Program Management Insights for the Section 5310 Program, Including Subrecipient Consolidation and Urban 5310 (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

17 Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,” 49 CFR part 18. The comparable USDOT rule for private nonprofit organiza- tions is “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agree- ments with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations,” 49 CFR part 19. Parts 18 and 19 are col- lectively known as the “common rule,” or the “common grant rule.” The provisions of these rules apply except where inconsistent with federal statutes or authorizing legislation. It should be noted that subsequent to the publication of FTA Circular 9070.1G, the Super Circular, 2 CFR 200, was issued and replaced the common grant rule. 2.5 Relevance of Literature Review Findings The review of Section  5310 SMPs across the country found that, with a few exceptions, the states do not provide enough publicly available information about their program management policies and procedures to enable the research team to identify states that have explicitly addressed limiting or reducing the number of subrecipients. Using the information gathered during the SMP review, and based on the focus and intent of this project, the research team developed a list of questions appropriate for state DOT officials and MPOs/urban area program managers to determine best practices, challenges, and impacts of decisions to change how local Section 5310 funding decisions are made. This research was designed to focus on the pre- viously unexamined trends and practices developed by state DOTs and urban area program managers to administer the program. The survey and interview efforts in this research sought to reveal trends in how program managers are structuring the Section 5310 program and if the intended result is to enhance coordination, regionalization, or expansion of services for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with low incomes. CHAPTER 3 SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS 3.1 Purpose The research team deployed a national survey of state and local man- agers of the FTA’s Section 5310 program to identify current prac- tices for effectively managing grant subrecipients. In looking for best practices, special attention is paid to the number of subrecipients and to any policies that have led to greater coordination among mul- tiple subrecipients. Other practices that make oversight and assistance to subrecipients more effective are examined. A variety of state and local programs across the United States were surveyed, and responses were received from 59 program managers. The survey results revealed the flexibility of the Section 5310 funding; the main commonality across responses was that every agency uses it slightly differently to meet local needs and capacity. The answers to the survey questions provide a snapshot of the vari- ety across the country; a gathering of useful ideas suiting differing priorities, more hands-on and more hands-off approaches, and dif- ferent understandings of where and how the program could/should grow and where it is pushing its limits. 3.2 Methods State and UZA Section 5310 program grant managers were asked to complete a survey covering their administration of the program, how they measured the impact of the distributed funds, and what effects various changes in the regulations have had on the subrecipients and the program. Each program manager and at least one UZA program recipient per state were contacted to complete the survey. Appen- dix A provides a copy of the survey instrument, including Table A.1 with all yes/no responses. A total of 59 responses were received: 21 came from Section 5310 regional recipients (MPOs, transit agencies, etc.) and 35 from state DOTs. Three organizations had two respondents, likely adjacent staff. Where multiple responses from a single entity are similar, the more thorough, descriptive answer was used in reporting. Where the responses were different, they are described separately. Nine of the respondents left most or all the questions blank after the first two, and one agency answered only five of the 29 survey questions. Blank responses were not tallied in the counts; the positive (provided a yes or no answer) response rate for each question ranged from 50 down to 36 responses. The research team broke the questions into groups, looking at the response rate for individual questions and how similarly agen- cies responded across the grouping. The first question, “does your agency administer a Section  5310 program for rural areas and/or urbanized areas?” was removed, as all answered yes with one excep- tion that responded no and did not provide any other responses for the rest of the survey. The questions are divided as follows: Applications Exceed Funding 1. Do the applications for Section 5310 grants exceed the available funding in any geographic category? 2. Have you initiated any policy/administrative changes to reduce the number of Section 5310 subrecipients or transferred funding between geographic categories? 3. What impact, positive and/or negative, have these policy/ administrative changes had on your Section 5310 program? If possible, quantify the volume of subrecipients before and after the changes were implemented. 4. Have these actions had any impact on unmet needs or service gaps in providing service for older adults and individuals with disabilities? 5. What have been the primary challenges your agency has faced in trying to reduce the number of Section 5310 subrecipients? 6. Does your Section 5310 program have eligible applicant restrictions narrower than FTA allows which may lead to fewer applicants? 7. Has the volume of Section 5310 subrecipients created a burden in your administration/oversight of the subrecipients? Grant Management Decisions 1. What have been the best changes the program manager has made to the program management process? 2. What is left to do? Or, what could be done with no funding or time constraints? 3. With states no longer receiving 100% of the Section 5310 funding and a portion going to the large urban areas to manage (with a few exceptions), how has this funding allocation change impacted the rural areas in your state?

18 Scoring and Prioritizing Funds 1. To what extent have your project selection criteria limited the number of Section 5310 funded projects? 2. Is the Section 5310 application review score-focused or com- mittee priority-focused? 3. Who is involved in the application review process? 4. Do you prioritize the type of projects to be funded with Sec- tion 5310 funds? If so, how has this impacted the volume of Section 5310 applicants? 5. Do you have funding distribution policies that impact the number of successful Section 5310 applicants? 6. What reporting or performance metrics have the most impact on the success of the Section 5310 program and on the decision to fund future applications? Tracking Fund Uses 1. With the FTA requiring 55% of Section 5310 funds be used for traditional projects, has your agency followed the 55/45% FTA traditional/nontraditional split or developed another funding dis- tribution methodology? Do you fund operating projects with the Section 5310 funding or just capital? 1. When Section 5310 is not used for administration funding, what other source(s) is used? What are the benefits/drawbacks of using other funding sources? 2. Does your agency track where you award a higher percentage of funding relative to requests (small urban/rural, equity populations)? Coordination/Consolidation/Regionalization 1. What do you see as the benefits and disadvantages of the coor- dinated planning requirement? 2. Has consolidation/regionalization of transportation services impacted the volume of Section 5310 applicants in your area? 3. Does your agency incentivize consolidation/regionalization? 4. Does coordination increase or decrease the applicant pool? Innovation and Improvement 1. Have you implemented any innovative program management approaches for your Section 5310 program? 2. Where is Section 5310 funding “propping up” services in the face of a changing (microtransit/demand-response) landscape, and where is it incentivizing innovation of the landscape? 3. If you could make change(s) to the FTA Section 5310 administra- tive requirements, what would the change(s) be? 4. Which FTA Section  5310 program requirements/guidelines do you find the most difficult to address? The survey responses were also given a regional affiliation, using the census designations of Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, South- west, and West (see Figure 4). The Southeast is the largest region, with 14 states, but the survey received the most responses, 18, from the Midwest with 12 states. The Southeast had 14 responses, the West had 12, the Northeast had 7, and the Southwest had 5. While no par- ticular pattern was discerned in grouping the responses by region, the research team was able to do a deeper dive into a case study agency in each region. The case studies are provided in Chapter 4. Source: National Geographic 2009. FIGURE 4 Map of US regions.

19 3.3 Summary of Responses Grouped by Question Set Applications Exceed Funding This set of responses to questions is sorted into three subgroups: • Those whose applications exceed the funds available and who have made changes that affect the number of subrecipients (yes and yes; Table 4) • Those whose applications exceed the funds available and who have not made changes that affect the number of subrecipients (yes and no; Table 5) • Those whose applications do not exceed the funds available, regardless of changes they have made to the program that affect number of subrecipients (no and yes/no; Table 6) Of the 50 total responses to the first question, over 70% (35 respon- dents) stated “yes,” the Section 5310 grant applications exceed the amount of funding allocated to them; 76% had not initiated policy or administrative changes to reduce the number of Section 5310 sub- recipients or transferred funding between geographic categories. It is notable that 22% of respondents stated their policy changes had an impact on meeting the unmet needs or filling service gaps for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Five agencies in the Table 4 subgroup have applicant restrictions narrower than the FTA allows. In Tennessee, private for-profit taxi companies are not eligible applicants. San Diego Association of Gov- ernments (SANDAG) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) reiterated their restrictions on the type of activ- ities that could be awarded, but they did not restrict applicants. Like- wise, Arizona DOT (ADOT) does not have the staff capacity to manage construction projects, so those types of projects are not awarded. The last agency that responded positively to the question was the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), which does not go through an application process, as all awards are managed through provider agreements with the transit agency. Four of the agencies reported that the volume of subrecipients was an administrative burden. To address this burden, the Ohio- Kentucky-Indiana Council of Governments (OKI) has automated annual reporting and monitoring requirements by using an online survey instrument. SANDAG increased the maximum grant request, seeking to give more money to fewer subrecipient agencies. New Hampshire DOT (NHDOT) encourages but does not mandate a single mobility manager in each region to identify redundancies within the region’s service models. Tennessee DOT (TDOT) restricts eligible projects for private nonprofit subrecipients to vehicle replacement and expansion only. VDRPT reported that the burden was not in the number of subrecipients, but in the quality of applications; recent changes to the application forms and scoring were implemented to improve the applications and ensure agencies were not receiving more funds than were needed for their programs. Grant Management Decisions This section addresses questions regarding how grant funds are administered. The questions (8, 9, and 10) in this grouping all used long-form answers; there were no yes/no questions. When asked about the best changes each agency had made to the program man- agement process, many responses were similar enough to group together, as follows: • Five agencies felt that using web-based grants management, online applications, their own online database for management and reporting, or moving to web-based compliance were the best changes they had made to the program. • Several reported updating their SMPs or PMPs, creating check- lists and tracking tools for reporting or other standard operating procedures, and adding budget templates or otherwise stan- dardizing the invoices subrecipients submit. • Four agencies mentioned changing their application and grant process to every other year, reducing the administrative time involved in making each award. • Two MPOs partner with the state DOT for administration and oversight. • Two other agencies reported benefits from increased program and/or support staff. OKI also mentioned that changing the FTA reporting require- ment from quarterly to once a year has improved their workflow. The agency reduced its useful life standard to match FTA mileage and age requirements, reducing the inventory that is monitored. Texas does not extend grants beyond the 12-month period so funds can be de- and reobligated, working with agencies to assess what they are actually able to spend and reducing funding levels to match. Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) requires quarterly reporting for mobility management and operating grants, which has resulted in an increased workload, but also increased the level of assurance that their grants are being administered properly. Missouri DOT (MoDOT) uses consultant services to provide technical assistance to DOT and subrecipient staff. Agencies reported benefits from their grant management deci- sions with a broad scope—from running analysis on the small urban and rural agencies and conducting a statewide summit to seeking additional partnerships to fill gaps and streamlining operations with regional partners. The program managers were asked what was left to implement for their program, or what they would do with no constraints on fund- ing or time. In terms of technical improvements to their programs, agencies wanted to: • Add technical assistance to subrecipients • Improve monitoring and compliance • Move tools online and streamline them • Continue to assess other modes (transportation network compa- nies (TNCs) and microtransit) to improve trip quality and costs • Update the data that is used to analyze need With more flexible funds or additional funding, the agencies would take the following steps: • Add staff • Improve outreach • Approve more vehicle grants • Achieve their SGR goals • Expand the eligibility requirements and open trips to more public uses • Provide more COVID-19 assistance • Expand operating grants or reinstate operations as eligible where capital is the only current use

20 TABLE 4 Applications Exceeded Funding Even After Policy/Administrative Change to Reduce Subrecipients or Transferring Funds AGENCY STATE REGION DO THE APPLICATIONS FOR SECTION 5310 GRANTS EXCEED THE AVAILABLE FUNDING IN ANY GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORY? HAVE YOU INITIATED ANY POLICY/ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SECTION 5310 SUBGRANTEES OR TRANSFERRED FUNDING BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES? HAVE THESE ACTIONS HAD ANY IMPACT ON UNMET NEEDS OR SERVICE GAPS IN PROVIDING SERVICE FOR OLDER ADULTS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES? DOES YOUR SECTION 5310 PROGRAM HAVE ELIGIBLE APPLICANT RESTRICTIONS NARROWER THAN FTA ALLOWS WHICH MAY LEAD TO FEWER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS? HAS THE VOLUME OF SECTION 5310 SUBGRANTEES CREATED A BURDEN IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION/ OVERSIGHT OF THE SUBGRANTEES? Arizona AZ Southwest Yes Yes No Yes No Arizona AZ Southwest Yes Yes No No No San Diego Association of Governments CA West Yes Yes Yes Yes Connecticut CT Northeast Yes Yes No No No Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho ID West Yes Yes Yes Yes No Minnesota MN Midwest Yes Yes No No New Hampshire NH Northeast Yes Yes Yes No Yes Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments OH Midwest Yes Yes Yes No Yes Tennessee TN Southeast Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Texas TX Southwest Yes Yes Yes No No Virginia VA Southeast Yes Yes Yes Yes No

21 TABLE 5 No Policy/Administrative Change or Funding Transfer When Applicants Exceed Funding AGENCY STATE REGION DO THE APPLICATIONS FOR SECTION 5310 GRANTS EXCEED THE AVAILABLE FUNDING IN ANY GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORY? HAVE YOU INITIATED ANY POLICY/ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SECTION 5310 SUBGRANTEES OR TRANSFERRED FUNDING BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES? HAVE THESE ACTIONS HAD ANY IMPACT ON UNMET NEEDS OR SERVICE GAPS IN PROVIDING SERVICE FOR OLDER ADULTS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES? DOES YOUR SECTION 5310 PROGRAM HAVE ELIGIBLE APPLICANT RESTRICTIONS NARROWER THAN FTA ALLOWS WHICH MAY LEAD TO FEWER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS? HAS THE VOLUME OF SECTION 5310 SUBGRANTEES CREATED A BURDEN IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION/ OVERSIGHT OF THE SUBGRANTEES? CalTrans CA West Yes No No No Fresno COG CA West Yes No No No No Sacramento Area Council of Governments CA West Yes No No No No Georgia GA Southeast Yes No No No No Illinois IL Midwest Yes No No Yes Kentucky KY Southeast Yes No No No MaineDOT ME Northeast Yes No No No No East-West Gateway COG MO Midwest Yes No No No No Missouri MO Midwest Yes No No No Yes City of Greensboro - GTA NC Southeast Yes No Yes No No NC Capital Area MPO NC Southeast Yes No No No Yes NC Capital Area MPO NC Southeast Yes No No Yes No NCDOT NC Southeast Yes No No No Yes New Jersey NJ Northeast Yes No No No Yes Ohio DOT OH Midwest Yes No No Yes No Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments OH Midwest Yes No No No Yes Oregon OR West Yes No No No No Pennsylvania PA Northeast Yes No Yes No Yes Greenville County SC SC Southeast Yes No No No No SCOOT SC Southeast Yes No No Yes No UTA UT West Yes No No Yes Vermont VT Northeast Yes No No No City of Madison WI Midwest Yes No No No Wisconsin WI Midwest Yes No No No Yes

22 TABLE 6 Applicants Do Not Exceed Funding AGENCY STATE REGION DO THE APPLICATIONS FOR SECTION 5310 GRANTS EXCEED THE AVAILABLE FUNDING IN ANY GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORY? HAVE YOU INITIATED ANY POLICY/ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SECTION 5310 SUBGRANTEES OR TRANSFERRED FUNDING BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES? HAVE THESE ACTIONS HAD ANY IMPACT ON UNMET NEEDS OR SERVICE GAPS IN PROVIDING SERVICE FOR OLDER ADULTS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES? DOES YOUR SECTION 5310 PROGRAM HAVE ELIGIBLE APPLICANT RESTRICTIONS NARROWER THAN FTA ALLOWS WHICH MAY LEAD TO FEWER NUMBER OF APPLICANTS? HAS THE VOLUME OF SECTION 5310 SUBGRANTEES CREATED A BURDEN IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION/ OVERSIGHT OF THE SUBGRANTEES? ALDOT AL Southeast No No No No No Stanislaus Council of Governments CA West No No No No No Denver Regional COG CO West No No No No No Indiana IN Midwest No Yes No No Yes Kansas KS Midwest No No No No Louisiana LA Southeast No No No No State of Michigan MI Midwest No No No No State of Michigan MI Midwest No No No No Montana MT Midwest No No No No North Dakota ND Midwest No No No Yes No Nevada NV West No No No No Oklahoma OK Southwest No No No No No Rhode Island RI Northeast No No No No SD DOT SD Midwest No No No No No KYOVA WV Southeast No No No No No

23 Many states mentioned improving or increasing mobility manage- ment, coordination, and regionalization and implementing one-call centers. Four states anticipated the next question about rebalancing funds or adding funds to serve rural areas, stating that the UZA allo- cation leaves rural areas of higher need with fewer resources. Since 2013, with Section 5310 funds allocated between large UZAs, small UZAs, and rural areas, the state respondents reported negative impacts to rural systems. Program management staff who had been in their positions a shorter amount of time felt the change in allocation had less impact than staff who had been there longer, who report being “forced” to change their programs significantly, restricting applications to capital only, or buying significantly fewer vehicles. The MPOs that weighed in offered several other perspectives. East-West Gateway COG, in the St. Louis region, indicated the divi- sion of funding between states and urban areas creates confusion for applicants about where to apply. The Greensboro NC MPO reported the rural areas of their urbanized county were underserved—the funding is not enough to meet the demand. Conversely, Fresno COG reported their rural transit system is well funded with a sales tax measure combined with federal funding. OKI, in Cincinnati, pointed out that MPOs can leverage other funding resources toward Sec- tion 5310 objectives. OKI is also in discussions with Ohio DOT to share resources for mobility management, which would result in additional collaboration and sharing of resources. Scoring and Prioritizing Funds When asked to what extent the project selection criteria limited the number of Section 5310-funded projects, most respondents said the selection criteria did not limit projects, the funding limited projects. • North Carolina and New Hampshire DOTs provide an allocation to each region of their respective states, and each region decides what projects are selected. Several states only fund vehicles or capital projects, as mentioned. • The reduction in funds (from the UZA portions of the state) led Nevada DOT to eliminate operating projects, which in turn led many of their subrecipients to transition to the Section  5311 program. • Oregon DOT reported the recent addition of dedicated state funding has reduced the unfunded requests and allowed them to use other funding sources to ensure projects are funded. It appears from the responses that when the available funding amount sets the bar, the agency’s other policies on eligibility (requir- ing subrecipients to participate in coordination activities) or priori- ties (funding replacement vehicles before expansion vehicles) then spread the funds thinly across all projects or limit the number of proj- ects funded. Several recipients felt their state or regional criteria boosted the quality of applicants or promoted the best projects by setting a scor- ing threshold, allowing the score-based or priority-based criteria to set the funding bar. OKI reported their criteria eliminate 10–15% of projects proposed each year that do not address the strategic criteria. Other responses said applicants must demonstrate they can manage federally funded assets, and high scoring thresholds help ensure fewer poor-performing agencies are funded, ensuring those receiv- ing funding have the most need and greatest regional impact. Continuing the discussion of the application review process, respondents were asked if their review process was score-focused or priority-focused; 70% said it was score-focused. In the comments, many then clarified that they considered the scoring to be based on local priorities set in the coordinated plan. Many reported using the score to set a base and then working through a committee or advisory team, having discussions regarding priorities to refine the selection of the best investments to make. This is one of the few questions that generated many similar answers. A few variations were notable. Illinois DOT (IDOT) emphasized distributing the fund- ing as evenly as possible among eligible subrecipients. IDOT has relied on 11 regional human services transportation plan (HSTP) coordinators to assign coordination scores to each subrecipient. They disqualify the agency if the coordination score is zero, or if applicants don’t score well enough on the application criteria. New Jersey DOT reported that as more municipal applications have come in, they have worked closely with the county providers to coordi- nate, provide technical assistance, and avoid duplication of services. NHDOT uses a score-focused process for vehicles and capital equip- ment, and a priority focus for mobility management and contracted services, believing there is merit in both approaches. ADOT stressed that score-focused selection with equity is important, as they have non-English speakers and volunteer programs applying and would not penalize organizations for language- or culture-based omissions in the application process. Vermont and Indiana DOTs, which both use a priority-focused process, felt they had a good handle on the needs in their state and pointed out that score focus is only useful when demand exceeds available funding. For the agencies that use a committee review process, respon- dents selected DOT/MPO Section 5310 program staff as the most involved, at 39 of the 59 responses. Other DOT/MPO staff were next most involved at 19 responses, other agency staff at 18 responses, and transit officials at 17 responses. The agencies that included other agency staff were asked to specify who was involved: • Local coordinating councils (riders and other interested public) • Transit agency • Private nonprofit agency • Municipalities served by human services transportation providers • HSTP coordinators • Advisory committee members • Office of aging • Regional mobility managers • Tribal • Transit and transportation planners • Urban planners • Gerontology • Logistics Of the agencies that report prioritizing the projects that are funded, few responded that the prioritization impacted the volume of appli- cants. Projects were prioritized through the coordinated planning process with input from local and regional stakeholders. Priorities

24 included replacing vehicles, filling gaps or expanding boundaries of services, preventative maintenance, accessible vehicles, continuing existing service, and acquisition of services. Once the applications are scored and prioritized, 24% of the survey respondents apply additional policies that impact the suc- cessful applications. Two states mentioned again that they use other funds to supplement the Section 5310 program, and one respon- dent reiterated its minimum and maximum grant requests. PennDOT noted their strong coordinated shared-ride system, and that the funds that go to these coordinating agencies for rolling stock reduce the number of nonprofits that receive funds. Nevada spreads their fund- ing across all applicants, listing them on their program of projects as either funded or alternate projects depending on the score. Alabama DOT provides higher funding to higher-scoring projects, but also weighs whether the projects are in areas that lack public transporta- tion. Areas with access to public transit are encouraged to request additional assistance from the transit agencies. When asked what reporting or performance metrics have the most impact on the success of the Section 5310 program and the decision to fund future applications, respondents broke their answers into program and agency performance metrics. Individual program metrics such as ridership and people served in the target popula- tion groups were mentioned most frequently, followed by trips and other vehicle metrics including mileage and hours. Some look at the geography covered or numbers of communities served. For mobility management programs, tracking the number of eligible riders is stan- dard. For vehicle applications, the SGR and transit asset manage- ment (TAM) targets are used to aid decision-making. NTD and other operations metrics were also used. A handful of respondents look beyond the first level of reported data and perform some analysis of cost versus usage. Agency performance metrics that affect grant decision-making include sound financial and managerial capacity, timely reporting, clean audits, and inspections. Tracking Fund Uses This set of questions looks at how agencies set limits on and keep track of the uses of Section 5310 funds. Section 5310 administrators must go beyond eligibility to set limits on capital, operating, and administration funds used. Some of this discussion circles back to the history of Section 5310, as different uses have been allowed over time. The most obvious current limit is set by the FTA’s requirement that at least 55% of funds should be spent on traditional projects, which was set when the former New Freedom (Section 5317) projects were added to the allowed uses with the passage of MAP-21 in 2012. The New Freedom “nontraditional” uses (including New Freedom operating, projects that go beyond ADA, and infrastructure that improves access to fixed route transit) could only make up 45% of the project funding awarded. Agencies can also take 10% of the funds for administration, which is provided with no required match (100% federal funds). The language in the FTA circular regarding tradi- tional and nontraditional, capital and operating, is used interchange- ably in colloquial use among the agencies administering the funding, so there is some confusion in the responses. Among the respondents, 11 indicated they had eliminated or had never offered operations funding, providing for capital-only projects. Several in this group, including Tennessee, Minnesota, and Vermont DOTs, include mobility management projects, which are eligible as capital. Others such as IDOT focus on funding vehicles. The remainder of the agencies fund a combination of capital and operating projects. They meet the requirement of 55% funding to traditional (capital) projects, but then some use 10% for administra- tion and 35% for nontraditional projects. The survey asked how agencies funded administration if they did not use the 10% available from Section 5310. Some agencies use local or state funds, usually sales tax or general revenue, but some states or MPOs have dedicated funds for older adult transportation or for transit support, such as SANDAG’s Senior Mini-Grant pro- gram. Many agencies that also manage Section 5311 funds will pull from that, since the project activities benefit the rural areas of the state. Others will flex Section 5339 planning funds, Section 5307, CMAQ, and other transportation funds. A number of agencies read this question as asking what their subrecipients use for match. These responses included Area Agency on Aging funds, Developmental Dis- abilities (the terminology varies from state to state) funds, Medicaid waiver funds, Medicare funds for medical trips, and local donations for volunteer and voucher programs. The drawback for many of the state and local funding sources is they must be requested and justified each year, so they are not completely reliable. The ben- efit is those agencies are able to maximize the distribution of the Section 5310 funds. Only 32% of respondents track whether they fund a higher per- centage of projects in rural/small urban or equity populations rela- tive to requests. This is not a requirement, but another example of an opportunity for agencies that have capacity to track additional data to conduct a deeper analysis of the program. The agencies that provide additional tracking were asked why they made this effort. Responses include tracking for the purpose of Title VI evaluation, tracking by regions/coordinated transit districts, counties, or other geographies to ensure service coverage, tracking where small urban funds are transferred to rural to meet demand, understanding where there is a need for more state funds to be applied, and tracking because the number of applicants is small in a given area. Coordination/Consolidation/Regionalization The goals of coordination are clarified in the FAST Act, refer- encing a CCAM (Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility) statement from 2006: “a local coordinated human services trans- portation planning process . . . develop[s] plans to achieve the objectives to reduce duplication, increase service efficiency and expand access for the transportation-disadvantaged populations.” The guidance and regulations for the Section 5310 program do not offer a definition of “coordination,” although the FTA website defines coordinated transportation as making “the most efficient use of limited transportation resources by avoiding duplication caused by overlapping individual program efforts and encourag- ing the use and sharing of existing community resources” (www. transit.dot.gov/faq/coordinating-council-access-mobility-ccam/ what-coordinated-transportation). The Section 5310 circular describes eligible projects that represent ongoing coordinated transportation work, such as vehicle sharing between federally funded programs, meal delivery incidental to the service of passenger transportation, and participation on interagency coordinating councils (including economic development councils, rural development councils, and human services transportation councils) at the state and local levels. The state or UZA recipient must ensure local applicants and project activities are eligible and

25 in compliance with federal requirements set forth in current legislation and that the program provides for maximum feasible coordination of transportation services under Section 5310 with transportation ser- vices assisted by other federal sources. The survey asked respondents what they saw as the benefits and disadvantages of the coordinated planning requirement. Most respondents felt coordination provided benefit and little disadvan- tage, 20 of the 38 responses were entirely positive, 12 gave advan- tages and disadvantages, and six responded that the coordination requirement was mainly a disadvantage. Responses referred to both the coordinated plan that is required to be written and coordination activities or coordinated planning in general. Most agencies felt the creation of a coordinated plan allowed the state or region to identify gaps and unmet needs. It creates an understanding of where services are provided and how the funding is used throughout the area. The plan verifies projects as eligible and eliminates some duplication of effort and service. Having stake- holders from a variety of populations and human services agencies involved in the plan creation helps them understand the state or region’s grant process, and invests them in local decision-making or prioritizing. The coordinated plan process provides the leverage, incentive, or requirement to bring community agencies together when they would otherwise operate independently, creating con- nections, working relationships, and common goals by consider- ing the whole in addition to their own needs. Program managers reported that agencies are rewarded for coordinating services and maximizing funds as an outcome of coordination, and better service can be provided with higher vehicle use. As Nevada DOT stated, it “allows for exchange of ideas and issues, can be a good forum for conversations about gaps in service, etc., should be highly collabo- rative, . . . should be a great opportunity to discover unknowns that other agencies (human services) have a better handle on.” In more direct fashion, Texas DOT says “The coordination planning require- ment is essential to getting the agencies to communicate and work together. Without that requirement, in some areas there would be no coordination at all.” The fact that Section 5310 agencies or any particular local stake- holder organizations are not required or incentivized to participate in a coordinated plan was seen as a disadvantage. The regulations require that projects selected for funding under Section  5310 be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and that the plan be “developed and approved through a process that included participation by older adults, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of the public” (FTA Circular 9070.1G). This general descrip- tion of stakeholders does not obligate any individual agency to par- ticipate. Many grant providers require some level of participation to receive funding, but that is a state or regional program decision and is not in the regulations. The requirement for a project to be in a plan can be a barrier for new agencies to come into the process. A disadvantage mentioned by several program managers during the course of this study was working with plans that are “boilerplate regurgitations of existing services.” Some respondents felt the word- ing of the requirement that projects be included in the plans was awkward as well. Agencies can feel limited to what is in the plan, or spend too much time amending the plan, often focusing on indi- vidual projects and losing sight of the big picture. On the other hand, if the plan is written with loose language about “filling gaps,” it loses the specificity of capturing particular projects, and there is little point in updating it every 4 years. It also loses its function as a prioritization or decision-making tool. Finally, the stakeholders involved in comprehensive plans can be overly invested in preserving the limited operating funding or replac- ing vehicles to maintain current transportation. Limited funding allows little innovation to move the needle toward the “right” amount and type of service availability. Greensboro, NC, commented that “more freedom to plan for services that meet our identified needs at a regional level would provide more flexibility in how we plan, who we do our planning with, and I would hope, better outcomes.” The agencies largely feel regionalization and consolidation have not impacted the volume of Section 5310 applicants in their areas. Only 23% of the responses, 10 of 44, answered that yes, the volume of applicants had been affected. Of these, three reported that Section  5310 services and applications were increasing (prior to COVID-19). COMPASS, a highly centralized program, is seeing more purchase of services. WisDOT noted that the MPOs and RPCs (regional planning commissions) were applying to develop coordi- nated service and mobility management, adding to their application volume. The Madison, WI, MPO noted that the lack of a coordi- nated ride-booking system by statewide agencies was contributing to more small companies that provide shared-ride NEMT seeking accessible vehicles. The other responses gave examples of coordination reducing the number of applicants. Arizona DOT has fewer transit applicants; as memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and intergovernmental agree- ments (IGAs) are put together, insurance becomes more of an issue, and innovation on the healthcare side has led to NEMT providers that were Section 5310 recipients getting out of the business. Denver Regional COG had a major human services transportation provider cease service in the fiscal year before this study. After working to fill the gap, another existing provider was identified to take over the service. South Dakota DOT has providers that have released their vehicles to other human services agencies, easing demand. And New Hampshire, as mentioned, had reduced the regions in their state from 10 to eight, also requiring the regional councils to provide a letter of support for projects, resulting in fewer applications. Thirteen agencies (28% of respondents) report incentivizing coordination. This is one of the few questions where the region of the country factored into the answer. Five of the seven respondents in the Northeast use and incentivize coordination, consolidation, and/or regionalism. In all the other regions, the response was tilted the other way, with only one or two responses in any other region providing some incentive. For the group of 13 total agencies that provide incentives to coordinate, four of them felt consolidation had impacted the applicant pool, and three specified that it decreased the number of applicants, while the other respondent was not sure. For the whole survey group, the respondents were ambivalent about the effect of coordination on the applicant pool: 72% were not sure it had any effect at all, 9% felt it increased the number of applicants, and 19% said it decreased applicants. Looping back to the beginning of the survey, the 13 agencies that incentivize coor- dination include 11 (of 34) of the agencies that reported their appli- cations exceeded the available funding. Five of the incentivizing agencies were part of the group of 14 that felt the volume of appli- cants created an administrative burden.

26 Of the earlier group that funds capital projects only (including purchase of service and mobility management), only one, Vermont, incentivizes coordination. Twelve of the 13 that incentivize coordina- tion fund both capital and operating projects. Of the 35 agencies that are oversubscribed with applicants, 23 had not made any policy or administrative changes to reduce the number of applicants. The following responses provide a snap- shot of the broad spectrum of reasons for the policies. • Greensboro GTA reported that North Carolina DOT’s consoli- dation efforts aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness of services 20 years ago had already resulted in a reduction of appli- cants in the region from multiple agencies to two local and one regional transportation provider. • North Carolina Capital Area MPO reported that its improvements in outreach surrounding funding availability and eligible oppor- tunities have increased the number of subrecipients participat- ing in the program. The Capital Area MPO focused on outreach because it was in the position of not having enough applications for an underserved suburban portion of the urbanized area. • WisDOT promotes the availability of operating assistance grants. Better promotion of the opportunities has resulted in more appli- cations. WisDOT also advises potential applicants against “join- ing forces” when submitting vehicle applications because the DOT is unlikely to fund more than one vehicle per rural provider; the applicants are more likely to receive a grant award if they submit applications separately. • PennDOT reported that it focuses on stretching available fund- ing by significant efforts to maintain rolling stock in good repair. PennDOT has not been able to use funds to provide expansion vehicles. Most agencies believed their Section 5310 administration policies and procedures had not had any impact, positive or negative, on addressing unmet needs or service gaps for older adults and indi- viduals with disabilities. Ten of the agencies in this group reiterated that they were not trying to reduce grantees. The remaining agencies cited several barriers that had kept them from reducing grantees, including find- ing and funding viable projects, issues with understaffing leading to a less hands-on approach, and resistance from the subrecipients. When asked if the volume of Section 5310 subrecipients created a burden of administration or oversight, nine agencies in this group- ing responded affirmatively. Several reported addressing the burden by purchasing or using grant management software for tracking vehi- cles and grantees, or by streamlining the monitoring and compliance review processes. Fifteen survey responses (43%) did not have applications that exceeded the available funding. One respondent, Indiana DOT (INDOT), had initiated a policy to reduce the number of applicants. INDOT asked grantees to request permission to dispose of but retain any vehicles that had met useful life standards and had a fair market value of less than $5,000. As a result, the process reduced not only the number of new vehicle applications, but also the num- ber of vehicles INDOT monitors. INDOT also limited the pool of applicants by implementing a policy that recipients of Section 5311 Rural Public Transit funding are ineligible for Section 5310 grants, since Section 5311 programs have other viable funding sources for vehicles. ALDOT reported it has maintained 95–125 grantees since 2005. When considering the option to focus on reducing the number of subrecipients, ALDOT reported that it did not choose to focus on reducing grantees because more transportation was necessary to address the growth in population of older adults and individuals with disabilities. Finally, insufficient resources to meet the local matching fund requirements for Section  5310 have made it so that Kentucky- Ohio-West Virginia Interstate Planning Commission (KYOVA) in the Huntington, WV, region struggles to find enough agencies to submit applications for Section 5310 funding even though the need for service to older adults and individuals with disabilities is well documented. Innovation and Improvement Section 5310 program managers shared many useful and insightful comments about their innovative practices, including areas where they feel frustration and are looking for creative new improvements. Of the respondents, 27% described useful tools and innovations; 5% improved reporting with online tracking/reporting, ordering and invoicing, and other software; 3% developed scheduling and dis- patch software for their own or shared regions, and the remaining 19 respondents described a variety of innovations. • Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in the Salt Lake City region funded the development of an open-source scheduling and dispatch software that is free to their human services transportation pro- viders. The software incorporates automatic vehicle location (AVL) technology so agencies can track vehicle use, trips, and maintenance in one place. • New Jersey DOT provides new agency orientation online. • Denver COG’s board has set aside transportation improvement program funding to complement Section 5310 and Older Ameri- cans Act funding to leverage projects and reduce the local match requirements. • Two agencies reported compliance-related improvements: Kansas DOT, which contracts out provider reviews, freeing staff resources; and CalTrans, which is implementing a second round of review for applications to continue projects, evaluating compliance and spend-down of grant funds. • Implementing coordination councils was mentioned, and Vermont reported hosting an annual summit with the goal of bringing the Section 5310 agencies together to create solutions and innovations. Section 5310 Program Funds Propping Up Service or Incentivizing Innovation The responses in this area emphasized that designated recipients can generally only make small changes and improvements incremen- tally over time with the current level of funding, but that mobility managers, who are sometimes funded with Section 5310, can push innovations. Section 5310 funding alone does not provide enough funding for comprehensive innovation and the demand for tradi- tional services exceeds the available funding. Although the funding

27 is not designed to drive change, some projects such as mobility man- agement and forward-leaning agencies can provide a strong push in this direction. • ALDOT reported that all rural transportation services stand on their own, and are not “propped up” by Section 5310 funding. They have not yet been impacted by microtransit-type requests. • NHDOT countered the question by noting that “The 5310 fund- ing itself does not have the primary purpose of incentivizing inno- vation, though some regions’ mobility managers have sought to do so. Otherwise, supplemental funds such as (5305) planning funding do so, and the prospect of transferred CMAQ funding may result in a statewide mobility manager who will seek innova- tion as well.” • TDOT reported, “Section 5310 funding supports a variety of tra- ditional transportation services for seniors and individuals with disabilities such as nonemergency medical transportation, senior centers, mental health service providers, etc. This year we also added mobility management as an eligible project category and hope to see this incentivize innovation.” • WisDOT pointed out that the funds have facilitated regional cooperation and administration, with innovation happening for volunteer driver programs and the ability to ensure grocery deliv- eries in response to COVID-19. The funding fills gaps in medical service related to transportation focusing on dialysis and hos- pital discharge trips. The city of Madison is using the funding to develop a software platform for a regional NEMT TNC, improving coordination and efficiency between multiple providers and ride payment sources. • Vermont Agency of Transportation cited their Rides to Wellness pilot, Recovery and Job Access program, and an upcoming micro- transit pilot as examples of innovation spurred by Section 5310. • ADOT funds “mobility managers that are supporting innova- tion in the landscape, but it is small changes such as agreements between all the agencies, a study on technology innovations, one- call/one-click centers, and shared web resources. The funding smooths the way for mobility, but isn’t enough to create radical changes.” • In Michigan, the Section 5310 program has taken different direc- tions in different areas. Some areas are using Uber and taxi service after hours and on weekends. Kalamazoo has a shared fleet of vehicles for nonprofits to use when there is a need. MDOT funds vehicles for Rides to Wellness. [Section] 5310 agencies have had to use microtransit to accommodate riders where and when reg- ular service is not available. It is incentivizing innovation of electric hybrid vehicles and autonomous vehicles. • CalTrans reported that Section 5310 funds going to transit agen- cies are an example of “propping up” service, while funds to non- profits for volunteer driver programs are seen as innovative. • MoDOT is interested in seeing more best-practice examples around nontraditional mobility services. The traditional service providers are wary of new models, with concerns of driver safety, drug testing, insurance, and other issues. • East-West Gateway COG reported that it has had a few inno- vative microtransit projects proposed, but many applicants are struggling just to maintain service—a sentiment echoed by Greensboro (NC) GTA. • South Dakota DOT indicated that the funds prop up service for older adults and individuals with disabilities outside the major urban areas of the state. • UTA in the Salt Lake City region reported “Section 5310 is cur- rently ‘propping up’ the current infrastructure of a fragmented service delivery system. Our innovation is being achieved through transit system investments in microtransit and a legislative mandate to devise a comprehensive transportation solution for seniors and people with disabilities. Not through 5310.” Ideas about Possible Changes to Administrative Requirements As far as what respondents think should change in the Section 5310 administrative requirements, the responses can be broadly charac- terized as simplifying reporting requirements and adding more fund- ing. In terms of reporting, several agencies suggested removing the 55% traditional/45% nontraditional split, as it is not derived from a locally developed coordinated plan and may not suit local priori- ties. Others suggested removing or exempting the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Buy America requirements as most of the subrecipients’ projects are under the small purchase cap; it was suggested that the FTA could certify vendors as an alternative. Several agencies report that the FTA’s Transit Award Management System (TrAMS) is time consuming to use. Agencies also suggested changes to annual monitoring requirements that are redundant and do not create an opportunity to communicate. Finally, the challenge of measuring program effectiveness was raised. As one respondent wrote, “We believe the programs funded are run effectively and effi- ciently but we cannot really prove it. And we cannot tell what share of need is being met by the grants we fund.” As all program managers know, it is often much easier to measure outputs than outcomes. With regard to funding, many agencies suggested apportioning more funding to the rural areas, or removing the small urban/rural split guidelines. Some agencies would like the FTA to bring back the state allocation rather than splitting funds with the UZAs. Several agencies noted that not being able to flex funds between large UZAs and state-managed funds created artificial boundaries. The coordinated plan came under some scrutiny as many agen- cies reported the planning process is the biggest undertaking in their program administration role. In particular, agencies reported that the Section 5310 circular has limited language about the role of taxis, rideshare companies, and other elements of the current transporta- tion landscape in the planning process or implementation of coor- dinated goals. Furthermore, the coordinated plan lacks a funding mechanism or incentive for ongoing participation from economic development and social work/health professionals. It was suggested that the FTA could produce a coordinated plan template geared toward highlighting redundancies or incentivizing coordination, if those are the desired outcomes. 3.4 Survey Summary The survey results show that state DOTs and urbanized areas that manage Section 5310 funds are maximizing the flexibility of the program. The survey delves into questions about how Section 5310