IL NET an ILRU/NCIL National Training and Technical Assistance Project Expanding the Power of the Independent Living Movement Rural Transportation: On the road to equity A National Teleconference Participant's Manual December 5, 2000 Contributors to the training materials: Carri George Dawn Heinsohn Anne-Marie Hughey Darrell Lynn Jones Kristy Langbehn Raymond Lin Richard Petty Brian Atwell Linda Gonzales Devva Kasnitz, PhD Janet McGlynn, CCTM Tom Seekins, PhD Diana Spas 2000 IL NET, an ILRU/NCIL Training and Technical Assistance Project ILRU Program NCIL 2323 S. Shepherd Street 1916 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1000 Suite 209 Houston, Texas 77019 Arlington, Virginia 22201 713-520-0232 (V) 703-525-3406 (V) 713-520-5136 (TTY) 703-525-4153 (TTY) 713-520-5785 (FAX) 703-525-3409 (FAX) ilru@ilru.org 1-877-525-3400 (V/TTY - toll free) http://www.ilru.org ncil@ncil.org http://www.ncil.org Permission is granted for duplication of any portion of this manual, providing that the following credit is given to the project: Developed as part of the IL NET: an ILRU/NCIL National Training and Technical Assistance Project. IL NET is funded through a special provisions cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Agreement No. H132B99002. Rural Transportation: On the Road to Equity A National Teleconference Participant's Manual Table of Contents Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i About the Trainers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Trainers and IL NET Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv About ILRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii About NCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii About IL NET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Inequities in Rural Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Project . . . . . . . .4 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 How can we make it better?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Promising Rural Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Rural Transportation: Using Vouchers to Improve Access . . . . .9 Rural Transportation & Disability, Part one of a Two Part Series15 Going my OUR way? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The nuts and Bolts of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Signs of success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Section 5310? Section 5311? What does it mean?. . . . . . 22 Taking on Rural Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Accessible Rural Transportation Initiative . . . . . . . . . . 31 The Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Program . . . . . 34 Section 1: What is the Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Voucher Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Section 2: Where does the funding come from?. . . . . . . 38 Section 3: How is the SVRT voucher program managed? . . . 41 Section 4: Where do we start? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Section 5: How do we organize volunteers? . . . . . . . . 46 Section 6: Now you are on your way. . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix A: Sample Budget Online. . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix B: Sample Recordkeeping forms. . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix C: Sample Customer Satisfaction Survey . . . . . 53 Appendix D: Additional Sources of Information . . . . . . 54 Appendix E: Montana State Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Battle for Equity: Vision for Transit's Future . . . . . . 56 Rural Transportation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Rural Transportation: On the Road to Equity A Teleconference December 5, 2000 2:00 3:30 P.M. Eastern Time AGENDA Welcome and Introductions Darrell Lynn Jones The Current State of Transportation in Rural America Linda Gonzales APRIL's Rural Transportation Initiative Strategies Action Plans Questions & Answers Rural Inequities in Funding Resources Janet McGlynn Questions & Answers Rural Transportation Program Models Transportation Vouchers Tom Seekins Community Coordination of Providers Brian Atwell Questions & Answers Funding Resources Janet McGlynn Questions & Answers Advocacy is the Key Getting Involved Devva Kasnitz Questions & Answers Wrap-up Darrell Lynn Jones ABOUT THE TRAINERS Brian Atwell has been Executive Director for LINK, Inc., in Hays, Kansas since 1993 and has worked in the independent living field since 1986. Brian has served as the APRIL treasurer and NCIL Regional Representative in the past. Brian also works with APRIL Transportation Task Force on the nationwide level. He is currently the treasurer for Western Kansas Association of the Concerns of the Disabled (WKACD) and this organization owns two vehicles which operate within the coordinated transit district. LINK, Inc., a CIL in northwest Kansas, works closely with Developmental Services Of Northwest Kansas (DSNWK), to manage a coordinated transit district within an 18 county area. This coordinated transit district is made up of 21 agency representatives and one Kansas Department of Transportation staff. Transit providers in this district operate 22 vehicles in the "Rural Public" 5311 category and 19 vehicles in the "Elderly/Disabled" 5310 category. The transit district works to enhance coordination, planning and management of State and Federal passenger transportation funds, designated for rural public and specialized transportation services. Coordination and mutual dispatching of vehicles and services is key to efficient transportation services. Linda Gonzales is the Executive Director of the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living and a longtime advocate in the field of independent living and disability rights. Currently she coordinates the APRIL Rural Transportation initiative. Ms. Gonzales, is a former director of a rural CIL in New Mexico, and has spent the past seven years as an IL consultant and trainer. She is a member of the Ohio SILC and of the Advisory Committee to the Director of the National Center for Environmental Health. She has a masters degree in education from California State University at Northridge. Devva Kasnitz, PhD (Switzer Fellow/World Institute on Disability) is trained as a Medical Anthropologist. She has an extensive background in qualitative and applied disability rights research, and served as the Chair of Membership of one California independent living center and as Executive Director of another. She is a founding member of the Society for Disability Studies and of the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living. She was active in unionizing at The University of Michigan, and is also an entrepreneur who owned a retail store with up to 11 employees and was active in community Enterprise Zones and Model Cities programs. Devva will be on leave from WID for a year as a Distinguished Mary Switzer Fellow finishing a book on the development of leadership in the US disability rights movement. Janet McGlynn, CCTM directs the National Transit Resource Center at CTAA. Community Transportation Association of America is dedicated to increasing mobility for all Americans. The Resource Center provides information, technical assistance, publications and advice to anyone concerned with community transportation and mobility. Ms. McGlynn's transit experience includes service as Executive Director of two paratransit systems. In these roles she has directed community paratransit, ADA services, nonemergency Medical Assistance transportation and welfare-to-work services. She has experience in marketing and public relations as well as training. Ms. McGlynn has a specialty in finances and funding options for local transit organizations. Her Bachelor's and Master's degrees are both from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Tom Seekins, PhD is Director of the Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation at the University of Montana and Director of Research for the Rural Institute on Disabilities. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas in 1983. He has been involved in disability research and service for over 25 years - emphasizing issues of consumer advocacy, rural health and disability, self-employment, independent living center services, rural transportation and housing, disability among American Indian tribes and reservations, and rural economic and community development. He has published extensively in professional literature, presented reports of his work to numerous national, regional, state, and local organizations, and provided technical assistance to state and local programs. He serves as President of the American Association on Health and Disability and has recently served as President of the National Association of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers. Diana Spas has been the Information Specialist at the Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services, Rural Institute on Disabilities, The University of Montana since 1991. She has a background in technical writing, editing and proofreading for the Montana Legislative Council, as a staff writer for former Governor Ted Schwinden, and as an educational software developer with a private company. She was also a preschool and special education teacher for several years. Diana has an M.S. Ed. from Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL, with a major in Special Education (area of specialization in severe/profound developmental disabilities) and a B.A. in English from Northern Illinois University. LIST OF TRAINERS AND IL NET STAFF TRAINERS____________________________________________________________ Brian Atwell Director LINK, Inc. 2401 East 13th Street Hays, Kansas 67601 785-625-6942 (V/TTY) 785-625-6137 (FAX) batwell@eaglecom.net Linda Gonzales National Coordinator Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living 5903 Powdermill Road Kent, Ohio 44240 330-678-7648 (V) 330-678-7658 (FAX) LGonz21800@aol.com Devva Kasnitz, PhD Research Director World Institute on Disability 510 16th Street, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94612-1500 510-251-4348 (V) 510-208-9493 (TTY) 510-763-4109 (FAX) devva@wid.org Janet McGlynn, CCTM Director National Transit Resource Center 1341 G Street NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 800-527-8279 (toll free V/TTY) 202-661-0213 (direct line) 202-737-9197 (FAX) mcglynn@ctaa.org Tom Seekins, PhD Director Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation, and Director of Research Rural Institute on Disabilities University of Montana 52 Corbin Hall Missoula, Montana 59812-7056 406-243-2654 (V-direct line) 406-243-5467 (V & TTY) 406-243-2349 (FAX) ruraldoc@selway.umt.edu Diana Spas Information Specialist Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation University of Montana 52 Corbin Hall Missoula, Montana 59812-7056 406-243-5760 (V-direct line) 406-243-5467 (V & TTY) 406-243-2349 (FAX) gargoyle@selway.umt.edu IL NET STAFF ILRU Lex Frieden Laurie Gerken Redd Executive Director Administrative Coordinator lfrieden@ilru.org lredd@ilru.org Richard Petty Carri George Program Director Publications Coordinator richard.petty@bcm.tmc.edu cgeorge@ilru.org Laurel Richards Dawn Heinsohn Training Director Materials Production Specialist lrichards@ilru.org heinsohn@ilru.org ILRU Program 2323 S. Shephard Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77019 713-520-0232 (V) 713-520-5136 (TTY) 713-520-5785 (FAX) ilru@ilru.org NCIL Anne-Marie Hughey Darrell Lynn Jones Executive Director Training Specialist hughey@ncil.org darrell@ncil.org NCIL Kristy Langbehn 1916 Wilson Boulevard Project Logistics Coordinator Suite 209 Kristy@ncil.org Arlington, VA 22201 703-525-3406 (V) 703-525-4153 (TTY) 703-525-3409 (FAX) 1-877-525-3400 (V/TTY-toll free) ncil@ncil.org http://www.ncil.org ABOUT ILRU The Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) Program was established in 1977 to serve as a national center for information, training, research, and technical assistance for independent living. In the mid-1980's, it began conducting management training programs for executive directors and middle managers of independent living centers in the U.S. Since 1985, it has operated the ILRU Research and Training Center on Independent Living at TIRR, conducting a comprehensive and coordinated set of research, training, and technical assistance projects focusing on leading issues facing the independent living field. ILRU has developed an extensive set of resource materials on various aspects of independent living, including a comprehensive directory of programs providing independent living services in the U.S. and Canada. ILRU is a program of TIRR, a nationally recognized, free-standing rehabilitation facility for persons with physical disabilities. TIRR is part of TIRR Systems, a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to providing a continuum of services to individuals with disabilities. Since 1959, TIRR has provided patient care, education, and research to promote the integration of people with physical and cognitive disabilities into all aspects of community living. ABOUT NCIL Founded in 1982, the National Council on Independent Living is a membership organization representing independent living centers and individuals with disabilities. NCIL has been instrumental in efforts to standardize requirements for consumer control in management and delivery of services provided through federally-funded independent living centers. Until 1992, NCIL's efforts to foster consumer control and direction in independent living services through changes in federal legislation and regulations were coordinated through an extensive network and involvement of volunteers from independent living centers and other organizations around the country. Since 1992, NCIL has had a national office in Arlington, Virginia, just minutes by subway or car from the major centers of government in Washington, D.C. While NCIL continues to rely on the commitment and dedication of volunteers from around the country, the establishment of a national office with staff and other resources has strengthened its capacity to serve as the voice for independent living in matters of critical importance in eliminating discrimination and unequal treatment based on disability. Today, NCIL is a strong voice for independent living in our nation's capital. With your participation, NCIL can deliver the message of independent living to even more people who are charged with the important responsibility of making laws and creating programs designed to assure equal rights for all. ABOUT THE IL NET This training program is sponsored by the IL NET, a collaborative project of the Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) of Houston and the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL). The IL NET is a national training and technical assistance project working to strengthen the independent living movement by supporting Centers for Independent Living (CILs) and Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs). IL NET activities include workshops, national teleconferences, technical assistance,on-line information, training materials, fact sheets, and other resource materials on operating, managing, and evaluating centers and SILCs. The mission of the IL NET is to assist in building strong and effective CILs and SILCs which are led and staffed by people who practice the independent living philosophy. The IL NET operates with these objectives: Assist CILs and SILCs in managing effective organizations by providing a continuum of information, training, and technical assistance. Assist CILs and SILCs to become strong community advocates/change agents by providing a continuum of information, training, and technical assistance. Assist CILs and SILCs to develop strong, consumer-responsive services by providing a continuum of information, training, and technical assistance. Rural Facts June 1999 Inequities in Rural Transportation The lack of transportation is one of the most frequently cited problems of rural residents. Federal funds to support public transportation have historically been inequitably allocated between urban and rural areas. This inequity has a particularly significant impact on people with disabilities who live in rural areas. While the 1998 authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) increased the total amount of funds for public support of transportation and increased the funds available for rural transportation and transportation for the elderly and individuals with disabilities, the discrepancy between urban and rural transportation allocations remains significant. About 25% of the nation's population lives in rural areas but only about 6% of transportation funds are allocated to rural areas. That leaves 94% of transportation funds going to subsidize transportation for the 75% of the population living in urban areas. The following information outlines the projected allocations of TEA-21 through the beginning of the next century. We estimate that an allocation of an additional $523 million for rural transportation would be required to equalize funding between urban and rural areas on the basis of population alone. The magnitude of this discrepancy suggests one of the reasons transportation has been a consistent problem in rural areas. Projected federal funding for public transportation affecting people with disabilities from 1998 through 2003: The differential effects of the transportation equity act for the 21st century TEA-21 Programs FY '98 Federal Allocations FY '03 Projected Federal Allocation Percent Change From FY '98 to FY '03 Allocation Percent Percent Urban (5307) $2,299,000,000 94.5% $3,596,000,000 93.7% 54% Rural (5311) $134,000,000 5.5% $241,000,000 6.3% 79% Elderly & Individuals with Disabilities (5310) $62,219,389 Data not reported by urban & rural expenditures $90,652,801 Data not available for urban & rural comparison 46% It is important to note that data allowing us to analyze the urban and rural distribution of funds in the program targeting elderly and individuals with disabilities are not reported by Congress or the Department of Transportation. This funding pattern continues the historically inequitable allocation of transportation support to rural areas. This inequity has the following effects: 1. People living in urban areas who do not own a car average about 955 publicly subsidized trips per year, an average of about 80 trips per month or nearly 20 rides for each work week. 2. In contrast, people living in rural areas who don't own a car average only about 38 publicly subsidized rides per year, an average of only about 3 trips per month or fewer than one ride per work week. Obviously, this discrepancy can make getting and keeping employment relatively more difficult in rural areas. 3. About 37 million rural residents - 40% of all rural residents - live in the nation's 1,200 counties that have no public transportation at all. Recommendations First, the Department of Transportation should develop a report (Section 5310) detailing the urban and rural allocation of funds for the elderly and people with disabilities. Second, means and ways for increasing transportation funding for rural residents must be developed and pursued. References Bernier, B., & Seekins, T. (in press). Rural Transportation Voucher Program for People With Disabilities: Three Case Studies. Journal of Transportation and Statistics. Bernier, B., & Seekins, T. (1991). Making transportation work in rural areas. Missoula, MT: Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation, The University of Montana. FTA Fiscal Year Appropriations and Allocations (1996). Federal Register. 61 (195), p. 52499-52538. Gillis, R. (1989). Profitability and mobility in rural America: Successful approaches to tackling rural transportation problems. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Community Transportation Association of America (1995). Atlas of public transportation in rural America. Washington, DC: Community Transportation Association of America. http://www.ctaa.org. For more information, please contact us at: Research & Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services 52 Corbin Hall The University of Montana Missoula, montana 59812 (406) 243-5467 (V/TT) (406) 243-2349 fax=20 (888) 268-2743 toll-free http://ruralinstitute.umt.edu/rtcrural/ This publication is funded by a grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Dept. of Education (H133B70017-01). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not those of the Department of Education. This RTC: Rural Factsheet was prepared by Tom Seekins, Diana Spas, and Maryann Hubbard. Rural Facts Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Project Case managers and agencies who serve people with disabilities want a system that makes individual responsibility for transportation possible. People with disabilities who live independently need better coordination of vital transportation services. Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation (SVRT) Programs offer a straightforward mechanism that uses trip vouchers or reimbursement of volunteers to provide rides. Liability coverage for volunteers can be provided in a variety of ways. Using volunteers reduces administrative and operating costs. Vouchers increase use and coordination of existing transportation providers. Resolving the issue of providing transportation to people with disabilities in rural areas seems complex. Long distances often force people with disabilities to choose between dependence on agencies close to town or on family members and friends. Agencies are limited in the scope and availability of services, case managers that work directly with consumers are prevented by law from providing transportation services. Relying on natural supports is tenuous. Day-to-day schedules are unreliable, parents must work, not everyone has a brother or sister, friends leave, disability may affect more than one family member, parents age. Although per capita ownership of personal vehicles is much higher in rural areas than in urban areas (Kidder, 1989), this is true only for those who can afford it, as 57% of rural poor families do not own a car (Gillis, 1989). The underlying assumption is that people who choose to live in rural areas accept personal responsibility for transportation. In counties where there are transportation services, like fixed route buses and taxis,providers of an SVRT Program distribute vouchers directly to people with disabilities. In counties where no accessible transportation exists, SVRT providers can coordinate liability coverage, recruit, train and reimburse volunteer drivers like friends, neighbors or co-workers who can provide rides. For two years the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RTC: Rural) has drawn on the experiences of national transportation experts, three demonstration sites, and over 25 agencies that use voucher programs. From these they have written a detailed procedure manual and other materials that describe how a local agency (i.e., independent living center, area agency on aging, sheltered workshop) can develop and operate a voucher-driven transportation system. For more information, contact Tom Seekins at RTC: Rural, 52 Corbin Hall, The University of Montana, Missoula MT 59812, (888)268-2743 (toll-free), or send e-mail to ruraldoc@selway.umt.edu . Produced by the Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation with the U.S.Department of Education's National Institute on Rehabilitation Research Grant #H133B20002-94. RURAL FACTS Transportation We all need transportation to work or school, to shop, to visit friends and family, to go to church or keep an appointment whether we live in the city, country or small town. Ideal transportation is reliable, convenient, safe, affordable, and physically-accessible. Rural residents make up 27 % of the U.S. population. However in 1996, only 5.5 % of Federal transportation funds were allocated to serve them (Status Report on Public Transportation in Rural America). Rural sidewalks and streets may not be paved, taxis are rare and expensive, and there are few full-size buses, commuter trains or subways. Where there is public transportation for people with disabilities, it is usually provided by vans (53%) or small buses (21%) that have restricted operating times and destinations. Half of these vehicles are past their life expectancies and 60% aren't wheelchair-accessible. Per capita, rural people own more private vehicles than urban people, but more than half of poor rural families don't own one-one out of thirteen rural households. What is the rural person who doesn't drive or who can't afford a car to do? Rural Public Transportation Who Needs It? Of the 91 million people living in areas eligible for Section 5311 non- urbanized transportation services, more that a third are classified as transportation dependent because they have no personal transportation. Transportation Dependent Rural Americans: 12.4 million rural Americans are poor. 12.1 million are elderly. 11.9 million have disabilities. 3.9 million rural Americans are elderly and have disabilities. 1.1 million rural Americans are elderly and poor. 1 million rural Americans are poor and have disabilities. 0.7 million rural American are poor and elderly and have disabilities. For 41 % of rural residents, there's no public transportation available at all. Another 25 % live in areas where public transportation is extremely inadequate, providing fewer than 25 trips per year for each household without a personal vehicle. Lack of transportation is one of the most frequently cited problems facing people with disabilities living in rural areas. Urban residents make up 73 % of U.S. population. In 1996, however, 94.5 % of Federal transportation funds were allocated to serve them. Daily, even people with disabilities choose from an array of transportation options: walking or wheeling on paved sidewalks, hiring taxis, or using accessible public buses, commuter trains, or subways. One out of six households in large urban areas doesn't own a car, but the availability of public transportation makes a personal vehicle unnecessary. Urban public transportation provides 955 trips annually for each household without a personal vehicle. Rural Public Transportation Who Uses It? Rural residents who do use public transportation have some interesting, but not unexpected characteristics. Characteristic Women Elderly People with Disabilities Percent of Rural Population 51% 18% 13% (U.S. Census) Percent Who Use Public Transportation 62% 36% 24% Rural Public Transportation How Can We Make It Better? Currently, the expenditure of Federal funds between urban and rural areas is inequitable. Resources allocated to rural transportation should be increased to reflect rural needs. This doesn't mean that rural services can or should be identical to those available in urban areas there are creative rural solutions for rural problems. Rather, the policy goal should be to give rural residents with disabilities equal access to opportunities. Changes in 49 U.S.C. 5311 can help accomplish this goal. In addition, since a large portion of rural transportation-dependent people are elderly or have a disability, the rural appropriation under 49 U.S.C. 5310 should be reconfigured. Although funds are allocated according to Census data, allocated funds must be spent equitably so those who need it most will have equal access to transportation. For the two-thirds of rural residents with no or severely inadequate public transportation services, THINGS CAN GET BETTER. It will take money, cooperation, and the kind of inventiveness that has always characterized rural people. Rural Public Transportation Where are They Going? Rural riders use public transportation to accomplish basic daily tasks and to meet basic needs: 20% of rural riders commute to and from jobs or job training. 17% of rural riders travel to human service agencies (half of that number go to sponsored meal programs). 14% of rural riders keep medical appointments. 13% shop 36% do personal/family business, socialize or recreate. Rural Public Transportation Promising Rural Strategies Coordinated Models with Shared Vehicles: Agencies should be encouraged and rewarded for sharing vehicles and coordinating services. In New Mexico, an Independent Living Center and a community church have acquired and shared an accessible van. Areas of Michigan and Tennessee are exploring ways to use school buses as public transportation. LINK, Inc. of Hayes, Kansas, helped create a multi-county project through agency cooperation. Volunteer Systems: Volunteer drivers can be reimbursed for providing transportation to their friends, neighbors and co-workers. The RTC: Rural's Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Voucher Program has been successful with this. The Community Transportation Association of America supports increased use of volunteers in rural transportation. Voucher Systems: Low-income riders can use transportation vouchers to reimburse community and human service agency transportation providers. Our Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Voucher Program is a successful example. Personal/Private Enterprise: Interest-free loan programs that allow carless households to purchase and maintain a vehicle can be established. Tennessee and Georgia are experimenting with this. Tennessee has also explored allowing individuals to pool transportation allotments to lease shared vehicles. Entrepreneurs can be encouraged to start their own transportation-on-demand small businesses. For more information, please contact us at: Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities 52 Corbin Hall The University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 (406) 243-5467 Voice/TT (406) 243-2349 Fax (888) 268-2743 Toll Free http://ruralinstitute.umt.edu References Status report on public transportation in rural America, 1994. (1995). Washington, DC: Community Transportation Association of America. Atlas of public transportation in rural America, 1994. (1995). Washington, DC: Community Transportation Association of America. Bernier, B. & Seekins, T. (1996a). Making Transportation Work: For People with disabilities in rural America. Missoula: The University of Montana, Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities. Bernier, B. & Seekins, T. (1996b). Rural transportation voucher program for people with disabilities: Three case studies. Missoula: The University of Montana, Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities. Resources Tom Seekins, Director Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities 52 Corbin Hall Missoula, MT 59812 (888) 268-2743 ruraldoc@selway.umt.edu Community Transportation Association of America 1341 G Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202)628-1480 (800) 527-8279 fax: (202) 737-9197 http://www.ctaa.org Rural Transit Assistance Program Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590 http://www.fta.dot.gov This publication is funded by a grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education (H133B70017-01). The opinions expressed reflect those of the authors and not those of the Department of Education.This RTC: Rural Factsheet was prepared by Diana Spas and Tom Seekins. RTC: Rural,1998. Rural Facts April 1995 Rural Transportation: Using Vouchers to Improve Access One of the most frequently cited problems of people with disabilities living in rural areas involves transportation. This includes transportation to and from work, in and around small communities to meet personal and social obligations, and from their homes to larger communities where they can receive services. With cutbacks in air, rail and bus services to rural areas, these problems are becoming even more challenging for those with severe disabilities who often have low, fixed incomes. While many larger communities may have one or more agencies that cooperate under various regulations, services are often highly restricted and determined by the agencies' needs. Further, these services are restricted to larger communities that include one or more major social service agencies, such as an aging services program. One alternative that emerged from Ravalli county in Montana has suggested a voucher program for transportation access in rural and remote counties. This model has been further developed through efforts of the Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation at The University of Montana. The success of this model suggests the need for additional Federal policy to provide an option to rural counties for transportation. The following is proposed language that could provide a rural transportation option as part of the Section 19 and or 16B2 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act. This language focuses on including application of Section 18 programs to people with disabilities living in rural areas or expanding Section 16B2 to permit voucher systems. Voucher program option for people with disabilities living in rural areas. 1. The agency may also set aside a portion of these funds for voucher transportation programs to serve people with disabilities living in rural counties. 2. Purpose a. Transportation is one of the most frequently cited problems faced by people with disabilities living in rural areas, including: i. to and from work,ii in and around rural communities to meet personal and social responsibilities, and iii. from their home to larger communities for medical and social services. b. Many rural areas lack access to accessible public transportation, even those provided by service agencies. c. The majority of people with severe disabilities are unemployed and live on very low and fixed incomes. d. A voucher program provides financial assistance directly to individuals with disabilities living in rural areas to help them arrange, secure, and reimburse those who can provide public transportation. i. Emphasizes personal responsibility. ii. Emphasizes existing community resources. iii. Emphasizes volunteerism. iv. Emphasizes consumer choice and control. v. Emphasizes market forces. vi. Emphasizes private sector involvement in serving people with disabilities, elderly, and other transportation disadvantaged groups. e. Decrease government capital expenditures, and administrative overhead, equipment maintenance, etc. 3. A voucher program must be coordinated by an agency or governmental entity that can show it meets existing state requirements, including: a. Approval from state agency regulating transportation services; i.e., public services commission, state transit authority, or area transportation authority. b. Insurance, consistent with state requirements, to cover liability of agency and volunteer providers. c. Identify individuals with disability in need of assistance in securing transportation. d. Manage funds by distributing vouchers and reclaiming them from those who provide transportation. e. Manage volunteer and paid drivers, including , where appropriate: i. Driver recruitment A. to insure licensees ii. Driver training, where appropriate 4. Alternatives a. The operators or applicants may require a match of other federal, state, or local funds for such a voucher program. b. The applicants must represent a consortium of local service providers and show that the voucher program. c. The applicants must represent a consortium of local service providers and show that the voucher program will serve people with any type of disability and not be restricted to any particular impairment group. d. Must show support by a county government. Rural Labor Market Areas "...Labor Market Areas (LMAs), include both the residence and work destinations of local people. These are multi-county regions that encompass those places where relatively large numbers of people routinely move back and forth from home to work. Approximately half the nation's LMAs are rural. Most are quite large, particularly those in the West. Rural people are sometime quite mobile in their pursuit of work." Flora, Cornelia, Flora, Jan, Spears, J., and Swanson, L.E. (1992) Rural Communities: Legacy and Change. Boulder, CO (Westview Press). Pp.42. Produced by the Research and Training Center of Rural Rehabilitation with U.S. Department of Education's National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research Grant # H133B20002-94. Opinions are those of the author and not those of the funding agency. For more information, contact: Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services 52 Corbin Hall, the University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 (406) 243-5467 (V/TT) (406) 243-2349 (fax) (888) 268-2743 Common Threads Newsletter RTC: Rural Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities The University of Montana Fall/Winter, 1999/2000 Rural Transportation & Disability Part One of a Two-Part Series This is the first of two Common Threads editions which will focus on rural transportation issues. Each will describe models which have promise for addressing the needs of people with disabilities. Our lead story describes a coordinated system of transportation developed by LINK, Inc. of Hays, Kansas. This issue also highlights Sections 5310 and 5311 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), two federal programs that affect rural transportation for people with disabilities. Diana Spas describes what they do and how each relates to the other. Particularly important are the federal requirements stating that local agencies cannot dedicate a vehicle purchased with 5310 funds solely for their own clients' use - unless they can show that cooperation with others is not feasible. These are the same regulations that also permit the use of 5310 and 5311 funds for "voucher" programs. As you'll see in the lead story, the Kansas Department of Transportation has strong expectations for cooperation among agencies. Finally, the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL), the World Institute on Disability (WID), and the RTC: Rural have begun seriously addressing the policy barriers to rural transportation for people with disabilities. APRIL's stated goal is equalized urban and rural per capita allocations for rural transportation funding. APRIL is targeting the re-authorization of TEA-21 in 2003 for improving conditions. A fact sheet, "Inequities in Rural Transportation", presents information important to that effort. ...Tom Seekins, Director of RTC: Rural Going My OUR Way? This Kansas Transportation Program Brings Agencies, Resources and People Together! By Brian Atwell, Tom Robinson & Diana Spas Brian Atwell and Tom Robinson of Living Independently in Northwest Kansas (LINK, Inc., a rural center for independent living), are part of the long history of the Northwest Kansas Transit Program. Back in 1978, an advocacy group, the Western Kansas Association on Concerns of the Disabled (WKACD), recognized that transportation was a struggle for Kansans with disabilities and started its own shoestring transportation service with an Easter Seal Society van, a volunteer dispatcher working from his own home, and local college work-study students recruited as drivers. This was long before passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and, although several other agencies also provided transportation, they didn't coordinate or share their limited resources. A private taxi service carried riders to and from the restaurants, the bars and the airport in Hays (a regional hub of 17,000 people), but eventually that business closed. Agencies frequently were territorial, protective of their vehicles and their hours of service, and unwilling to share their resources with people with disabilities or with the general public. The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) provided senior and disability services programs with Section 5310 federally-funded vehicles which could transport only the category of people served by that particular agency. Section 5310 money is exclusive to senior and disability services programs, with no obligation to serve the general public. A local senior citizens center might park its van most of the time and only use it to take members to state legislative sessions. If a senior citizen had a disability, the senior program was theoretically responsible for his or her transportation, but frequently program vans weren't lift-equipped and hours of operation were restricted. This had been a problem in Hays - the senior citizens van only transported seniors who were able to climb on and off the van by themselves. Meanwhile, the Access Van picked up the slack by serving everybody - elderly people, people with disabilities, and the general public. The city of Hays began encouraging people with disabilities to attend city meetings regularly, so in 1987 WKACD acquired a Section 5311-funded van from KDOT. Section 5311 transportation serves the rural general public, so the van's ridership grew and diversified. By 1988, WKACD's old van was decrepit and unable to keep up with the demand it was time to move up to a paratransit van. With the help of Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas, Inc. (DSWK), a non-profit agency serving more than 300 adults in Northwest Kansas, WKACD approached the Kansas Department of Transportation to get funding for its first paratransit van. The state provided 80 percent -- WKACD matched it with 20 percent and contracted with Developmental Services to provide and pay the drivers, while WKACD would take responsibility for securing funding. Next, Developmental Services successfully approached the city of Hays to replace its old, high-mileage van with a Department of Transportation 5310-designated van that would have extended hours of operation. In the wake of this success, Developmental Services and WKACD moved on to tackle Ellis County's transportation needs. With passage of ADA, the Kansas Department of Transportation required all agencies in the state receiving some federal funding to coordinate their transportation resources through area Coordinated Transit Districts (CTDs). Coordination allowed the eighteen District 8 counties of northwest Kansas to increase the availability, efficiency and affordability of their transportation services for everyone, including the general public, elderly residents and people with disabilities. These eighteen counties have a total population of 104,404 (1995 CD-ROM Statistics for Kansas, Institute for Public Policy and Business Research, Vol. 12, June, 1996), ranging from Wallace County's 1,800 residents to Ellis County's 26,000. The US Department of Agriculture rates counties on a continuum from 0 (most-metropolitan) to 9 (completely rural). Twelve of the eighteen counties in District 8 are rated at 9; the remaining six are rated at 7 (urban population of 2,500 to 19,999 not adjacent to a metropolitan area). This district is predominantly and profoundly rural. Each of the 18 counties in Coordinated Transit District 8 now has some county transportation, although it may only consist of a Section 5310 senior citizens van and a few Section 5311 vans available to others. Some of the senior citizens agencies which have shied away from all the paperwork and record-keeping that KDOT requires to convert 5310 vans to 5311, are slowly being persuaded to switch and serve the general public, elderly people, AND people with disabilities. Although some senior centers still tend to feel possessive and exclusive about their vans, Atwell and Robinson feel that Hays has been really fortunate. In other counties, some senior centers are reluctant to participate each day at 3 p.m. a vehicle might be parked at the congregate meal site, unavailable to anyone else for any other purpose. The Hays Senior Citizens Center van is part of the Coordinated District and the center has gotten state money to buy a larger van. Although the senior van's first priority is picking up and returning senior citizens attending meal sites and other activities, it's a Section 5311 vehicle and is also available to serve anyone inside the city limits of Hays. Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas, in addition to KDOT-funded vehicles, retains some 5310 vans for its own use in shuttling consumers among job sites, programs and housing. WKACD sponsors a Section 5311 van. Ellis County sets the standard for the other seventeen counties in the CTD. The goal is to foster more individual involvement so those counties can build similar systems. "Coordinating vehicles is a two way street. It makes sense to coordinate your vehicles, because a big lift-equipped vehicle that can carry three or four wheelchairs and nine passengers is expensive. If it's not going to be used, it's a waste." --- Brian Atwell Funding Four entities cooperate to fund vehicles and provide transportation: the City of Hays, Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas, Ellis County, and the Western Kansas Association on Concerns of the Disabled. Nine Section 5311 lift-equipped vehicles operate within this system and provided 39,350 one-way rides in 1998 (209,000 total miles). Various sources provide funding: United Way, Hays city government, donations and fares, and the Kansas Department of Transportation. Ellis County commissioners designate money for the county 5311 van, which is supplemented by KDOT funds. Federal operating funding for 1998 totaled $78,750 and state operating funding was $31,500. Local money also figures in the formula and a local match is required for the purchase of vehicles (typically, 80% federal funds and 20% local). The Nuts and Bolts of Operation Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas coordinates local transportation and pays a transportation manager to submit the program's grant applications. Fares are kept low to be affordable to riders and to maximize the amount of KDOT funding the district receives. Fares vary from 75 cents for a one-way ride in the city of Hays to $1.25 per ride outside city limits. A demand-response system accommodates riders' schedules. The general public is integrated, and it doesn't matter on which vehicle a rider is scheduled all are accessible. The main strength of the system is that there's no distinction between a rider with a disability and the general public. Most rides occur within Hays, where the demand-response system operates on a first-come, first-served basis much like a taxi service. Dialysis patients are the only real priority, with treatments usually predictably scheduled in the early mornings. There isn't any required time frame in which a customer must call ahead, but if he or she waits until the last minute to schedule a ride, it's likely that somebody else will already have taken that slot. Three demand-response vehicles are available in Hays at all times, which usually provides adequate back-up. Depending on which vehicle is in operation, demand-response service is available from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. each day. A dispatch system coordinates all vehicles to make pick-up of the riders as efficient as possible and it recently added dispatch software in which all rides are entered into a computer and tracked on a spreadsheet. Drivers also track elderly and disabled riders on a check-off form. The Community Access Rural Express (the "CARE Van") is a regional fixed-route vehicle operating in coordination with the more-flexible demand-response system. The CARE Van covers three alternating routes per week one route on Monday and Thursday, another on Wednesday, and the third on Tuesday and Friday. The van covers a lot of territory it's almost a 400-mile round trip between Hays in Ellis County and St. Francis, a small town in Cheyenne County. Hays is the most-popular destination, with regional residents traveling there for medical appointments and other necessary goods and services. Atwell and Robinson admit that there's still room for improvement --- local service could be more prompt and there are some heavy-demand times when it isn't possible to serve everybody. The last van run is at 9:30 at night. Service hours don't correspond to the local regional airline's schedule, so if somebody arrives on a late-night flight, the vans probably aren't available. When a vehicle reaches 100,000 miles or five years of age, there is a process for determining if it needs to be replaced. If replacement is necessary, KDOT releases the vehicle back to its sponsoring organization to keep or dispose of as the organization wishes. When it got too decrepit for trips or out-of-town advocacy activities, WKACD's first vehicle was sold and the organization got to keep the money. Now WKACD has two Ford vans a 1992 with 145,000 miles on it and a 1997. The '92 is still KDOT-funded and is used on days when the '97 is being serviced. Signs of Success Agency Approximate Percentage of 1998 Ridership Number of One-Way Rides in 1998 City of Hays 12.9 7,270 (Section 5311 funding) Ellis County 13.9 3,525 (County/Section 5311 funding) WKACD 18.5 8,582 Developmental Services Corp. 50 19,952 (Section 5310 funding) People with disabilities constituted about 35 percent of 1998 ridership. The Northwest Kansas Coordinated Transit District board elects officers and meets bimonthly. Members have gotten to know each other and their emerging acquaintanceships and friendships are helping to eliminate the turf battles right up front. The board has some leverage and can say to individuals and agencies in the 18 counties, "If you want our help, if you want to get a van in your area, you're going to have join the Coordinated Transit District." Individuals and agencies wanting to get a vehicle or start a new service have to join the district and provide facts and figures on how they plan to use a vehicle and how many people they plan to serve. If the Coordinated Transit District approves the service, it makes a referral to KDOT, which relies on the district's recommendation. Two years ago someone wanted to start a transportation service in Rooks County, just north of Ellis County. Meanwhile, an existing provider's five-year-old van needed replacing. Should the existing service get the vehicle or the new service? At the time there were no hard and fast rules on how vehicles would be replaced or who should get a new vehicle, so the District had to devise a formula for prioritizing allocation of vehicles. A simple rating system looks at how many people are being served by an existing provider and how many the new service anticipates serving. Since this particular new service didn't really have a track record yet, the existing provider got the first van. Later that fall, the state reconsidered the prospective owner of the new service had gathered her necessary 20 percent matching money, she'd gotten other agencies and individuals involved, and she'd collected statistics on who would use her service -- the next available van became hers. "You have to win everybody over and show them that they'll benefit from this. It's like making friends." - Tom Robinson Atwell and Robinson can attest that it's taken a combination of ingredients to make this system work community service providers willing to forego a bit of their autonomy for the greater good, a state agency willing to take a creative approach to rural transportation, and local governments willing to make the welfare of individual citizens their first priority. This system has been developing since 1988 it's an eleven year process, not an overnight success. -Tom Robinson For more information, contact: Brian Atwell, LINK, Inc. 2401 E. 13th Hays, KS 67601 (785) 625-6942 batwell@eaglecom.net Developmental Services of Northwest Kansas, Inc., c/o Ron Straight, CCTM 2703 Hall, Ste. 10, P.O. Box 1016 Hays, KS 67601 (785) 625-2018 ron_straight@notes1.dsnwk.org Kansas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Planning Thacher Bldg., 217 SE Fourth St. Topeka, KS 66603-3504 (785) 296-5194 Section 5310? Section 5311? What Does It All Mean? Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), "USC 49, Section 5310" funding refers to Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities. This program provides capital assistance, through the states, to organizations providing specialized transportation services for elderly people and to persons with disabilities. "Capital" projects now also include preventive maintenance, contracting for services, providing a fixed-route paratransit service, leasing equipment or facilities, safety equipment and facilities, facilities that incorporate community services (such as day care or health care), and transit enhancements. Eligible organizations include private non-profits, public bodies that coordinate services for elders and persons with disabilities, or any public body that can certify that there are no non-profit organizations in the area to readily provide such services. Funds are allocated based on each state's 1990 Census population of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities. The Federal government covers 90 percent of incremental costs of vehicle-related equipment needed for compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal funding covers 80 percent of all other eligible costs. In the last 90 days of the fiscal year, the governor of a state may transfer 5310 funds to supplement Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula capital funds. The "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments", 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 18, shift the emphasis from national uniformity to uniformity of procedures and requirements within a state. The intent is to allow states greater flexibility in standardizing the management of related state and federal programs. "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-Profit Organizations", 49 C.F.R., Part 19, establishes nationally uniform procedures and requirements for all private nonprofit organizations. The Federal Transit Administration encourages maximum use of Section 5310 vehicles. The first priority of a Section 5310 vehicle is to meet the program needs of elderly persons and people with disabilities. Its next priority is to meet the transportation needs of other federal programs or projects. After these priorities are satisfied, a vehicle may be used to meet other local transportation needs. States are advised to select those transportation providers which best meet the needs of a particular community's elderly citizens and people with disabilities.. Providers must "provide for maximum feasible coordination with transportation services" funded by other federal sources. To the extent feasible, subrecipients should be encouraged to serve elderly people and people with disabilities NOT affiliated with their agencies AND provide incidental service to the general public as long as this service doesn't interfere with serving elderly people and those with disabilities. When it's not using its vehicle for grant-related purposes, even an agency that is allowed to provide transportation exclusively to its own clients MUST, when practicable, make its vehicle available to other people who are elderly and/or who have disabilities. Similar requirements apply to federal programs and projects. If a vehicle is not in use for its intended constituency, other Federal Transit Administration projects or programs get first priority for its use. If FTA projects don't need it, projects or programs of other federally-sponsored agencies get second priority to use the vehicle. Third priority goes to non-federally funded providers to meet the needs of elderly people and people with disabilities. If the vehicle is still available, it may meet the needs of the general public on an incidental basis. Authorized funding levels: Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (2.4% of available formula grant funding) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 $67.0 M $72.9 M $78.9 M $84.7 M $90.7 M (Source: Dept. of Transportation web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/elderfg.htm, posted September 14, 1998) According to the Department of Transportation's Improving Transportation for a Maturing Society, in January, 1997, there were 3,700 Section 5310 transportation providers. Under TEA-21, "49 USC, Section 5311" refers to Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas. These provide capital, operating, state administration, and project administration assistance, through the states, to areas with populations of fewer than 50,000. It also funds the Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP), which conducts research; provides training, technical assistance and support services to nonurbanized transit providers; and maintains the Transit Resource Center as part of the Transit Planning and Research Program. Funds are allocated based on each state's 1990 Census statistics of non-urbanized population. The Federal government covers 90 percent of incremental costs of vehicle-related equipment needed for compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal funding covers 80 percent of all other eligible costs. Before any funds are made available to eligible recipients, 15 percent of each state's apportionment is available as grants for the incremental cost of meeting accessibility requirements of that state's over-the-road intercity buses. According to a study conducted by the Institute for Economic and Social Measurement for the Federal Transit Administration 's Rural Transit Assistance Program, there were 1,260 Section 5311 transportation providers in 1998. Funding levels: Formula Grants for Other than Urbanized Areas (6.37% of formula funding) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 $177.9 M $193.6 M $209.3 M $224.9 M $240.6 M (Source: Dept. of Transportation web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/nonurbfg.htm, posted September 14, 1998) Section 5310 and Section 5311 What's Their Relationship? According to Federal Transit Association (FTA) Circular 9070.1E: The Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Guidance and Application Instructions, although Sections 5310 and 5311 have different overall objectives, "there are parallels which make it desirable for states to consider both resources and plan for their use in a complementary way": In most cases, a single state agency administers both programs. Many Section 5311 subrecipients are also non-profit organizations. Occasionally an agency receives both 5310 and 5311 funding. Agencies funded under each section often want to coordinate service arrangements. The FTA "encourages participation in such coordinated efforts as long as the coordinated services continue to meet the purposes of both programs." In order to encourage coordination and simplify program administration, FTA guidelines for each program are as consistent as possible. States may also allow Section 5310 providers to participate in Section 5311 technical assistance, training and related support services, as long as those services continue to meet the needs of the nonurbanized transit providers for whom they're intended. Other Related Programs: The same requirements for receiving Section 5311's over-the-road intercity bus accessibility funding apply to recipients of funding from the new Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program. To comply with the ADA, this program helps finance incremental capital and training costs associated with implementing the Department of Transportation's Final Rule on accessibility requirements for over-the-road buses ("OTRB"s -- as defined by the ADA). Federal funding covers 50 percent of the costs of meeting ADA OTRB requirements. Grantees competing for selection must identify the need for their service, must propose innovative strategies, must acquire equipment ahead of required deadlines, must demonstrate that ADA compliance would create financial hardship, and that the service impacts rural and low-income individuals. Separate programs and funding exist for intercity, fixed-route OTRB service and for "other" OTRB service (such as charter and tour buses). Intercity, fixed-route OTRB service is defined as "regularly scheduled bus service for the general public...that operates with limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity; (that) has the capacity to transport passengers' baggage; (and that) makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points." In addition to charter and tour buses, "other" OTRB service includes local fixed-route services and commuter services. Funding levels: Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 $2 M $3.7 M $4.7 M $6.95 M $6.95 M (Department of Transportation web site at http://fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/rtaccess.htm, posted 9/14/98) Also applicable to the Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program is the Americans with Disabilities Act -- Paratransit Services program, which expands capital assistance to include some operating costs associated with providing ADA paratransit service. Transit systems may use up to 10 percent of their annual apportioned formula funds (the 80 percent federal -20 percent local matching funds ratio) to pay for some of their ADA paratransit operating costs. (Source: Department of Transportation web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/ada.htm, posted 9/14/98) Although older adults are about 18 percent of the rural population, they constitute about 36 percent of rural public transportation ridership. Title III (State and Community Programs on Aging) of the Older Americans Act established the Department of Health and Human Service's Administration on Aging (AoA). It also authorizes funding for transportation services for persons aged 60 and older. The AoA distributes Title III funds to state units on aging, which pass them along to the Area Agencies on Aging and Title VI organizations. The Area Agencies award grants or contracts to local transportation service providers that cover their capital costs and about 20 percent of operational costs. Source: Improving Transportation for a Maturing Society, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Jan. 1997). An interesting Note IF You're in the Market for a Bus : The government allows states to conduct Consolidated Procurements, in which various government agencies may facilitate the award of multiple contracts an approach that works particularly well with a large number of grantees. In New York State, for example, the Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for many years has used its Office of General Services (OGS) to purchase Section 5310 vehicles. The OGS yearly bid process is for six different types of light duty buses and is based upon specifications developed, in part, by the Section 5310 grantees who will receive the vehicles. During the OGS bid process, NYSDOT also estimates the number of vehicles that will be purchased not only for the 5310 grantees, but also for other New York State public transportation providers. NYSDOT contracts directly with the successful manufacturer for the 5310 Program vehicles, which are built and delivered directly (with titles) to the 5310 grantees. Section 5311 and other state public transportation systems may access these same contracts, contracting directly with the successful manufacturer for maximum savings in time and money. Check out these resources for a treasure trove of transportation info: National Transit Resource Center, http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/ Federal Transit Administration, http://www.fta.gov The Community Transportation Association of America's Community Transportation, Volume 17, No. 8, Nov/Dec '99, pages 15-18 has more info on the state of Kansas and its transportation successes AND provides a list of State Funding Profiles on pages 29-38. Taking on Rural Transportation Excerpted with permission from Issue Brief in Independent Living and Disability Policy, World Institute on Disability, Volume I, Issue 4, September 1999 Linda Gonzales, National Coordinator, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL)Tom Seekins, Director, Research & Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services at The University of Montana Devva Kasnitz, Research Director, Research & Training Center on Independent Living & Disability Policy at the World Institute on Disability Achieving Universal Access to Accessible Transportation Decades after the advent of the independent living and disability rights movements, transportation remains the number one issue for people with disabilities living in rural areas. Society is trying to open all doors to people with impairment or limitation, yet mostpeople with disabilities who live in Rural America continue to be isolated, frustrated, and cut off from going to work or school, visiting family or friends, participating in community life, or tending to health needs because of the lack of adequate transportation. Rural America its rugged mountains, vast deserts, jagged coast lines, endless roads through the heartland, have made transportation nearly impossible. Small town USA usually lacks curb cuts and sidewalks. Roads remain unpaved and public transportation minimal, if any. Astronauts ride to the moon, but a woman in New Mexico can't get to town ten miles away because she lives "too close" to use a wide area van service. For residents with disabilities in Cape County, Missouri, weekend life outside home is non-existent. Van service does not operate on weekends. Small town people with disabilities receive a few precious "coupons" for rides from various programs. Rides must usually be arranged 24 hours in advance. In most cases,transportation is limited to certain trips, usually to work or a medical appointment. Cabs and vans don't cross territorial lines. Drivers often don't assist passengers with disabilities getting in or out of the vehicle, and often have limited knowledge about tie downs and other safety devices. People with disabilities, especially developmental disabilities, are often treated rudely by drivers and dispatchers. Response time is slow, and sometimes people are never picked up. In many cases transportation service hours are limited, as is the extent of travel within a certain area. A woman in New Mexico reported problems when Medicaid Managed Care opened in her area. The local pharmacist quit filling her prescription; it was too costly to set up an account with the Medicaid program. She would have to go to El Paso, Texas, to get her medicine; however the van service -- a Medicaid provider -- could not take her out of state. Laws Address the Issues The Transportation Act recognizes both rural transportation problems and the problems faced by people with disabilities. Section 5310 provides funding to assist people with disabilities, and Section 5311 funds transportation in rural areas. However, these provisions are not well connected. Only 5% of transportation dollars are allocated to serve the 27% of the population that lives in Rural America, a disproportionate number of which are disabled. The Americans With Disabilities Act, Workforce Development Act, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and Older Americans Act call for accommodations at the workplace and access to public services and facilities. There is the presumption that people with disabilities, particularly in rural areas, can get to these locations in the first place. There seems to be little connection between Section 5310 and these other laws. Each state plans to use federal dollars with minimal federal guidelines. Unless advocates are numerous, energetic, aware, and well informed on program policy and funding, current problems will persist. Communities Address the Issues In Rural America, small groups, ad hoc committees, and transportation coalitions are meeting to address transportation issues. Advocates with and without disabilities join forces to find solutions and resources that provide more and better transportation across America to every individual. It is time that community advocates, transportation providers,county planners, people with disabilities, the aging community, welfare mothers, etc., join to address rural transportation issues. The Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL), the World Institute on Disability's Research and Training Center on Independent Living and Disability Policy, along with the University of Montana's Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation (RTC: Rural) are joining to educate community leaders, legislators, and government officials about these issues. Participants in APRIL's annual meetings discussed the research, community and technical developments necessary to achieve transportation goals. Long term solutions must involve creativity and flexibility, in addition to equity between urban and rural areas. Policy makers and researchers must develop methods and measures for evaluating and monitoring the allocation of 5310 funds. During APRIL's discussions, some suggested that coordination of services is as important as subsidies the assumption that transportation for disabled people must be subsidized may be misguided. Many disabled people may be able or willing to pay more for optimum accessible transportation. Subsidies usually come with the necessity of accepting less than optimal solutions. These insights merit inquiry. Needs assessment and evaluative constituent-driven research can examine the effects of rate charges on transportation for people with disabilities, and can identify and disseminate innovative models of rural service provision that work well and can be replicated. (i.e. coordinated models with shared vehicles, volunteer systems, voucher models, etc.). APRIL's Transportation Task Force At the 1997 APRIL annual meeting, the Transportation Task Force was formed with Brian Atwood (Kansas) and Mary Ann Gudermuth (Missouri) as co-chairs. The Task Force identified needs for policy development based on the following goals: work with Congress and the Department of Transportation to equalize funds allocated between urban and rural areas through increasing the overall allocation, ensure that disability and transportation legislation, regulations, and implementation are consistent, coordinated, and consider issues of accessible rural transportation, and promote intergovernmental cooperation, identify opportunities, expand resources, and reduce conflict. APRIL 1998 Survey Results At the 1998 APRIL annual meeting, the Task Force surveyed members about transportation. Of 84 responses, 45% have NO public transportation. We asked the 50% who have a fixed route system to rate key features. Availability and service area are most problematic. Dependability and driver attitude toward/knowledge of disability got higher scores. Understanding and implementation problems pale against simple adequacy of coverage. Satisfaction with Features of Fixed Route Systems Rating Availability Dependability Service Area Driver Knowledge Excellent 3% 3% 3% 9% Good 13% 30% 11% 34% Fair 24% 32% 24% 31% Poor 61% 35% 62% 24% Of all respondents, 40% say their community has some kind of "model" system only two rate the model system as working "very well." Respondents felt that their knowledge of transportation problems was generally good: 23%, excellent; 69%, good; 9%, poor staff training is still needed. Of 84 respondents, 45% come from Centers for Independent Living (CILs) that offer transportation service: 48% for CIL activities; eight for medical or other purposes (or have taxi script/vouchers); six report that staff assist consumers with rides; three report "full" services. 89% of respondents feel that transportation is a serious problem. Transportation Policy Destinations Through its survey, consultation with consumer organizations, conference participation, and teleconferences, APRIL has begun an advocacy campaign that will work with other rural transportation constituencies to develop policies to promote universally accessible rural transportation. Task Force members look forward to influencing the 2003 reauthorization of the Transportation Act as an interim step. We invite you to join in this process. Resources: Linda Gonzales, APRIL Executive Director 5903 Powdermill Rd. Kent, OH 44240 330-678-7648 (V) Fax: 330-678-7658 LGonz21800@aol.com Tom Seekins, Director RTC: Rural, Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities The University of Montana, 52 Corbin Hall Missoula, MT 59812-7056 888-268-2743 (V) ruraldoc@selway.umt.edu The APRIL Task Force on Transportation played a significant role in the development of this Issue Brief. Members: Linda Gonzales, Lynne Johnson, Miki Gudermuth, Devva Kasnitz, Mike Schafer, Troy Cole, Mike Mayer, Tom Seekins, Brian Atwell ACCESSIBLE RURAL TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE Plan of Action Collaborating Partners: The Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living The RTC:Rural at the University of Montana The World Institute on Disability INTRODUCTION The lack of accessible transportation remains the number one obstacle that people with disabilities face in rural America. The transportation issue influences every area of a persons life: his/her ability to get and hold down a job, obtain medical care, participate in community activities and maintain an active social and recreational life. Despite the passage of legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Workforce Development Act or the Social Security Ticket to Work program, people with disabilities cannot benefit if they have no transportation to participate. With the re-authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) less than three years away, it is time be proactive in pursuing activities that will address this longstanding barrier of transportation inequities for our rural constituents. At the urging of it's membership, the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) has committed itself to making accessible rural transportation it's first policy priority. Our colleagues at the RTC:Rural and the World Institute on Disabilities have joined with us to support our efforts to increase rural transportation options for people with disabilities. In 1998, led by the Transportation Task Force, APRIL members further refined an internal and outreach action agenda for national, state, and local activities as outlined below. APRIL's Internal Education & Policy Development: APRIL will ensure that its Transportation Task Force composition reflects APRIL's diversity and the diversity of Rural America. APRIL's Task Force will lead the organization to develop programs to educate its members about the structure and function of major transportation programs, including disseminating information on innovative approaches to transportation (i.e. voucher programs, vehicle ownership programs, RTC). APRIL will develop general talking points that reflect its national position on rural transportation and distribute them to all its members for their use. APRIL will assist members state by state to develop "state talking points" that parallel the national talking points and to develop a coordinated state plan for improving transportation supports for people with disabilities. This will assist APRIL members to participate in state transportation associations, advisory panels, and planning groups to advocate for issues of importance to people with disabilities and to demonstrate to planners and policymakers how improvements in the general transportation program that benefit people with disabilities. In particular, APRIL members will participate in developing and reviewing their state's transportation plan. APRIL will assist individual CIL members to develop local strategies that parallel those developed for national and state implementation. At the local level, APRIL members will look for ways of integrating people with disabilities into existing transportation programs or, when necessary, develop needed programs and services. APRIL Outreach: APRIL will develop and implement a plan for approaching and coordinating with transportation providers' organizations and with other rural transportation user groups (e.g., people with low incomes, elderly groups, and children's groups). APRIL will consider joining the Community Transportation Association of America, Project Action, and other relevant national transportation advocacy groups. This includes identifying the policy goals of these organizations, providing support to those who's goals are consistent with APRIL's, and offering disability issues education to the others. Nationally: APRIL will develop a clear policy position and approach other national disability organizations (e.g., the National Council for Independent Living, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the Society for Disability Studies, the National Council on Disability, etc.) to solicit their support in pursuing APRIL's position. APRIL will advocate for the development and implementation of methods for tracking the allocation of Section 5310 funds between urban, rural, and suburban areas. APRIL will use all this data and experience to achieve its primary goal to successfully advocate for increases in rural transportation funding to equalize urban and rural per capita allocations in the upcoming 2003 re-authorization of the Transportation Act. APRIL's TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE SURVEY Are you currently a Transportation Task Force Member? ____ yes ____ no ____ sign me up Name __________________________________________________ Name of Organization _____________________________________ Address_________________________________________________ City/State/ZIP ___________________________________________ Phone/FAX ______________________________________________ E-mail (for list serve) _____________________________________ What subcommittee (s) are you willing to serve on? ____ Model Transportation Programs/Projects _____ check here if you have (know of) a model program ____ Local Community Transportation Advocacy ____ State-level Transportation Advocacy ____ Collaborations/Coalition Building ____ National Advocacy Activities Other ways to Help: ___ Volunteer Copying/Mail-out ___ State or Regional Coordinator ___ Financial Contribution ___ Other _______________________ Please return this survey to: Linda Gonzales 5903 Powdermill Rd. Kent, Ohio 44240 IT'S TIME TO GET INVOLVED! The Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Voucher Program Sponsored by: The Research and Training Center on Rural Rehabilitation Rural Institute on Disabilities 52 Corbin Hall University of Montana Missoula, Montana 59812 1-888-268-2743 June 1996 The SVRT program advisors would like to thank the following agencies for their support and contributions: Summit Independent Living Center, Inc., Missoula, MT; Peter Shauer Associates, Booneville, MO; Brenda Farnham and Denise Jones of Prairie Freedom Center, Yankton, SD; James Walker and Mike Chaffin of Ravalli Services Corporation, Hamilton, MT; Larry Noonan and Cindy Eleson of Aware Inc.,Anaconda, MT; and Greg Olsen, Developmental Disabilities Planning and Advisory Council, Helena, MT. This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR; #H133B20002). This study is part of a larger effort supported by NIDRR to develop effective strategies for providing rehabilitation services in rural areas. Additional support was provided by the Montana Developmental Disabilities Planning and Advisory Council. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the agencies. Section 1 WHAT IS THE SUPPORTED VOLUNTEER RURAL TRANSPORTATION VOUCHER PROGRAM? Where did it begin? For many years transportation has been recognized as a need for people with disabilities. Unfortunately, unlike their urban neighbors, rural residents have even less access to transportation, which in turn further limits their lives. The Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Program (SVRT) is a means of providing rides to people with disabilities who cannot drive and who live in communities with limited public transportation. The SVRT program is similar to self-directed personal assistance service models (PAS) in that consumers control who their ride providers are, when they can get rides, and where they can go. Transportation programs similar to SVRT have been operating off and on since the late 1970s, but were discontinued in many cases because of liability issues and the lack of public transit services in rural areas. In other words, consumers couldn't use their transportation vouchers. However, liability issues can be resolved, and coordinating a system of volunteer drivers in rural areas is feasible. This handbook will show you how to set up a transportation program in your community, how to handle liability issues, where to look for financial assistance, and what to expect from the program. It also provides guidelines for recruiting and training volunteer drivers. How does the SVRT Program work? In general the program advocates one of two methods for providing rides. One method is to distribute vouchers to consumers in areas where public transportation or private specialized transportation services are available. Consumers pay for rides with vouchers. The other method is to recruit, train, coordinate, and reimburse volunteer drivers where no or limited transit services are available. Vouchers are given to consumers who then give them to ride providers, volunteers, and public or private transit drivers. The SVRT program reimburses drivers for each voucher. When using licensed public or private transit services, you can be assured that they have liability coverage and the proper driver training certifications. When using volunteers, you will need to clarify what their responsibilities are and what kind of training they will need to be safe, responsible drivers. Why is the service important and who is eligible? Because regular or reliable transportation is often unavailable in rural areas, people with disabilities have additional limits to work opportunities, advanced education or vocational training, proper health care, or recreation. In short, they aren't able to participate in their communities if they can't get to where they need to be. Service agencies in every state know that transportation is a problem for people with disabilities, yet planning for those needs is difficult. In addition, many states have wonderful services, but what use are they if the people they serve can't access them? Who is eligible to receive rides may depend on your community's needs, participating agencies' goals, and how you want to administer the program. In general, you will want to target those with the greatest need for transportation. This includes, but is not limited to, people whose disabilities prevent them from getting where they need to go, those who don't have access to a taxi service or who live outside bus routes, or those who have no reliable transportation. The Independent Living Philosophy Some advantages of a voucher system are: Allows consumers more choices in where they work and live. Puts resources in the hands of consumers rather than agencies. Places emphasis on consumer needs rather than agency considerations. Promotes rural tradition of volunteerism. Promotes cost-sharing among service agencies, consumers, and transit providers. Section 2 WHERE DOES THE FUNDING COME FROM? Who can fund an SVRT Program? State, county, and city governments Health and human services agencies Hospitals, Medicaid and Medicare programs Taxi service providers Public and private transit authorities Community volunteers Independent living centers Consumers who use the service How do we apply for financial assistance? The first person you should call is your state's 5310/5311 coordinators with the department of transportation. They manage federal and state funds that support rural and small city transportation programs. The 5310/5311 mandate provides funding to finance both the purchase of vehicles and the hiring of staff to operate transportation programs. It pays for vouchers and operating costs for nonprofits and public transit districts. Less often it has funds for private for-profit providers, such as taxis. Tell your 5310/5311 coordinators that you would like to start a voucher program or augment existing transportation services for people with disabilities. They will tell you how to apply for funding and let you know who else in your area, if anyone, is already providing a rider service. Don't overlook you county or city governments. Some SVRT programs in rural Montana have operated moderately well on budgets under $2,000 per year directly supported by local government funds. Call the state to find out about Title 19 reimbursements for non-emergency medical trips. Hospitals and Medicare and Medicaid programs regularly use Title 19 reimbursements for services such as standard doctor visits and therapy treatments. This system works exceptionally well for ride voucher programs because you can actually profit from collecting Title 19 funds. To find out how, refer to the box (next page). In addition, there are many other funding sources both public and private. Most funding sources have their own grant applications. They are usually clear about what type of information they need from you. But if you have questions you should call the source to get them answered. Some funding sources might provide money for certain types of transportation, such as for trips related only to work or job training. Call your state's vocational rehabilitation services for information on funding for work-related ride reimbursements. Also, your state's developmental disability planning and advisory councils can refer you to funding sources and provide you with grant applications. Remember, every state has enough resources to fund transportation costs for people with disabilities, no matter what their needs are. The key to getting funding is persistence. Using Title 19 Reimbursements Title 19 is a federal Medicaid reimbursement program for non-emergency medical trips. This includes doctor visits, therapy sessions, and counseling, to name a few. Title 19 provides a certain dollar amount to a registered driver per person per trip. Whether or not a trip costs you as much as the reimbursement rate, you still get the full dollar amount. For example, you drive a consumer to a doctor's appointment, and that two-way trip costs you $5 to provide. Title 19 may have a $10 reimbursement rate for that trip. You've just made $5. You can put that money into your coffers and use it for other expenses. If you encourage five consumers to schedule their doctor's appointments concurrently, you can take them all in one trip, now perhaps costing you $7. Title 19 still reimburses you for $10 per person. In this example, that's $50 total for a trip that cost you $7. You've now made $43. With this kind of cash return, you can use the extra money to augment your services to consumers. It's important to note that any transportation provider can register themselves as a vendor to receive Title 19 reimbursements. So if your local taxi service is hesitant to provide services to people with disabilities, tell them to call the state's Medicaid Services Division in the capital city to find out how they can profit from Title 19. Call the Community Transportation Association of America's (CTAA) hotline at 1-800-527-8279 with questions and to request a fact sheet on Title 19 programs and reimbursements. What does an SVRT program cost to operate? You can spend anywhere from $1,500 per year to several million on an SVRT program. How much it will cost to operate depends on how many consumers the program serves and their needs, what expenses you decide to reimburse, how you organize the program, a donation of office space or staff time from a local services agency, and the availability of transit services already operating in the area. Operating expenses might include employee wages, ride reimbursements, insurance and driver training, and basic office and supply costs. For an average budget projection, refer to Appendix A. Section 3 HOW IS THE SVRT VOUCHER PROGRAM MANAGED? Who are the players and what do they do? Below is a list of some of the primary duties and suggestions for who might carry them out. Often, tasks will be shared, so it's up to you to decide who will be responsible for specific duties. Just as important as cost-sharing is to a well managed program, job sharing among agencies prevents any one person or agency from becoming overwhelmed. For example, if a taxi service is your primary transit provider, they could handle ride scheduling, taking the burden off a service agency. Consumers -- given control over their own resources, can become active in finding volunteers, coordinating their own rides, and managing the system; offer suggestions for improving the program so that it meets their needs; role is similar to PAS models. Program Coordinator -- acts as liaison between the SVRT program and all contractors, including private and public agencies; if necessary, can arrange rides by coordinating with consumers and drivers; determines eligibility of consumers; sets number of vouchers available for consumers each quarter; maintains trip log; verifies volunteer drivers' insurance; handles complaints. Bookkeeper/Assistant -- makes reimbursements to drivers; writes quarterly summary; compiles annual report of all trips; writes advisory agenda; keeps advisory board meeting minutes; maintains insurance forms for drivers; fills in for Coordinator. Advisory Board -- consists of Program Coordinator, Bookkeeper/Assistant, Agency Director, and at least two consumers; monitors financial status of program; reviews complaints, initiates contracts with service providers; makes program recommendations. Section 4 WHERE DO WE START? How is an SVRT program set up? Again, the first call you should make is to your state's department of transportation 5310/5311 coordinators. They can send you a list of transit providers in your area, including a list of service agencies that have their own vehicles. If service agencies do operate in your area, call them and find out if they have a transportation program that meets consumers' needs. Some agencies offer transportation services, but they may be limited. Also, if transit systems (taxis and busses) operate in your community, find out if they are equipped to meet the needs of people with disabilities. They may be interested in expanding or improving their services. Set up a meeting with local service agencies and transit providers to discuss consumers'needs and the costs, determine who is able to provide transportation, and who will pay for it. There might already be a transportation advisory council or similar group in your community that meets regularly. If so, meet with them. They might have funds to augment existing programs or estimates of the transportation needs in your area. If there isn't a committee, consider organizing one. You can contract with local transit providers, or in the absence of such services, you can recruit volunteer drivers from the community. Service agencies may already have a list of volunteers from which you can recruit. See Section 5 for organizing volunteer drivers. See the box for examples of how SVRT programs have been started. How do we keep records and monitor the program? Recordkeeping and monitoring are essential to running an effective program. By keeping track of money spent, consumers' changing needs, and where and how vouchers are used, you can streamline the program for efficiency and see where you need to make changes, if necessary. Keep lists of names, phone numbers, and addresses handy and make separate lists for each. For example, keep your list of volunteer drivers separate from your list of government contacts or funding sources. Take notes of phone conversations and meetings to easily recall all parties' obligations. Keep a calendar to record when tasks should be completed. In addition you may want to have standard forms for recordkeeping, such as quarterly and annual voucher reports, expenses, and reimbursements. See Appendix B for examples. It's a good idea to keep records of: volunteer drivers' insurance every ride provided (trip log) all vouchers all correspondence any complaints about the program consumer needs quarterly summaries annual reports board meeting minutes and agendas all expenses Your top priority is serving your consumers. Informally keeping track of consumer needs or conducting on-going surveys of their needs will ensure that the program is meeting its goals. Monitoring may help ensure continued funding for the program year after year. Your supporters will want to know how effective the program is. Also, you'll want to show other communities how to set up their own ridership plan. Accurate and faithful record keeping will prove helpful to your transportation program's success. How An SVRT Program Could Work A service agency spends $20,000 per year giving rides to consumers. Rather than schedule the rides themselves, the agency pays $20,000 per year to a taxi service to schedule and provide rides. The agency distributes vouchers to consumers to use for taxis and saves administrative costs by letting the taxi service handle ride scheduling. The agency uses the money it saves to provide more vouchers to consumers. Thus, it still spends $20,000 annually on its transportation program, but the agency has eliminated some costs and increased its services to consumers. In turn, the taxi company gets more business, and consumers have greater access and freedom in getting transportation. An independent living center (ILC) has determined that 30 people in its community would benefit from an SVRT program. The ILC knows approximately how many trips per week each person needs and about how much each trip will cost. Costs were calculated by multiplying the number of trips by the number of miles, using a standard mileage rate. The cost is estimated at $1,026 per month. The ILC approaches their county commissioners with the figures and a needs assessment. The county agrees to pay for up to two-thirds of the cost of reimbursing trips. The ILC recruits volunteers from the community, many of whom have already been giving rides to their friends and family members with disabilities. Through word of mouth and local press releases, the volunteers recruit more volunteers. The county continues to help with ride reimbursements, while the ILC manages volunteers and prints and distributes vouchers. The ILC also agrees to apply for Title 19 reimbursements to pay for non-emergency medical trips. Consumers are responsible for scheduling their own rides with volunteers. What can we expect when setting up the program? There may be some resistance to organizing rider services in your community. Transit providers or service agencies might think the program too costly or be concerned about liability issues. Assure participants that liability issues can be resolved and money is available to fund an SVRT program. Keep in mind that one person's perception of a need may be different than another's. Consumers may not use vouchers as much as you would expect them to. Or people who need rides might not take advantage of the service at all. Don't be surprised if this happens. It's difficult for some people to change their habits, and if they're not accustomed to getting out, they likely have a routine they're comfortable with at home. Over time those routines could change, so keep in mind people's lives are often structured around their access to transportation. Suggestions for using the voucher system. How you decide to use the voucher system will depend on what works best. What ever decisions you make, it's important to have a set of guidelines so the plan runs smoothly. Here are some suggestions: Involve consumers in as many ways as possible. Encourage them to participate in planning and managing the system or to perform administrative tasks. Ask for their involvement in recruiting and training volunteers. Consider having consumers schedule rides as far in advance as possible with the Program Coordinator, if a service agency staffer coordinates rides. Contracting with a local taxi service will eliminate ride scheduling and give consumers more freedom. So will using a "pure" voucher system where consumers can use any available driver and schedule rides themselves. Consider limiting transportation to a specific service area to reduce expenses. You will have to define what that service area is. The Program Coordinator may deny service if a consumer's request isn't within the scope of the program. Make sure both consumers and ride providers understand their needs and abilities for accessible transportation. For example, does the taxi service have accessible vehicles? Are volunteer drivers able to assist in transferring consumers in wheelchairs? Consider limiting the number of vouchers per consumer per quarter. This means vouchers may be limited toward the end of each quarter. You might also want to establish a system for dealing with complaints or issues that arise. Will the Program Coordinator deal with conflicts first or will an Advisory Board handle such matters? In addition, how will ride cancellations and "no-shows" be handled? Consider establishing a policy for rides needed outside the service area to other cities, counties, or states. Cooperative agreements between agencies, transit services, or similar transportation programs will benefit everyone. For example, consumers who need to see doctors in a neighboring county can be taken to a halfway point where volunteers from that county's transportation services can pick them up and bring them to their destinations. Or a volunteer can take riders beyond county borders and coordinate with out-of-county service agencies to transport their consumers while the volunteer waits for her rider to finish business. The Voucher Vouchers can be used for rides for any purpose and any destination, as you see fit. Carbon copies can be distributed to people who need them for recordkeeping. Section 5 HOW DO WE ORGANIZE VOLUNTEERS? Where do we look for volunteers? As long as they have safe, clean driving records, the proper insurance coverage and make good faith efforts to be available for rides, anyone can be a volunteer driver. You can recruit friends, family, neighbors and church-affiliated groups. Contact community service organizations in your area to see if they are willing to share their lists of volunteers. Sample Press Release For Recruiting Volunteers "Did you know that there are (number) people with disabilities in (your community, county, etc.)? Furthermore, (number) can't drive, putting additional limits on work opportunities, advanced education, vocational training, proper health care, and recreation. In short, they aren't able to participate in (your community, county, etc.) because lack of transportation keeps many people with disabilities at home. (Your group) has recognized the need for transportation services and is looking for volunteer drivers to assist people with disabilities in getting to and from shopping, school, work, job training, and social activities, or wherever consumers need to go. We will train drivers in (list, such as CPR, first aid, and consumer assistance techniques, etc.). Volunteers will be reimbursed for some expenses. We prefer volunteers with clean, safe driving records and a willingness and enthusiasm to participate in this unique program. We invite you to our orientation program on (date, time, place). There is no obligation to volunteer, so if you're simply interested in finding out more about the program, please come to the orientation." Consider inserting quotes from those who might benefit from the program and from the person(s) who will manage it. Distribute the press release to all local media, and make yourself available for an interview. You can also post this at local businesses. Point out to business owners that an SVRT Program could benefit them through increased patronage. What are the qualifications and responsibilities for volunteer drivers? It is prudent to establish a policy that outlines volunteer duties and responsibilities. Consider developing clearly defined job descriptions to ensure that each volunteer receives proper training to carry out those duties and is qualified to do the work. For example, should volunteers be responsible for assisting with wheelchair transfers? Should they be responsible for assisting in shopping, or do they simply drop off their consumers and pick them up later? At a minimum, you may want to have your volunteer drivers meet the same requirements as service agency drivers. This may include a physical checkup with drug testing, if applicable; valid driver's license for the vehicle type they will drive; a license check for violations and accidents; a road test in the vehicle they will drive; and a safety inspection of their own vehicle, if they intend to use them. You will also need to decide what expenses will be reimbursed. Will your volunteers be paid on an hourly basis or for mileage or both? Do you want to include the costs of vehicle maintenance, meals, or other on-the-road expenses? By clearly establishing a policy beforehand, you can avoid any potential misunderstandings or conflicts and maintain a satisfied volunteer corps. What kind of training should volunteers receive? Establishing a training program for your volunteers before they hit the road will ensure that their responsibilities are clearly defined, they are prepared to handle emergencies if they arise, and that they are qualified to provide safe, reliable transportation to consumers. Training programs might also alert administering agencies of the more risky duties, thereby forcing agencies to give the proper training to the most qualified volunteers. Most importantly, training will help define liability issues and promote confidence in volunteer drivers. Service agencies and non-profits who are considering using volunteer drivers should contact their insurance agencies first. Insurance companies may have training materials or be able to refer you to driver training and safety programs. Consider including CPR, first aid, and consumer assistance techniques as part of the training. Adopt an emergency procedure plan for drivers in the event their consumers experience medical problems. Who should your drivers call? Make sure drivers know where the nearest medical facilities are located and the quickest route to them. Be sure to thoroughly discuss all emergency and personal issues as part of a training program and clearly define drivers' responsibilities in handling them. Contact your insurance company and the state department of transportation to see if they have training programs for specialized transport or if they can refer your drivers to existing training programs for certification. Volunteer Support Volunteers work hard and often receive little appreciation for what they do. Consider a means of showing appreciation and saying "thanks" to your volunteer drivers by honoring them at banquets or other events. Let them know they're important, and they will continue to support worthwhile services in the community. What about liability and insurance issues? In the past, insurance and liability issues have shut down volunteer driver programs and prevented others from starting. Some states treat this type of reimbursed volunteerism as driving for hire. Under these circumstances, where the service must be regulated by the state, tariffs, licensing, and insurance, an SVRT program would be prohibitive. This issue was addressed in Montana's legislature by exempting the transport of people with disabilities by a nonprofit agency from state regulation. See Appendix E for a copy of Montana's statute. You can use it as a guideline for developing one in your state. To find out your state's position on this issue, ask the 5310/5311 coordinator at the department of transportation or contact your state's public service commission. Today, insurance and liability issues are more easily resolved, and they should not be an obstacle in developing a safe, effective transportation program. Proof of insurance should be supplied and kept on file for every volunteer driver. It is most important to clearly define the duties of volunteer drivers and what they are liable for. For example, if a driver gets in an accident on her way to picking up a consumer, who is liable? Another aspect to consider is a consumer's use of family, friends, and neighbors as volunteer drivers. Because these volunteers allow consumers more flexibility in scheduling rides, they are sometimes the best source of transportation. Will your program require them to take driver training, and if not, will they be eligible for reimbursement under your program? Will they be covered by a service agency's insurance who administers a transportation program? If not, what will these volunteers be liable for? Clearly defining and periodically examining these issues will help your SVRT program run smoothly and effectively. Therefore, it is essential that you establish driver responsibilities and liabilities, as well as the type and amount of training volunteers will need and what they will be reimbursed for. A nonprofit agency receiving public funds will, in most cases, be held ultimately liable for accidents involving volunteer drivers they reimburse for services. For this reason the following questions should be answered when considering an SVRT program using volunteers: How does the administering agency insurance treat volunteer drivers? Can the agency's insurance be expanded to cover volunteers? What are the insurance coverage amounts for volunteers in the agency's plan, and are they excess or primary coverages? Is the coverage automatic for each volunteer, or does each volunteer need to enroll separately? When and where are volunteers covered? Do volunteers have to make a financial contribution for any coverages? Whom do volunteers contact about claims? These questions were developed by Florida's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. You can contact them at 605 Suwannee Street, MS-49, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450; (904) 488-6036. Before preceding with an SVRT program, make sure all issues of liability are clear and that you understand all state regulations. Section 6 NOW YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY The Supported Volunteer Rural Transportation Program can be an effective way of providing rides to people with disabilities who cannot drive and who live in communities with limited public transportation. In addition, public and private transit operators can benefit directly by improved services, and local businesses benefit from increased patronage. Although, the SVRT program is a proven method for organizing and managing rider services using vouchers, keep in mind that this handbook offers only guidelines. You may find that some things work better for you than others. However, if you follow the suggestions in this handbook, you should have a successful program with continued funding to meet the needs of consumers in your community. Liability issues and funding need not be stumbling blocks. Liability issues are easily resolved with clearly defined policies and by thorough discussion with insurance companies and your state's public service commission. And because transportation is a recognized need for people with disabilities, federal, state and local agencies have funding (and other resources, like vehicles) to provide rides to people who need them. The key to finding that money is persistence, and with it, your SVRT program will travel far. Happy trails! Appendix A Sample Budget Outline. This one-year budget is for a five-county area serving up to 150 people in three primary towns. It is considered mid-range, costing each service area about $12,500 per year. The budget outlines most of the potential costs of an SVRT Program. Many of these, such as salaries, rent, utilities, can be shared among several participating agencies and local governments. A. Salaries: $3,569.49 1. Executive Director .01 FTE : $410.87 2. Fiscal Service Director .02 FTE: 466.90 3. Payroll and Accounting Assistant .02 FTE: 280.14 4. Program Director .01 FTE: 354.84 5. Case Manager II .02 FTE: 485.57 6. Case Manager II .02 FTE: 448.22 Fringe: 1,122.95 (Fringe is calculated at 45.9% and includes FICA, workers' compensation, leave assessment and health insurance, unemployment, and retirement.) B. Direct Costs 1. rides: 28,631 2. equipment purchase, vehicle modification/adaptive equipment: 5,000 (Includes purchase of wheelchair lift and hand controls.) 3. building rent: 100 4. building repair: 50 5. utilities: 100 6. insurance: 50 C. Total: $37,500 *This one-year budget is for a five-county area serving up to 150 people in three primary towns. It is considered mid-range, costing each service area about $12,500 per year. The budget outlines most of the potential costs of an SVRT program. Many of these, such as salaries, rent, and utilities, can be shared among several participating agencies and local governments. Appendix B Sample Recordkeeping Forms Report of (agency) Implemented by (agency) Coordinator (person responsible) Applicant report as of (date) Voucher applicants: 51 Applicants accepted into program: 47 Applicants denied into program: 4 Voucher report from January 1, 1996 - March 31, 1996 Vouchers sent: 531 January: 175 February: 176 March: 180 Vouchers used: 176 January: 99
February: 129 March: 110 Vendors: 2 Area agency on Aging $77.00 Local Taxi Service $276.25 Amount of funds used for vouchers: $353.25 Amount of funds used for printing: $81.21 Appendix C Sample Customer Satisfaction Survey Please help us serve you better by answering the following questions about our SVRT program and your needs. We appreciate your thoroughness and honesty. 1. Which transportation service do you use? Bus Taxi Volunteer Drivers All Three 2. Please state why you would use one service more often than another. 3. How often do you use transportation services per week? 4. Are you able to get a ride when you want? 5. Are you satisfied with scheduling efforts by the transit drivers? 6. When you do ride are you satisfied with the services? 7. Do you feel discriminated in any way due to your disability? 8. Do you find the vouchers helpful? 9. How can transportation services be improved to better meet your needs? 10. On a scale of 1- 4, how satisfied are you with the program? (1= not at all; 4 = very much). Please feel free to add further suggestion or comments. Please stamp and mail the survey to the (agency) in the enclosed envelope. Thank you! Appendix D Additional Sources of Information Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL), Linda Gonzales, 1919 Kiva Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505; (505) 984-8035 Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), 1440 New York Ave. NW, Suite 440, Washington, D.C. 20005; (202) 628-1480 or 1-800-527-8279, FAX (202) 737-9197 Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission, 605 Suwannee Street, MS-49, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450; (904) 488-6036 National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 405, Arlington, VA 22201; (703) 525-3406, TT/TDD (703) 525-3407, FAX (703) 525-3409 Rural Institute on Disabilities, Brad Bernier, 52 Corbin Hall, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; 1-800-732-0323 World Institute on Disability (WID), 510 Sixteenth Street, Suite 100, Oakland, CA 94612-1500; (510) 763-4100, FAX (510) 763-4109 Don't forget to check the blue pages in you local phone book for numbers of your state's department of transportation, Medicare/Medicaid programs, disability services agencies, and public and private transit authorities. Publications: Bernier, Brad, Seekins, Tom; 1996; Rural Transportation Voucher Program For People With Disabilities: Three Case Studies; Rural Institute on Disabilities, Missoula, MT. World Institute on Disability; 1992; Personal Assistance Services: A Guide To Policy and Action; A Collection of Resources for Addressing Personal Assistance Services; 2nd Edition; WID, Oakland, CA. (Public policy issues intended for PAS advocates, policy makers, providers, and users. It combines state-of-the-art research in PAS over the past decade, with policy analysis and options for change. 200 pp., $50.) Appendix E Montana State Statute In 1991 Montana State amended Montana Code Annotated  69-12-102 to exempt the transportation of people with disabilities by non-profit organizations from regulation by the Public Service Commission. Previously, just about anyone transporting passengers or goods for hire in Montana was subject to PSC regulation and was required to hold a certificate of authority. Here is the statute exempting transport of people with disabilities from regulation: (1) This chapter does not affect: (o) the transportation of handicapped or elderly persons provided by private, nonprofit organizations. As used in this subsection: (i) "handicapped" means an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (ii) "elderly" means a person 60 years of age or older; and (iii) "private, nonprofit organization" means an organization recognized as nonprofit under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Community Transportation Magazine March - April 2000 The Battle for Equity: Vision for Transit's Future By Chris Zeilinger Take another look at an issue we all know well. Equity. It's a fighting word. Maybe you didn't hear it much in playground tussles as a child, but it's a sure-fire way to pick a fight in Washington, D.C., or any state capital in the country. In the transit program, equity takes on a number of meanings. Truth be told, equity has been a banner whose colors change to suit every combatant in the struggle for what is fair and right. As an example, CTAA for decades has maintained that equity means increased funding for transit in smaller communities and higher levels of transit availability for dependent populations such as low-income families, elders, and persons with disabilities. CTAA believes these are of supreme importance in an equitable transit program. In both the ISTEA debates of the early 1990s, and the debates leading to TEA-21 in 1998,countless CT readers felt that equity meant return on transit investment; that what each state's taxpayers paid into the Mass Transit Account (the trust fund that supports the federal transit program) should closely approximate what that state receives as its share of the federal transit investment. Other issues of equity abounded in the years leading up to TEA-21 and continue today. The Center for Community Change maintains a Transportation Equity Network, driven by the principle that low-income persons and transit users must have a voice in metropolitan transit decision-making processes. The National Association of Development Organizations embraces a concept of equity where local rural officials and rural planners have stronger decision-making roles in non-metropolitan highway and transit projects. Indian tribal associations have a vision of equity that assures them access to funds for their highway and transit priorities. Even with these and other equity issues closely aligned to CTAA's positions, the list goes on and on. Throughout the history of transportation funding, the question of equity essentially has been who gets how much money, and why? Some of the historical transit equity arguments have centered on urban vs. rural interests, highways vs. transit, bus transit vs. rail transit, paratransit vs. fixed-route transit, competing federal/state/local roles in decision-making, new transit projects vs. improvement/upkeep of existing projects and others. Equity and Funding Formulas Is there really a way to hand out money that seems fair to everyone? Probably not. The typical response in almost any funding program is to use some kind of formula for parceling out the money. Funding formulas -- at least -- offer the appearance of being impartial, automatic mechanisms that aren't loaded with bias, competition or political overtones. It's possible, in fact, for funding formulas to appear that they respond to programmatic needs and demands. But formula-based funding is hardly impartial. Anyone who witnessed the congressional debates over TEA-21, ISTEA or any other major funding bill can recall the bitter struggles over funding formulas. Despite the rhetoric, these struggles were not over balance and fairness. Instead, the challenge was to create a funding system that appeared neutral while assuring each state and congressional district a better-than-average slice of the funding pie. Funding formulas are not need-based. If you look around your community, it should become obvious that transit need cannot be easily quantified. Sure, there are some fairly good indicators of transit need: For instance, concentrations of transit-dependent populations are likely to need more transit service than the rest of the community. A transit service with steady ridership and a fleet of vehicles long past their useful life probably has a higher need for transit capital assistance than a community with new buses. A fast-growing community with no transit probably has some transit need, as does a community becoming choked with automobile traffic congestion. The above items can be quantified, and often are reflected in transit plans, grant applications, etc. But let's take a closer look at some of these need indicators. As an example, it may be safe to assume that most households without a car have some level of transit need, but how do you address the huge number of households with only one car? Many households have little problem relying on a single automobile for the full range of trips to work, shopping, doctors' offices, entertainment and all their other travel needs. Many other one-car households have tremendous transportation difficulty, such as having two working adults whose jobs are at the same time in different locations. In another dimension of potential transit need, we know that most elders have their own automobile... and use it. Short of performing interviews or functional tests of the elders in your community, how can you substantiate the number of elders who have automobiles, but do not drive at night, whose health keeps them from driving at all or whose fierce independence means they would rather walk than ask about riding a bus or van? Because these issues of need are so hard to quantify (especially when you're trying also to satisfy a host of vested interests), a number of arbitrary decisions have to be made when creating a funding structure. To focus on the highway and transit programs under TEA-21, some examples of truly arbitrary funding allocations include, but are not limited to, the following: 15.44 cents per gallon of federal gasoline taxes for highways; 2.86 cents for transit; $28 billion in guaranteed federal highway spending in FY 2001; $6.3 billion guaranteed for transit; 6 percent of highway funds earmarked by Congress; 40 percent of transit funds so earmarked; 40 percent of Section 5309 major transit capital grants for new rail systems, 40 percent to improve existing rail systems, and 20 percent for buses and facilities; 2.4 percent of formula-based transit funding for Section 5310 elderly and disabilities grants, 6.37 percent for Section 5311 rural transit funding, and 91.23 percent for Section 5307 urban transit funding; and 90.68 percent of Section 5307 funds for transit in urban areas of more than 200,000 population; 9.32 percent for urbanized areas of less than 200,000 population. At some point, every one of those figures was hotly debated, and the outcome represented a compromise that made the most sense at the time. However, these sorts of figures do suggest some questions of values and priorities, for example: If rural residents make up nearly a third of our nation's population, why do they only benefit from 6 percent of the nation's transit spending? Does it truly reflect national priorities to spend four times the money on capital grants for rail transit systems as we do on capital grants to bus systems? Should transit programs in our nation's largest cities be entitled to nearly 10 times as much money as transit in smaller urban areas? What does it mean for 40 percent of all transit investments to be dictated by members of Congress, while 94 percent of all highway investments are determined by state departments of transportation? Why, when elders and persons with disabilities make up more than 27 percent of the population, does the only dedicated transit spending to meet their unique transportation needs amount to 2.4 percent of formula-based transit grants? What's In a Formula Anyway? If these numbers have left your head spinning, here's a suggestion: go to the nearest bus (or rail) stop, take a look around and try to figure what factors you think should determine how much money should support that transit service. Then, consider the following list of factors used in the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) formula-based funding programs Population (Section 5311 and Section 5307). Population with disabilities or elderly (Section 5310 only). Population density (Section 5307 only). Fixed guideway revenue vehicle-miles (large-urban Section 5307 only). Fixed guideway route-miles (large-urban Section 5307 only). Fixed guideway passenger-miles (large-urban Section 5307 only). Bus revenue vehicle-miles (large-urban Section 5307 only). Bus passenger-miles (large-urban Section 5307 only). The use of these factors is fairly complex (if you're curious, look up Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 5336). In terms of equity, there are two significant points: 1. The large-urban funding formula barely reflects transit need. Instead, it primarily rewards consumption-the more transit service a community provides, the more funding the community will receive, even if the service doesn't effectively meet community transit needs; and 2. In both the urban and rural formula programs, the use of population and density is a very crude indicator for transit need. It's better than nothing (after all, the presence of more people in a community does suggest increased demand for transit, and higher population densities are indeed more conducive to transit being a preferred means of mobility), but misses finer points such as transit dependence, travel patterns, traffic congestion, local costs of driving and parking or any of the other factors that actually inspire people to use transit in their community. Transit Funding Equity Since its beginning in 1964, the federal transit program has become a $6.3 billion program that is growing into the future. Equity in transit is maintained through a curious balance of congressional project selection (i.e., Congress chooses individual grantees of the Section 5309 program, plus smaller programs such as Job Access and some national transit planning and research grants; altogether, these amount to just over 40 percent of the Federal Transit Administration's annual appropriation) and a formula funding stream that distributes 42.33 percent of funds according to demographics, and 57.67 percent based on existing transit operations. Reflecting the transit program's genesis as a bail-out for large-city bus and rail systems, it retains a bias toward urban transit funding; within the urban part of the program, it is s