broad range of functional needs.
3. Systems with categorical eligibility requirements may be inherently segregated and therefore ineligible for public tax dollar support. It is not the nation’s policy to invest in discriminatory systems, even those that are well intended or coordinated.
4. As the concepts of special needs, special services, and universally-designed generic systems mature and evolve, and as the availability of resources fluctuates, we must continually re-evaluate the use of separate systems as a safety net for addressing unmet special needs.

Solutions must reflect the “national policy that elderly and handicapped persons have the same right as other persons to utilize mass transportation facilities and services” (PL 91-453, 1970). Programs that distribute public subsidies should continually reassess mechanisms for meeting needs in areas where transportation is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate.  The system should not be static or self renewing – it should continually re-evaluate what is achievable in the most integrated setting (subsidized, if necessary) and what still may need support as a separate, eligibility based program. Our analysis highlights the need for targeted strategies to speed the transformation from segregated (albeit coordinated) human service transportation to integrated transportation systems for all.

RESULTS

We had been warned that “There is so much variation in how states operate their Sec. 5310 programs that it sometimes seems that this really is a network of 56 separate, federally assisted mobility programs, operated by states, territories, and other federal possessions” (Zeilinger, 2002, p.9). We found more variation than expected in both the structure and the content of state plans. The results section provides data and tables about the management process. The full technical report includes detailed descriptions of: 

• Program goals and objectives; management orientation/models; roles and responsibilities; coordinating roles and responsibilities; relationships with Metropolitan Planning Organizations; and overall impressions of each state’s model and overall impression of the coordination model.
• Eligible subrecipients; criteria for public bodies and coordinators of services; sign-off letters and assurances; state-determined options and exclusions.
• Local share and local funding requirements; matching funds; and state funding.
• Project selection criteria; methods for distributing funds; eligible capital expense; the application process; subrecipients selection process; costs; and leasing as an option.
• The annual Program of Projects development and approval process.
• Coordination mechanisms; insurance, liability, responsibility, and related assurances; coordination incentives and disincentives.
• Private sector participation; civil rights; section 504 and ADA reporting, vehicle accessibility; and other provisions (e.g. school bus use).
• Public involvement and advisory committees.
• State program management:  accountability, procurement, useful vehicle life, utilization criteria; ownership/title and labeling, property management, state reporting requirements, the review process, state administrative expenses.
• State definition(s) of disabled and elderly; criteria for establishing need; operational criteria for “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate”, transit needs surveys.
• Distributive equity; equitable distribution of section 5310 rural-urban transportation resources; geographic equity, maps/GIS/GPS.

The appendices to the complete Technical Report include each state’s pathway, noteworthy practices identified in the SMPs, FTA charts of state funding levels, statutes and federal guidance documents, a glossary, and list of acronyms.

We make 45 policy recommendations regarding [1] program development in an evolving transportation program; [2] identifying needs; [3] fair and equitable distribution; [4] data collection and reporting; [5] resource distribution patterns; [6] outcome measurement; and [7] management. We also include recommendations for further research and key indicators for progress/change.

Major findings:

[1] Operational definitions/criteria.   The program's primary rationale is to provide capital assistance for transportation when public transportation is “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate”. We found that the lack of operational definitions for these key terms is an important factor leading to ambiguity in interpretation and implementation, and may lead to inequitable distribution.Only one state, California, operationally defined these terms.

[2] System tensions.  Over the life of the §5310 program, policy makers have increased emphasis on “coordination” of transportation systems and services. But our analysis shows there is disagreement on even basic issues (e.g. which transportation should be coordinated?).  This question relates to the apparent tension between the objectives of human service transportation and public transportation systems.  It questions the program's underlying assumptions and desired outcomes, as well as the ambiguous and sometimes conflicting interpretations of its purpose. States differ in program management areas such as determining: who can ride in a section 5310-funded vehicle; whether transportation services are integrated or segregated; which community members are excluded; whose transportation needs are addressed; how ride priorities are established. For the most part, there did not seem to be any mention of how states specifically identify, address, and manage the underlying tensions, in any of the SMPs reviewed. It appears that cost and utilization issues may be significant contributor to these tensions.

[3] An evolving system?  One might assume that states would use this federal capital assistance grant program as both a safety net and a mechanism for continuous quality improvement – redefining which additional areas need support because existing public transportation is still “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate”.  Our SMP review showed this to be true in some states, but not in all.  Some states’ priority on replacement vehicles could be considered as perpetuating a separate segregated system, when in reality a more integrated approach may have now reached “evolutionary viability”.  Some states (e.g. Kentucky) appear in each funding cycle to explicitly question whether recognized needs could be met in a more inclusive, integrated way.

SMPs for Colorado, Illinois, Iowa,  Nebraska, and other states seem to be based on a vehicle management approach, targeting §5310 funds as supplemental money to fill transportation gaps in communities which are not yet accommodating all transportation needs of the elderly and people with disabilities.  It appears that their approach is to address needs by using existing public and private transportation systems, only using §5310 funds to fill system gaps.

[4] Distributive equity.   The §5310 program is administered at the state level. There are no population or geographic requirements, so states may distribute funds equitably statewide, based on unmet needs. However, not all states appear to take advantage of this flexibility. State management plans have statements about equity, but few include operational definitions (e.g. in the selection criteria). Equity may be a stated objective, but without operationally defined criteria it is difficult to measure or achieve.

In some states, if there is a single human service agency that could provide separate special transportation in the service area of a public entity (e.g. a §5311 provider), that public entity may be ineligible for §5310 funds ─ unless the entity is also the designated coordinator. New York’s approach to coordinated rural transportation is interesting – New York DOT can reclaim an agency’s §5310 vehicle (the §5311 provider will pay the agency for its remaining percentage of the match) and bring it into the coordinated rural transit system to serve all seniors, individuals with disabilities, and the general public.

Some states appear to take de facto equitable distribution for granted. For example, West Virginia will not use §5310 funds to expand services in a county with a public transit provider. The state apparently considers expanded services part of the transit system’s ADA responsibility, and the “insufficient” designation doesn't apply.  Funds can be used to expand services in West Virginia counties without a public transit provider. Since counties without any public transit provider are probably more rural, this policy promotes more equitable distribution of funding and responsibility.

[5] Role expectations.   When both federal and state transportation agencies (e.g. Illinois, Colorado) have policy and resource distribution expectations that subrecipients will function as part of the overall transportation system, transportation providers are likely to comply. Colorado’s application emphasizes that “evaluation of coordination is, to a large extent, an evaluation of an entire community's coordination success, not just that of the applicant.”  However, if a state DOT treats the §5310 program as a distinct or special program targeted primarily to selected agencies, the applications appear to focus on providing transportation to an agency's clients. These sub-recipients may be less likely to be involved in integrated coordinated systems.

State DOT administrators manage large numbers of vehicles. They keep the vehicles running and safe. They do not seem concerned with who should be served – their core values say everyone should be.  It appears that it may be the human service transportation administrators who are adding additional complexity, for example with eligibility criteria for who qualifies for public subsidy, and attempting to identify the “truly needy.

[6] Building a culture of coordination.  Coordinated transportation is a goal of the section 5310 program. We found that some states (e.g. Alaska) appear to have a bias toward coordination, but allow for situations where it is impossible (e.g. where there is no other transportation entity with which to coordinate). 

Some states appear to have ways to facilitate conversion to integrated public transportation systems which also build models for coordination. Michigan provides support mechanisms for developing specialized services into countywide transportation services for everyone. Counties with only specialized services are eligible to apply for regional funds. If the regional program is successful, at the completion of the three-year demonstration period the specialized services program is ‘folded into’ the countywide service provided to the general public, and the service becomes eligible for formula funds.

[7] Process measures are not outcome measures.   We found that the section 5310 program lacks appropriate outcome measures to provide data about whether seniors and people with disabilities actually get to their desired destinations on time.  US DOT’s existing process measures are usually inadequate for capturing the story from the consumer's perspective. This results in an inability to provide adequate data to describe existing transportation gaps and determine what  is “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate”. The current process measures may only work where there is no public transportation system, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one.

[8] Insurance liability.   Insurance coverage for liability includes vehicle replacement cost, and passenger and driver liability issues. We found no SMP which addressed the broader issue of generic liability responsibility, nor was there guidance on how lead agency models or other arrangements share responsibility when they allow sharing and other agency use.

[9] Accessible vehicles – capital investment as a resource management issue.  States still use federal funds to purchase non-accessible vehicles, despite current emphasis on accessibility. Many states require that the vehicles purchased must be accessible, but then allow exceptions and have criteria for waivers.  Seven states (almost 14%) ─ California, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island – do not allow accessibility waivers.  In these states §5310 funds can used be only to purchase accessible vehicles. Most states have exceptions related to “the system/service, viewed as a whole”. States take a variety of approaches to the “equivalent service” criterion for wheelchair accessibility, and some states appear to have lower thresholds than others.

[10] Accessible emergency transportation resources: an example of resource management as community capacity building.   States appear to have the option to use §5310 supported vehicles during emergency response and recovery phases. We found that few states appear to use section 5310 resources in extraordinary situations (e.g. emergency evacuations).  Kentucky and Nevada include this in their SMP and operations. States usually do not include vehicles purchased with federal §5310 funds, especially those operated by human service organizations, in their inventory of public transit vehicles. One consequence of this is that these publically supported vehicles, in particular the lift-equipped vehicles, may be overlooked as available resources in emergency situations.

CONCLUSION

The road has taken many twists and turns as we’ve traveled from the 1970 national policy “that elderly and handicapped persons have the same right as other persons to utilize mass transportation facilities and services” to the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and increased federal investments in public transportation for all Americans. As transportation systems and services evolve, it is increasingly important to clarify the direction they are taking at the community, state, and federal levels.

From a management perspective, implementation of the small “safety net” FTA transportation grant programs from 1975' s legacy Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals With Disabilities Program (49 U.S.C. 5310) to the 2005 New Freedom Program (49 U.S.C. 5317) could be streamlined.  From a programmatic perspective, these programs could be better integrated. Managing the different requirements of multiple “siloed” state and federal programs seems inefficient.

Programmatically, our state management plan review suggests that a consolidated management and application approach appears to integrate systems better. Supporting and maintaining separate segregated transportation services is both inefficient and ineffective when it is possible to plan, design and implement integrate public transportation systems which are planned, designed, and implemented to meet the needs of the broadest range of riders, including people with disabilities and older individuals.  If a public transit system can incorporate more integrated accessible service elements, shouldn’t it be given the first option to do so? Currently, to be eligible for section 5310 funding, the public body may be required to certify to the State that there are no non-profit organizations in the area that are readily available to carry out the service. An alternative would be the option which some states exercise to transfer section 5310 funds to section 5307 or section 5311. SAFETEA-LU, the most recent transportation act, strengthened protections, so that transferred §5310 funds can only be used “for projects selected under the Section 5310 program, not as a general supplement for those programs. A State that transfers Section 5310 funds to Section 5307 must certify that each project for which the funds are transferred has been coordinated with private nonprofit providers of services” (Federal Register, March 23, 2007).

The section 5310 program is a valuable, though relatively small, program which may have reached the limits of bureaucratic tweaking.  It may need a thorough review in the context of other federal transportation programs to align it more consistently with national integrated transportation policy goals. A program that distributes public funds in areas where transportation is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate must continually re-evaluate what can be done in the most integrated setting (subsidized, if necessary) and what still may need to be provided by a separate, eligibility based system which is a safety net for the community.  Programmatically, it may seem risky to dismantle the current tangled web of procedures and requirements until there is something better with which to replace them. However, states which are not headed in a direction of integrated accessible transportation for all may need to shift focus even before new guidance is issued. The full technical report identifies many models which could be used for “conversion planning”.

The report includes a lengthy discussion about demographic categorization because it affects who is and who is not served and identifies where unmet needs are. Demographics issues bring us back to the central question of “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate” and add “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate” for whom?

Advocating for performance based outcomes could be a powerful and evolving role for human service agencies involved in transportation. As these agencies develop flexible, coordinated, integrated public transportation systems, they could collaborate to develop and use outcome measures that more closely match the agencies values, and the full range of their clients’ transportation needs in the community.

As transportation systems and services evolve, it is critical that they measure outcomes not only in numbers of rides and vehicles, but also in shared values. We need to agree on both why and what to coordinate. As the “pathways” concept described in this technical report repeatedly emphasizes, we need a shared vision of where the “vehicles of modern participation” are headed in policy and practice. Otherwise, it is unlikely they will reach the intended destination: efficient and effective integrated transportation for all.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy Recommendations

1.0  Program Development in an Evolving Transportation Program        

1.1   Congress should review the framework, background, and premise of the section 5310 program, providing direction for FTA to supply programmatic guidance on the goals of this and other evolving transportation programs.

1.2  Congress should specifically clarify that the intent of transportation coordination is among all providers, including human service providers, in an integrated public transportation system; and the FTA and other federal agencies which support transportation programs should provide guidance for the states so they can fully operationalize congressional intent.

1.3   States should place §5310 goals into context of overall agency transit goals, and be required to describe this relationship in the state management plans.

1.4  Establish national, state, and local expectations for "conversion planning." FTA and other federal agencies should work with States and advocates to develop mechanisms that not only permit, but also actively facilitate the section 5310 program to evolve.  Mechanisms should be developed to reward states and local communities when they increase transportation system accessibility, integration, and accountability.

1.5   Each federal and state funding cycle should include a requirement for analysis and identification of federal and state codes and regulations, as well as local practices which create barriers that interfere with the development of more inclusive, integrated public transportation service systems. A model practices center should be established to assist states.

1.6  In order to prevent perpetuating siloed programs which lack flexibility,   Congress and federal agencies should re-evaluate statutes and guidance, especially policies which allow a funding stream to continue indefinitely in its initial form.

1.7  Both federal and state agencies should develop transportation program evaluation goals which reflect the programs’s actual objectives.

1.8  SMPs should include discussion of how tension between human service transportation and the rest of the transportation system is recognized, addressed, and managed.

1.9  Both federal and state transportation agencies should explicitly express the expectation that grant subrecipients will act as part of the overall transportation system.

2.0  Identifying Needs

2.1   FTA should develop guidance, and states should develop operational definitions of the three essential criteria for establishing need -- transportation which is “unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate”.

2.2   FTA and other federal agencies should provide incentives and resources for conducting state transit needs surveys, using standardized categories, geographies, and terminology.

3.0 Fair and Equitable Distribution

3.1   FTA should develop operational guidance on how the fair and equitable distribution of funds in the section 5310 program could be evaluated at the state and community level. This should be done in collaboration with other federal agencies, states agencies, and advocates. It may be an issue that the Transportation Research Board could assist with.

3.2   SMPs should describe the resource distribution process inside the regions when a regional distribution approach is used.

4.0  Data Collection and Reporting

4.1   Section 5310 program data should be included in the National Transit Database. Data reporting modules for §5316 and §5317 grant programs could be developed at the same time.

4.2   FTA should work with States to develop categorical consistency for section 5310 rider categories.

5.0  Resource Distribution Patterns

5.1   States should develop mechanisms to include data on the service areas of section 5310 subrecipients for accurate portrayal of geographic distribution of transportation system resources.

5.2   States should develop mechanisms to include data on accessible vehicles, including those supported by section 5310, for accurate portrayal of geographic distribution of transportation system resources.

5.3   States should include the address and zip code of each §5310 subrecipient in the Program of Projects (POP) which the state submits annually to the regional FTA office. Where regional entities are involved, the physical location of sub-subrecipients should also be included.

6.0 Outcome Measurement

6.1   FTA and other federal agencies, together with States and advocates should work together to develop a set of agreed upon performance based criteria to move beyond vehicle/ride oriented procedural measures, to actual outcome measurement.

6.2   FTA and other federal agencies should require and provide guidance on how the section 5310 program can be periodically evaluated at the local community level, i.e. where the rides happen, not where the program is managed.

6.3   FTA and other federal agencies, working together with States and advocates,  should develop evaluation measures of transportation’s impact on local community participation.

7.0 Management: Most of the following recommendations (7.1 through 7.5) are intended for the FTA and other federal agencies, working together collaboratively with States and transportation advocates:

7.1   Increasing Incentives, Reducing Barriers

7.1.1   Federal statute and FTA guidance should use positive language to encourage broader transportation system coordination and integration. 

7.1.2  Identify what could be improved at the federal level that would enable the states to be more efficient without imposing more reporting requirements on the state or on sub-recipients.

7.1.3   Reduce administrative tangles created by Federal requirements.

7.1.4   Identify where and how generic state and local laws, regulations, policies, or generic lead agency regulations create incentives or disincentives to coordination or program participation, especially policies which could not just be administratively modified, but would require a formal change in a law or regulation.

7.1.5   Provide incentives, and remove disincentives to building a culture of coordination.

7.1.6   Rural models should be used for building rural coordination.

7.2  Managing the Selection Process

7.2.1   SMPs should include the State’s criteria for making decisions and project selection criteria, including scoring/ranking. When items are included in the plan, instead of just in the application, it makes them less arbitrary and subject to administrative change. 

7.2.2 States should consider use of a minimum score cut off threshold.

7.2.3  Require subrecipients to assure that the organization is not prohibited from coordination activities.

7.2.4  States should be required to assure that the source of matching funds does not place restrictions on transportation services or limit system coordination.

7.3  Improving Fiscal Management Capacity

7.3.1   Develop a planning tool, with models and metrics for evaluating the cost benefits, opportunities, etc., which would be useful to an agency considering adding transportation services

7.3.2   Develop a tool for evaluating applicant’s financial management capacity, which would be useful to members of selection panels and advisory boards, who do not have a business background.

7.3.3   Include the full scope of insurance issues, including liability and responsibility.  Conduct a study, at least literature review, and a set of consensus guidance documents which are vetted by insurance industry that go beyond simply a requirement for insuring the federal interest in the vehicle.

7.3.4   Identify issues related to vehicle tax related costs, including ways they can be considered part of the actual cost of the vehicle acquisition.

7.3.5   More guidance and FTA “blessing” for coordination oriented title transfers would be useful.

7.4  Resource Management

7.4.1  States should require grantees to develop and submit a vehicle replacement plan.

7.4.2   Use in emergency management, response and recovery. A provision should be included in the allocation of the federal section 5310 funds, which would require sub-recipients to agree to the use of these federally supported vehicles for emergency response and recovery.

7.4.3  Purchase of accessible vehicles should be the norm. 

7.5  Logistics

7.5.1   FTA should enforce the requirement that the SMPs and related public documents developed under the FTA grants be available in electronic formats.

7.5.2States should be required to notify subrecipients that the subrecipient is receiving federal funds from the §5310 program, and perhaps to have some way to also inform passengers of the source of federal support, especially when the vehicle does not look like a part of the local public transit fleet.

7.5.3   FTA could cross reference its guidance documents, so the flow between the guidance chapter on State Management Plans, and the other six chapters could better fit into a more logical outline.

Recommendations for Further Research

This research project was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, as part of a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center grant on Disability in Rural Communities.  It provides baseline methods and results, and recommendations. Additional research related to the issues raised in this technical report requires federal leadership in order to be consistent with federal goals. Agencies within the USDOT, whose primary mission is transportation, would most logically provide federal leadership. USDOT support could be augmented by collaboration with agencies named in Executive Order 13330 on Human Service Transportation Coordination which established the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM): Transportation, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior; the Attorney General, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The CCAM also includes the National Council on Disability. Other federal agencies also have a stake in integrated accessible transportation. For example, the Department of Homeland Security should be involved as it is responsible for emergency preparedness and response. Transportation is an important element in all evacuation plans. The federal Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR), which coordinates disability research across federal agencies, does not currently have a subcommittee on transportation, but plays a role in these issues. The Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) which assesses the programmatic effectiveness of federal programs, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) both have a strong interest in how federal programs addresses the nation’s transportation goals.

The following recommendations are therefore targeted primarily to federal agencies, starting with the U.S. Department of Transportation:   

Research identified in the policy recommendations.   Many of the policy recommendations implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, identify the need for additional research. Federal leadership in these activities is needed to provide consistency in achieving federal goals. As this technical report shows, there is currently a lack of consistency among the states, even when states are using almost identical language to describe activities like coordination. There are many areas which remain vague and ambiguous, making it difficult to understand how well national transportation goals are being achieved. 

The three policy recommendations related to outcome measurement (6.1-6.3) will need targeted research to establish consistent evaluation measures. Participatory action research would be particularly appropriate in developing performance based criteria which move beyond vehicle/ride oriented procedural measures, to actual outcome measurement; for developing protocols for analyzing and evaluating transportation’s impact on local community participation; and for developing measures to evaluate fair and equitable distribution of funds at the state and community level. (3.1)

While some of the questions may be basic: who gets what, where, and when (and of course the corollary – who still does not, and why not) – the answers may require more thorough analysis of the complex issues involved. From a management perspective, the bottom line should be to improve system integration and efficiency and to reduce complexity.

Policy recommendation 1.5 calls for a model practices center which could assist states with analysis and identification of federal and state codes and regulations, as well as local practices which create barriers that interfere with the development of more inclusive, integrated public transportation service systems. It could also assist with conducting targeted research which is responsive to state management needs.

Resource distribution patterns are particularly important in transportation. Research is needed which can assist states to develop dynamic mechanisms to include data on the service areas of section 5310 grantees for accurate portrayal of geographic distribution of transportation system resources. (5.1). As states develop mechanisms to include data on the full array of accessible vehicles, including those supported by section 5310, in their transportation inventories (5.2), other applications, including emergency preparedness, should be incorporated collaboratively both intra-state and interstate.

Many of the management recommendations will need research, e.g. developing more sophisticated planning tools, with models and metrics for evaluating the cost benefits, opportunities, etc., which would be useful to an agency considering adding transportation services (7.3.1), and developing tools for evaluating applicant’s financial management capacity, which would be useful to members of selection panels and advisory boards, who do not have a business background. (7.3.2 )

An analysis of the programs in the seven states which do not allow procurement exceptions to the requirements for accessible vehicles is needed. It should compare these seven states to the states which have waivers.  The study should emphasize understanding the benefits derived from full accessibility, to ascertain whether (18 years post-ADA) there is actually any rationale for still allowing exceptions. (7.4.3)

Even the development of incentive mechanisms to reward states and local communities when they increase transportation system accessibility, integration, and accountability (1.4), and resources for conducting state transit needs surveys, will need agreed upon standardized categories, geographies, and terminology (2.2) which should be derived from research activities done collaboratively with states, and not just written in a vacuum that overlooks state administrative reality.

Additional research recommendations:  Further analysis is needed to identify targeted strategies which can increase the speed of the transformation from segregated (albeit coordinated) human service transportation, to systems which focus on integrated transportation for all. (1.4)  Several examples of specific research areas are included in the full report, Recommendations Section B.

Key Indicators for Progress/Change.

Beyond the baseline study.   This analysis was designed as a baseline study. While the same items will need to be included for direct comparison in any subsequent studies, the technical report identifies additional issues, strategies, and questions that should also be included.

Post SAFETEA-LU State Management Plan analysis: Recommendations about key indicators for progress/change.   We had planned to review state management plans written before and after the passage of SAFETEA-LU.  Because TEA-21, the previous transportation act, had 12 extensions, SAFETEA-LU was not signed into law in a timeframe that would allow us to analyze pre- and post-effects of the new legislation.

It will be important to do both a follow-up analysis of post SAFETEA-LU state management plans, and a follow-up community based survey of the impact the statutory changes are making in integrated transportation for elderly individuals and people with disabilities. As of November 2007, all states are required to have an updated SMP based on FTA Circular 9070.1F on file in their regional FTA office, which reflects the changes SAFETEA-LU made in the program. (USDOT-FTA, 2007c)  This suggests that a future study may be able to collect SMPs for review with less effort than was needed for this pre-SAFETEA-LU review. To assess progress/change in post SAFETEA-LU State Management Plans, a few SMP elements might serve as particularly important indicators to assess progress/change:

[1] Need.   SMP includes specific criteria for establishing need, i.e. there are operational definitions for each element of transportation which is otherwise: unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate; as well as a specific description of how state program management is being used to address those gaps.*

[2] Performance measures.   SMP includes a description of performance indicators which

• indicate whether or not destination categories are used to prioritize rides
• differentiate between programmatic (human service) destinations and destinations of the riders’ choice
• categorize and count riders so they can be accurately aggregated nationally*
• clearly describe how the state’s definition of disability differs from the FTA definition   

[3] Coordination.  SMP includes details for reducing “silo” effects: clear descriptions of program relationships among state and federal sponsored funding programs, and how program funding is coordinated so it will fill gaps in order to make transportation more available, sufficient, and appropriate for elderly individuals and people with disabilities; how the coordinating bodies are integrated into the plan.

[4] Public involvement.   Clearly includes the transportation using public (riders), not just the transportation providing “public”.

[5] State inventory of accessible vehicle stock.

• SMP describes how they are increasing the number of accessible vehicles in the fleet, and reducing the number of accessibility waivers.
• SMP describes how vehicles are included in state inventory, so location and vehicle characteristics are readily available across agencies (e.g. for use in emergency evacuation).

[6] Sub-allocation of §5310 funds.   In states which use a regional or lead agency model, descriptions of operations and resource distribution below the regional or lead agency; i.e. the sub-allocation of §5310 funds, and how sub-sub recipients interface in local coordination efforts.

[7] Fair and equitable distribution.  Operational description of ways equity is included in the process; including a description of the MPO-rural planning relationship.

[8] Evidence of simplifying, streamlining, system integration strategies.

[9] Proposal evaluation: project selection criteria.   Inclusion of score sheet and scoring criteria included as part of the plan.

[10] Eligible capital expenses.   Detail on alternatives to typical capital expenditures; exclusions noted.

* Needs national guidance in order to promote consistency in indicators, measures, outcomes, etc.

Review should note if any of these items, or parts of items would require prior change in federal or state law/guidance – or if state could just administratively begin using these elements in the state management plan.

Acknowledgments

Project support came from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research grant H133B030501 to the University of Montana Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities. We wish to thank Chris Zeilinger and Jane Hardin from Community Transportation Association of America;  Marilyn Golden, Bryna Helfer, and the information staff at Easter Seals Project Action; Sue Masselink at the Federal Transit Administration for assisting in the collection of state documents; state coordinators who provided additional background information, helpful comments and advice, including Butch Ragsdale (Idaho); Tom Ochal (Illinois);  LaVerne Moody (Georgia), and Jean Palmateer (Oregon);  Nancy Arnold, Linda Gonzales and Patrick Reinhart for reviewing the final technical report; Steve Sticka, who assisted in initial document collection, and Zach Brandt who prepared the maps.

Preferred Citation:

Enders, A. & Seekins, T. (2009).  Executive Summary: A review of FTA Section 5310 Program’s state management plans:  A legacy program in transition. Missoula: The University of Montana Rural Institute.